jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (132 posts)

How Much Is "My Fair Share"?

  1. profile image0
    HuntersWhittposted 4 years ago

    For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that I am part of the 1%. What percentage of my income do you feel is my "fair share", and how did you come up with that number?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Apparently, taking $0.24 of every dollar you make, while we take less than $0.02 of every dollar half of Americans make, isn't you pulling your weight.

      Lol, it's ridiculous. Legalized theft, nothing more.

    2. wilderness profile image100
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The same as everyone else - what could be more fair than that?

      Practicality demands more, but that doesn't make it fair - just workable.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Wasn't Obama just talking about equality? How is it treating two people equally to treat them differently?

      2. profile image0
        HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this


        But then by that logic, we'd have to ask the lower end of the spectrum, the ones who don't pay a federal income tax, to start kicking in also. How would you handle that?

        1. psycheskinner profile image84
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          It would be impossible as those people already depend on benefits to live.  Taxing benefits is a shell game, they money was never really theirs to begin with.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Haha. So it is wrong to tax people on money that we give them, that never really was theirs.

            But perfectly OK to tax people on money that they earn, that always really was theirs.

            1. psycheskinner profile image84
              psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I did not say it was wrong, I said it was pointless.  The second you did it you would need to increase the benefit to subsistence levels again. So nothing would be achieved.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Don't feed the bears... lol

                1. psycheskinner profile image84
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know what you mean by that.

                  I answered your question. My opinion is what it is.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    It means that you shouldn't make something dependent on being taken care of.

                    Providing free food and money to people, and not even asking them to pay taxes, gives them benefits without feeling they are having to pay for them.

                    Give them a little money to cover the taxes, charge them taxes, and if they blow the money, cut off their benefits. Teach them a little sacrifice and responsibility.

        2. wilderness profile image100
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That's why I say it can't work; you can't take what isn't there.  Therefore, the rich must pay more if we wish to have a country.

          There is very often a difference between what is "fair" and what is "workable".  Life isn't fair and the tax structure can't be either.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            No, the rich don't necessarily have to pay more "if we wish to have a country"

            Our leaders need to practice fiscal responsibility "if we wish to have a country"

            You are right about life not being fair - as in - we can't always have it just because we want it.

            Trillions were billions first, and billions were hundreds of millions first, and hundreds of millions were... etc.

            As the old saying goes, "if you watch the pennies - the dollars will take care of themselves"

            Everyone talks as if trillion and hundred billion dollar answers are the only way, but what about starting with scrutinizing those paltry "million dollar" expenditures first.

            Fiscal responsibility! Without it there will never be a "fair" tax structure, or enough taxes.

            "Taxing the rich" is just patronizing pablum for the masses.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image100
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Using that line of reasoning the country need have no income at all.  The poorest cannot contribute any taxes without starving (whereupon they cannot contribute then either) which you are claiming applies to the rich as well.

              It won't work.  While I fully support the idea that we are overspending and that spending needs to be cut drastically, it won't stop the rich from needing to pay more the the poor or even middle class.  Or what I (in my poverty) call the middle class.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                At least have everyone pay the same percentage. The rich will still pay FAR more, but that has some resemblance to fairness.

              2. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                "Using that line of reasoning the country need have no income at all.  The poorest cannot contribute any taxes without starving (whereupon they cannot contribute then either) which you are claiming applies to the rich as well.
                "

                I admit I am confused - I don't understand you point (above)

                Why do you say that with fiscal responsibility our country would need no income?

                What are you saying that I am saying applies to the rich as well? Fiscal responsibility?

                Why do you think the rich should pay more? Just because they can?

                How much more? What ever is needed?

                Is there a ceiling to how much more they should pay - even if there is no ceiling to how much more the government could/would spend?

                Do you believe that if the rich did pay more our country's money problems would be solved?

                Taking one of the Democrat mantras about Bush destroying the budget surplus Clinton left him, (at least on paper), wouldn't it be more fair to tax the Republicans more, instead of the rich? After all it is the Republicans fault we are in this bind isn't it?

                So...
                Why do you think the rich should pay more? Why shouldn't we just tax Republicans more?

                GA

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Trying to use the government to create a fair society is a fallacy in itself, life isn't fair and never will be and anyone who says otherwise is up to something! The left has always used high minded rhetoric to disguise there true agenda of class warfare and envy. When you use fuzzy expressions like "fairness", as a basis of policy, you're being deceptive and utopianistic.

      Fairness is hard to determine, you could have a room full of poeple, none of which would agree on what is fair. To invite the government to decide on what is fair, is to invite tyranny. The reason for this is the government would require vast amounts of power to be given the latitude to make these types of value judgements binding on national policy. Maybe this is what the left wants, an elite group making decisions for the benighted masses! The Constitution never mentions the term fairness, it does mention equality one time but only equality under the law.

      1. profile image0
        HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        While I certainly agree that life is, by no means, "fair", I think we can all agree that there is at least a quantifiable spectrum of "fair" when it comes to things like tax policy. For instance, no one would argue that a 100% income tax would be "unfair", and once you agree on the concept, all that's left is finding a number we can all deal with.

        The point of the question is too get a feel for just how much people think the wealthy should be required to pay.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Your fair share (I assume you are referring to your fair tax rate) is whatever the Congress decides. Marginal income tax rates have been as high as, I recall, 90 percent in the U.S. down to a low of 35% as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Of course, the long term capital gains tax rate is only 15% and the "carried interest" tax rate enjoyed by hedge fund operators is lower also. The currant tax code is as full of unjustified holes as Gypsy Rose Lee's stockings.

      As you can see from this chart tax rates in the U.S. are among the lowest of industrialized countries.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tax_R … n_2009.jpg



      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7603434_f248.jpg

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry Ralph, that's not a chart of tax rates. Do you know what a tax rate is?

        1. Andres Canales profile image61
          Andres Canalesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Wow, do we pay fewer taxes in Chile?

          1. profile image0
            HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            No, that's a chart showing what percentage of our GDP comes from tax revenue. Ralph must have accidentally linked the wrong picture, he meant to link one showing a comparison of Tax rates.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              The left loves to use that particular yardstick... revenue as a % of GDP. As if it means anything...

              1. profile image0
                HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Like I said, I think that was just an accident. He was talking about tax rates, and I think he probably just linked the wrong URL by accident, I've done that before.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  No, he's done it before. Ralph won't have an open discussion with me. He's completely hypocritical and irrational. He will say that Source X is perfectly fine, unless you show him that it says something he doesn't agree with, then Source X is, and always has been, hogwash.

              2. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Don't we measure spending as a % of GDP?

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  You can, but it doesn't mean much. You can measure spending as a % of new automobile sales... there are an infinite number of useless yardsticks.

                  We measure spending in $, mostly.

                2. profile image0
                  HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Spending as a percentage of GDP can be a good benchmark for certain economic trends, but it really wouldn't apply to this discussion- at least not as it pertains to what we've discussed so far.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Why not? It's the most basic way to compare taxes among countries which have quite different tax systems--e.g., value added taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. which would not be included in a comparison of marginal income tax rates. My understanding is that the comparison of taxes as a % of GDP captures all taxes. One thing that it may not capture is the non-compliance percentage (Secret Swiss, Cayman Islands, Bermuda).

                  2. Andres Canales profile image61
                    Andres Canalesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    What percentage would be fair?

                  3. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Hmmm, this conversation is about the fair share of taxes, which is the governments revenue...The fiscal talks about our out of control spending will be balanced by revenues and cuts...we measure spending as a % of GDP therefore, why should we not measure revenue as a % of GDP?

    5. Andres Canales profile image61
      Andres Canalesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Lucky you, being part of the 1%, it’s an exclusive club. A lot of people would like to pay those taxes; living in a society is expensive, who receive more benefits should pay more. Everybody work hard; people who earn a million at a year do not work 50 times harder than other people who earn fifty thousand. Who can pay more is, what a coincidence, who gets more benefits of being part of that expensive society. Living in a jungle is cheaper, live with no-state is cheaper, but if you live without interaction with the Governments of countries, you cannot make a fortune. People who earn fifty thousand at a year do not work two times harder than other people who earn twenty-five thousand, and old people still need medical attention; kids need high quality education, all kids, poor and rich, or your country won’t last half a century; wars are expensive, and veteran soldiers need expensive psychiatric treatment; and so on.

  2. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    We all pay tax.  The wealthy pay more as it doesn't take food out of their mouths like it does for minimum wage workers.  I am fine with that.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I'm fine with stealing money from rich people, they can afford to be stolen from.

      They already pay more than 12 times as much per dollar as half of Americans. More than 12 times what an equal share would be...

    2. profile image0
      HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So how do you determine the cut off? I know several people who make over six figures a year, but who still live paycheck to paycheck. Should there be some kind of DTI analysis that effects your tax rate?

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Of course not. A doctor making 8k a month with 4k in loan payments is much richer than someone with 4k of income and no student loan, so they should pay more!!!

        1. psycheskinner profile image84
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I have no idea how loans work into calculating income and would consider that a different issue to the general idea of whether those with higher income, all other things being equal, should pay a greater share.

          1. profile image0
            HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            So, I'll pose the same question: what percentage would you consider fair?

            I'm really just trying to get a feel for what people think the "fair share" should be; it's been a popular buzzword for the last year or so, yet when I ask people what it actually means, it's hard to get a response. The forum here on HubPages, so far, seems to be more politically literate (if at times a bit eccentric), so I figured I'd ask here.

            1. psycheskinner profile image84
              psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I would think 50% should be the maximum.  I think if the current rate was applied uniformly without loopholes, shelters and silver spoon funds it would be about right.

              1. profile image0
                HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Would you still allow for deductions, or just a flat 50% period?

                1. psycheskinner profile image84
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I think whatever rate is applies should be without any exemptions, credits, exceptions etc of any kind.

                  If we did that lowering the rate might well become possible as people could not evade tax.

                  1. profile image0
                    HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Would you exclude deductions from all brackets, or just the top?

    3. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Of course you are. Why should Paul complain that Peter is being robbed?

      GA

      1. psycheskinner profile image84
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I am much closer in income to Peter than to Paul.  And I have no complaints. Some people genuinely accept their role of supporting civic structures and services.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Have you ever donated extra taxes?

          1. psycheskinner profile image84
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I donate money to charity, including the funding of things I think taxes should cover like bullet proof vests for police and food for people in need.  So in a way, yes I have.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              No. Not in a way. Not at all.

              Donating to charity doesn't relieve the tax burden. If it's your role to support civic expenses, then why don't you step up to the plate and fulfill that role more than is absolutely minimally required of you?

              If government spending didn't go down, but your tax rate went down, would you pay the lower tax rate, or would you still pay the same amount that you paid this year?

              1. psycheskinner profile image84
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I think you question is illogical as it is not actually possible to pay more tax than you are asked for. But I do pay more for civic services than I am asked for because I oppose letting police get shoot and killed etc.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  It is possible. Many states have a voluntary fund, and the federal government has one too. You can donate as much as you want.

                  You can also decline to declare deductions. You're not required to itemize, for instance.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image84
                    psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    If you mean the check off options at the end of the tax return, yes I do that. I don't count that as tax as it is a donation.

                2. profile image0
                  HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, believe it or not, you can make "donations" (for lack of a better word) to the US Treasury.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image84
                    psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, but like other donations, that is not tax.

  3. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    How much more is finally "enough"? And how long can it go on before there is little of nothing to take?  This is not about the welfare of any group of people...it is about politicians using American taxpayer revenue to buy and sustain power over people...plain and simple.  In its most basic form...it is tyranny. ~WB

    1. profile image0
      HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So what percentage would be fair?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "And how long can it go on before there is little of nothing to take? "

      You mean how long can taking from the middle class and the poor before there is a revolution? The inequality of wealth and income has been growing steadily since Reagan to the point where many are losing faith in our democratic free enterprise system.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Who is taking from the middle class and the poor? We GIVE money to the poor, and take 900 times as many dollars away from the rich as the 'non-rich'.

  4. tammybarnette profile image60
    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago
    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Person 1 pays $100,000 in taxes.
      Person 2 gets $2,000 for free.

      The laws change, and Person 1 pays $95,000 in taxes.
      Person 2 gets $1,500 for free.

      FOR SHAME! THAT HORRIBLE RICH PERSON!

      The RICH are STILL being unfairly taken from.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        36.9% is what I think I last read, for the top 1%

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    What is "fair" is defined by our "democratically" elected legislators based on what's needed to implement the laws they have passed and the wars they have declared and on comparisons with other civilized countries. Unfortunately our democracy is imperfect because it's influenced too much by billionaires like David Koch, hedge fund operators, oil companies, coal companies, electric power companies Wall Street bankers, Big Pharma, health care insurance companies, gun manufacturers, et al which results in grinding the faces of the poor and filling the coffers of the billionaire inside traders like Steven Cohen of SAC Capital.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 … even-cohen

  6. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I support forcing the wealthy to pay more in taxes so that the poor (the working poor, the temporarily poor, the disabled, the disadvantaged elderly, etc.) can have a decent life.  In our society, a decent life means adequate housing in a safe neighborhood, healthy food, medical and dental care, and enough money to pay for clothing, transportation, food, a few extras like a cell phone or internet access, and a little entertainment.  Why do I support this?  To me, it is simple. We all contribute to the culture and community that we have made for ourselves.  Some get paid a massive amount of money for doing almost nothing, while others get paid a pittance for doing jobs that expose them to dangerous elements or chemicals, or wear down their bodies with hard physical labor.  Each job or role that we play is a part of the whole:  we should be thankful for janitors, food service workers, retail clerks, hotel maids, and every single person who does a job that we as a society need to have done and does it for very little pay.  I consider the guy we pay $12/hour (a lot of money here by the way; most people only pay $8/hour) to help us build fences on our farm just as important as the accountant who does our taxes for a whole lot more.  And both of them are just as important as Donald Trump or Michael Moore or any other 1%-er. 

    I cannot understand the argument that a CEO of a bank that we bailed out who gets paid $10 million dollars should not pay a higher percentage of his wages (i.e., contribute more money to the whole) than a teacher who makes $40,000.  He/she is not worth 250 times more than a teacher; his salary is that high because the system has been rigged in favor of the CEO over the teacher.  I'm not saying the CEO did not work hard to get there; but then you cannot say that the teacher didn't work hard to get there, either.  The CEO gets paid more, but I do not believe his contribution to society is "worth" more.  Having the wealthy pay more in taxes is one way we can level out how we value each individual's contribution to the whole.

    I don't understand why some people are so concerned with "fairness" when it comes to taxes, yet ignore "fairness" when it comes to the powerful using their wealth and influence to game the system to increase their already obscene wealth.

    This question of how much is "my fair share" can never be resolved by throwing out numbers because there is no right answer.  However, we can embrace a philosophy that values all contributions to our society and recognizes that money is only part of it.  Money is just a means to an end, and it is beyond me why some people get so upset about the wealthy paying more.  The wealthy will still have more than adequate housing and all those other basics I mentioned earlier plus plenty of money left over for extravagance.

    1. profile image0
      HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Who determines what qualifies as "adequate housing"? By what scale do we judge how much us "enough" for one person to have?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image83
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I just said above it isn't possible for everyone to agree on numbers and I'm not going to waste my time on that.

        Edited to add:  that is why we have elections, for the people to elect those who they believe will most closely reflect their values.

  7. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    1% which would be applicable to your gross income.
    this tax would be the same for all 100% of the citizens of the nation.
    no deductions, no modifications.
    simple, adequate, and fairly charged.

    1. profile image0
      HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Have you by any chance done any math on that number? I like it in theory, but I'd be curious to see what kind of revenue we'd be talking about.

      1. taburkett profile image61
        taburkettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7604563_f248.jpg

        my plan requires 1% from everyone including all businesses that process any payment transferes through these clearing houses.

        current income tax system deleted when this is required.

        we can pay off the debt in 3 years if we eliminate 50% of the imports at the same time.

        by eliminating 50% of the imports, we put 90% of the unemployed back to work.  Thus we have more revenue earned because the clearing house numbers would then grow by 15% to 20%.

        1. profile image0
          HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          How are you planning to eliminate 50% of imports?

          1. wilderness profile image100
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It's not hard to do - simply raise import dues, fees and taxes.  The trick is to do it without losing 100% of our exports at the same time - impossible to do.  Most countries take a dim view of such protectionism (including the US) and will quickly retaliate.

            1. profile image0
              HuntersWhittposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah, I'm not really one to be negative, but raising tariffs to the point where you could cut 50% of all imports would trigger a round of retaliatory tariffs that would make Smoot-Hawley seem down right pleasant.

              I do like the idea of a flat gross earnings tax though.

              1. wilderness profile image100
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I like the idea of a flat tax on net earnings/profits, too.  Deduction for each member of the house, and maybe a bottom limit (under $20,000=no tax?) but that's it. 

                I've seen numbers, though, that indicate it would take a pretty high tax - numbers vary around 15-25%.  Don't know that I agree, but I haven't run the numbers, either.

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        $120 billion.

  8. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    99% - I earned it.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7620926_f248.jpg

 
working