"Fair" share? What's that?

In another thread
I had described one of the Democrats' goals as "wealth distribution" and got this response:

This fairly begs the question: What *is* fair and who decides? As things stand now, nearly half the country pays no taxes whatsoever, most Americans get more money out of the government than they pay in, and the top 1% accounted for 38% of all taxes.
If that's not "fair" enough, then what is?

 

I think we have been through 2 threads already for this question. The only responses back is something like "there is no number you can put on it" and "when the rich are as poor as the bottome 50%". The fact that the rich make ~600% more than the minimum wage person, but pays ~2000% more in taxes means nothing to liberals that want what others have.

 

" Fair Share " is a loaded term.Near impossible to impliment.
Take state sales tax.Most states have a different rate.Yet for
those within each state it is universal.What is " Fair " to a Billionaire
is different to a Millionaire to someone making $100,ooo to somone
earning minimum wage.For instance a Billionaire may really make bones
over a sales tax rate increase of just .5% or 1/2 of 1%.Where a
person working full time at a fast food joint at Minimum wage wouldn't
give it a second thought.That Billionaire spends in huge ways.It may mean
his next Yacht will cost an additional $350,ooo { .5 % of $7,450,000 }
or the Price of John Kerry's new custom sloop { Isabel }.But wait John
Kerry is only a Millionaire.Yet as a Millionaire and a Senator he saw fit to
avoid sales taxation altogether and even docking fees by keeping
his new Custom 70+ft. Sloop,not in his Domicile state where he lives
and vacations but in Newport,R.I. thus avoiding the nominal fees
because R.I. has special allowances in their laws for such fees.
What is fair to the Goose may also seem unfair to the Hog,which
Johnny " Frauds " Kerry proved right nicely.

 

Fair share is based on portions and burden and the ability to carry that burden.

The poor can't stand the burden of more taxation. Why? Because they're POOR. Take away some of their money and they'll starve to death more and more.
So taxing them less or not at all is fair because I believe in the US we should have a bare minimum quality of life and work status. If we go much lower people start dying off and the lower class gets more surf-class. ;P

The middle class is currently the most burdened. They are the most taxed paying roughly double the average portion as the richer. This one is unfair when factoring in portions and burden.
They have a higher percentage of their income taxed. You'd think they'd be able to handle more burden but it burdens them greatly. The burden is uneven when considering the rich.

The rich pay considerably less taxes due to loop holes. Some rich pay 0-1% even. That is, 100% in my opinion, not fair.
The rich can handle the largest burden because they're rich. Take away more of their money and they'll still do very well (unless they suck with money). They can handle the most burden.
They currently get taxed the least except for the very poor. The very poor have an excuse. They're very poor and cannot handle the burden without becoming surfs. The rich's excuses don't exist. They're taxed so low due simply to influence and how some rich people have affected the laws over the many years.



Fair share of taxes would be a curve starting from 0% (the very poor), going up gradually in percentage. To what percent for the rich? I don't know. 50%, 30%, 10%, whatever. The point is the rich are well off. They can handle more burden. They can afford it.

Currently the tax code though is like a camel's back. It starts at 0, goes to like freakin' 40% then down to like 17% (though many rich have less tax).
That's not fair share. That's opposite.



Now, as for the appeal of even taxes. Those like the 9-9-9 plan. I'll admit. Math wise, it's more fair. However, it ignores the facts of quality of life and burden completely which are incredibly important.
In the perfect society we'd have a plan like this. But also, we'd have to have even the lower poor class well off enough to be able to handle it. I'm talking about a theoretical pretend society where the poor is basically today's middle class and the middle rich and I guess rich more rich (or super rich).

These kinds of plans, while they look attractive, just don't work in a system with such massively poor people problems. It's not really about pay inequality. It's just about how well off the lower and middle class are and how much burden they can handle.

 

You know, with every single bit of numbers and stats that will ever be thrown out, the rich provide well more than their fair share. Only liberals love to live in the world on conjecture and speculation instead of numbers and facts. You can't provide a single number that shows the rich don't pay in way more than what should be considered "fair".

 

well for them to starve to death "MORE AND MORE"; there would have to be people actually starving to death now...and that doesn't HAPPEN in the United States

^^

this is why Obama keeps parroting the 'fair share'...people don't really have a clue what they are talking about; rich people can afford to pay more unless they are bad at handling money? how do you think they got rich in the first place?

 

To a liberal, "fair" is 100% taxation on earnings beyond $75,000.

 

I believe you are quoting me here, so I'll respond.

The reality is that no one on these boards is qualified to say. The expression "cut your coat according to your cloth" fits well however.

You need to tax people enough that you can balance the books of your economy. Either that or make cuts in spending - your military would be a good place.

But back to taxation. My belief is that everyone who earns should pay some tax. The higher the income, the higher the rate, but not to stupid levels where it becomes counter productive to earn a higher salary.

The issue atm is that the people at the lowest level of income simply cannot afford to pay much tax at all, if any. The price of goods is a prohibiting factor in this (including mortgage, rent, bills, transport, food etc...).

The reality is that in the US (UK also), the equation is not balanced. You've a few rediculously wealthy people and a huge amount of stupendously poor people. Successful countries (and I define successful as providing a framework in which all citizens have jobs and pay tax and have a adequate lifestyle), are the ones where income disparity is minimal.

But how do we achive this? You seemed to say on the other thread that lefties want to achive this by wealth re-distribution - whatever that is. The reality is that we don't want the government to directly do this, by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. We want companies to act in a fair way. As their profits rise, so should the wages of all employees. This has not happened in the US since the late 60's. Since the late 60's corporate profits have gone into record breaking zones, as have CEO salaries, whereas employees salaries have not increased, which is effectively taking a pay cut.

This is the reason the US middle and working classes are currently on their arses.

But why don't companies raise the salaries then?

Well, starting in the late 60's, the way in which the stock markets have operated have changed. They stopped being a mechanism, whereby an investor can invest in a company and hope to receive money back via a dividend. Wall street realised that income based on increase in share price was a quicker way to make profit. And how does a company increase its shareprice? By keeping its costs low - salaries of employees.

If we truely want to resolve this issue, long term. We must re-visit the Stock Markets and return them to their original intent.

I hope this helps.

 

" Fair Share " is a ludicrously subjective term.Tell us what the Fair
Share for Federal Income Taxation is for 47% of the Population.
How about ZERO.Now how can O% be a fair share of anything.
It isn't.Who decides Fair Share.Is is " Fair " who decides what is " Fair ".
Ex. Most ALL Polling for ObamaCare for 2 years,right up until the very vote
was Against a National Healthcare overall.In the beginning the number
was 80% against.Meaning a huge majority of Americans were happy with
Healthcare coverage only it was too expensive.ObamaCare never addressed
the cost.Just pushing the idea that it HAD to be Universal and Everyone
had to have coverage.That magically it would translate into Lower
Premiums.Never happened.I have heard No examples where Passing
ObamaCare lowered anyone's coverage cost.Yet that was the Promise
made via Nancy Pelosi,Obama,Chuck Schumer and Herry Reid.

Since when is it "fair" for a bunch of Politicians to do that.They Went
against the Will of the People as proved by the Polling and more dramatically
the 2010 House election.The answer is ... It Isn't " Fair ".
It went counter to what the Founder's plead for.Or We the People.

 

Since no liberal is really willing to step up and put an actual number to what is "fair", all anyone can do is guess at what the left means. All numbers and stats show that the rich pay their fair share. Now if the government stops spending sprees and making poor "investments", there would not be this debate about what is "fair".

 

Nice insult. And how was my post any less mindless than yours?

 

You'd have a point if that was relevant.
Again, it's about burden. YES the rich pay the most in sheer amount of $$$. That's obvious. They're rich. Even paying the smaller % in tax because they're so filthy rich the number of $$$ is still higher.

But that's irrelevant. Take a guy who makes $100 a year and a guy who makes $100,000 a year. Tax the poorer guy $40. Tax the richer guy $1,000.
Yes, the richer guy pays considerably more $$$. But who's really more burdened? What's REALLY more fair? The poorer guy is paying substantially more of his income that the rich guy. The poorer guy's quality of life is significantly impacted by this possibly to the point of destitution.

It's like in the Bible (which I try not to quote in political discussions but I will here)
"Mark 12:42-44

New International Version (NIV)

42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” "

Basically used to point out that the end number doesn't matter. $1,000,000 in taxes is less than $10 in taxes when that $10 comes from a poor person. At least from a humanistic perspective and not sheer numbers. But I would suggest looking at the sheer numbers is stupid.





Another great Bible thing is that one about the camel and the eye of the needle. Though the conservative Christians don't like that one.

 

Now input all the numbers instead of the crap you put forth. The guy making $100/year will get all plus more back while the rich guy won't get anything back.

The numbers you put is just pure fiction rally. 40% tax rate for the poor? And 1% for the rich, are you serious? Try actual numbers please.

Jesus was also talking about tithing, not taxes. Tithing is a voluntary contribution and taxes is mandated stealing from the government.

And liberals only like using religion out of context when it is able to suite their arguments.

 

And the current hysteric "guess" is:

Originally Posted by xsited1
To a liberal, "fair" is 100% taxation on earnings beyond $75,000.

Lests just analyse this for one minute:

Originally Posted by xsited1
100% taxation on earnings beyond $75,000.

Meaning, that for a 76000 pa income, the government will take the 1000.

Meaning, that for a 80000 pa income, the government will take the 5000.

MEANING IT'S POINTLESS EARNING OVER 75K.

Yes, his statement was mindless, ill thoughout drivel.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc"][Scrubs] - Wrong wrong wrong wrong! - YouTube[/ame]

You're going under the false assumption that no matter status $1 = $1. Money, when you consider the human factor (which MUST be considered) has different values to different levels of human prosperity.

Taking $1 from a hobo is =/= taking $1 from a millionaire. Therein lies your problem (and I have a feeling you'll ignore it).

 

It wasn't out of context. You can easily apply it. On taxes though Jesus said to pay 'em too. "Give unto caesar what is caesar's". I'm sure you have some bullcrap way of avoiding that one too.

Until the dollar bill has your face on it pay your taxes. It's not stealing. It's a society requirement. A bill. You've got to pay your rent. Not paying taxes is stealing. You might as well take stuff off the shelves of a store and not pay.

 

I get what you are saying, but I don't see how that pertains to my post that no liberal is willing to put a number on the "fair" share. When does enough become enough? Getting the government more money means they spend more. So it will never be enough to keep raising the richs' taxes when those who spend it never stay within how much they get.

 

Yes, Jesus was not against taxes. He also never made a distiction between the rich or poor paying different amounts.

I am paying my taxes. How about the other 47% of Americans that don't pay taxes. The rich pay their share for the most part. I got an Idea, how about we remove all the loopholes so that way rich liberals stop putting bee hives on their property and making it a tax shelter?

Again, no distinction between rich or poor when it comes to paying taxes, because taxes are not the same as tithing.

 

Fair isn't about money. For the liberals, fair is all of your money being taken and redistributed. Of course, liberals think it's grossly unfair for their money to be taken. But, that doesn't answer the question.

Why is it fair that one person goes to work every day and works for ten hours while another person sits at home, drinking beer and watching daytime television? What's fair about that?

What's fair about one person deciding to drop out of his crappy inner-city school at age fifteen while someone else sticks it out and goes to college?

Why is it fair to take money from the guy that hangs on the back of a garbage truck five days a week but the deadbeats whose garbage is getting picked up don't pay?

Why is it fair for people who don't have cable television, don't take fancy vacations, have never bought a new car, have a house they can afford, and therefore have no huge debt have to pay for deadbeats who have every possible service, vacation in DisneyWorld or Tahiti, buy a new car every year, buy a house they can't possibly pay for, and run up an astronomical credit debt?

What's fair about punishing responsible people for being responsible. Not that I don't care about that poor, poor woman with 15 kids who is desperately looking for someone to support her kids...other than the fathers.

 

And you still haven't put an actual number on what is fair. The numbers might be a little off, but without a liberal that keeps spouting off "fair share" putting an actual number to their argument, you are just going to have to accept the speculation of what you mean.

 

1) People always fail to mention that the top 1% makes nearly 38% on the income in this country. So cry me a river for the top 1%, eh?

2) Your taxes should be based on your equity (or stake) in this country. If you don't own anything and you have no income, what do you care whether you live in the US or in Zimbabwe? If you get government handouts, you have a stake in this country and should pay taxes on those handouts. If you own the state of Rhode Island and have passive income of $20,000,000 per year, you should pay taxes on that. Figuring out the market value of Rhode Island as a percent of this country's total value should be a piece of cake. Assessors have been doing it for centuries. Set federal spending and tax rates accordingly.

That, my friend, is a 'fair' tax.

 

Fair share of whores, to make a fair share of babies, to get a fair share of welfare, to get a fair share of respect etc...........

 

Saying a specific number that's fair is a hugely complex issue. It will also change depending on the person. Society as a collective whole must decide.

As someone who's a liberal socially, conservative in a lot of other areas I'll just clarify my view agan.

The number that is "fair" in my eyes is a curve. Maybe a straight line that goes upwards.
No liberal wants 100% taxation after $75,000. That's absurd and ridiculous and makes no sense (plus no liberal actually wants that unless they're a commie).

The equation is simple. But finding the specific numbers is not.

First we find the acceptable level from which we first tax people. This will obviously be above the poverty line. It will factor in family dependents (old people, kids, developmentally delayed, disabled, etc).
Honestly, I think people CAN pay taxes at around... $30,000 (for a single person).

Lets start at the tentative and very temporary $30,000. Honestly, this is a random number I pulled up.
After $30,000 the percentage you're taxed gradually goes up and only applies to your money after $30,000. Lets stay it starts at 1%.

By 50,000 it might be 20%. Again, kind of an arbitrary number for example's sake. Again, also there would be limited loopholes that pertain almost exclusively to dependents which cut certain percentages.

By $100,000 a year it might be 25%. By $200,000 a year 35%. $1,000,000 a year whatever. Based on a curve or a straight line up. Personally I think any taxes past 50% are generally unreasonable and wouldn't want to see them. But that last part is where the hard part comes from. People think different levels are unreasonable. Some think 1% is unreasonable. Others 75%.

I can't give exact numbers. It's trial and error and a hugely complex issue to try and lessen the burden on the people who can't handle burden. It's also about the effectiveness of government and getting what you pay for (on a societal level). IMO currently the government works really badly .

Because everyone's willing to pay different amounts nobody will be happy with the numbers.

Again, if you want me to pull out bullcrap numbers that only apply to me...
Tentatively, with like 10 minutes thought... 30,000 (single adult) a year is when taxing starts at a rate of 1% for every penny past $30,000 a year. Gradually going up to some arbitrary amount like $1,000,000 a year at 50% and staying at 50%.

But honestly those numbers are random. I'm very open to changing them. I realize my 50% tax is higher than most are willing to pay. My $30,000 tax is more tax than many liberals are want to see burdened on the poor.


I supply a method that would in my opinion lead to the fairest way to tax people. NOT the actual numbers. All I know for sure is the less rich you are the less taxed you should be. Based on human burden and not $1 = $1 mathematics.

 

Nearly 38%? So by that logic, the bottome 50% only paying 2% of taxes when they make well more than that is showing that they don't pay thier fair share right? Or is this where you come in with your typical double standard?

So when the bottom 50% start paying their fair share, we can discuss if the rich pays their fair share right?

 

In this case "fair" is a code word for collectivism being used by our dear leader.
Class warfare is the tactic.