Paying a "fair share"

This is always a weird argument because logically it could be extrapolated into the situation were a woman secures a divorce, possibly because her husband beat her, and she should murder her children because she can no longer afford to support them.

 

What number do you propose for the minimum wage? $15/hour? $20/hour? $25/hour? Other?

If you increase the minimum wage to $15/hour or more, which happens to be a little more than double the current $7.25/hour, don't you need to double all wages?

Or do you believe those currently earning $15/hour will suddenly find themselves earning the lowest wages no matter their skills and performance to date?

What happens to the US economy if all wages are doubled? You think there will be growth but how do you reconcile the inflation?

How do you reconcile a doubling of the labor cost but no gain at all in productivity?

 

Tax accountant in a CPA firm? So you help corporations cheat the government out of its tax money... tax money that could be given to lazy people who don't work!

 

Don't we all... or most of us on this forum I would suspect. Most working people pay more than the use I would suspect.

I just do not see how your claim that people should avoid behaviors that results in others paying more is any kind of solution.

The main reason why have such high taxes (why you pay more) is because the Government spends money like a princess with a credit card. General behavior of the raging masses is insignificant compared to this.

If one was to try and address "behavior of citizens" where would one even start ?

 

I believe general Taxes for unemployment compensation could liquidate Labor's position on corporate welfare.

 

better then 13% like some, I think we need a flat tax, all income over the poverty line taxed the same

- - - Updated - - -

if they just tax labored income the same as unlabored it would be a start, people should not be taxed more cause they labored for their income

 

No one proposes that all wages double and raising the minimum wage to $15/hr does not create inflation (inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply and not by an increase in wages that always lags behind the inflation).

The productivity of every worker already supports a $15/hr minimum wage.

 

My Grandma made 50 cents an hour when she was young, min wage has doubled sense my parents were young, so I imagine the same will happen

foreign outsourcing and foreign imports are the countries biggest economic threat right now

.

 

Well...if you double the minimum wage from $7.25/hour to $15.00/hour, then you must also double those earning $15/hour to $30/hour and those earning $30/hour to $60/hour and so forth. How would you feel if all of those currently earning $15/hour was increased to $30/hour but those at minimum wage and below $14.99/hour stay with their current wage?

It's not a proposal that all wages will double...it's the outcome of doubling the minimum wage.

So where do you think all the money will come from to pay higher wages? Do you think it will come from profits? Do you think prices of goods and services will increase to offset the higher cost of labor?

So if people have more money to spend, this means more demand on products and services...usually equates to higher prices of those products and services...inflation.

And if people demand higher wages, which are higher costs to do business, this is also passed onto consumers in higher prices...inflation.

When we have millions of people willing to work for lower wages, providing whatever productivity is required of them in these jobs, their productivity is valued at the wage they are receiving...not some imaginary higher wage like $15/hour. If a person believes they are worth $15/hour then that person should be able to compete with others making $15/hour...if they cannot then they obviously are not worth the higher wage.

 

Look...you and 314 million other Americans demand products and services at the lowest possible prices. You demand Walmart and Target and Costco and Sears and all other businesses to make available to you the lowest possible prices...this is precisely why 150 million Americans shop at Walmart every week. If Walmart and all other stores double their prices what will happen to their sales? Why aren't 1000's of US businesses producing all the crap in every store in the USA...from Macy's to Ace Hardware to Home Depot...because they cannot produce the stuff for the low prices which the consumers demand. You can terminate all imports tomorrow and all you will do is put out of business hundreds of thousands of companies around the USA. Americans can produce anything but the cost to produce in the USA is the 1000lb. gorilla!

And...if you terminate imports you must also terminate exports which provides jobs for millions of American workers.

Like it or not, the US and most all other nations function in a global marketplace. Remember in the USA we only have 314 million people while outside of the US there are another 7 billion consumers! It would be foolish to jeopardize imports or exports with these 7 billion people and their governments....

 

No you don't. Where did you come up with such a silly idea?

It could result in some of those with more experience or in a supervisory position also receiving a slight increase so that their income is more than the $15/hr minimum but there would be no reason whatsoever to raise the wages of someone earning $20/hr at the same enterprise and, in fact, higher paid workers might see future offsets where high paid employees don't recieve a pay increase or receive a diminished pay increase in the future because they were already being overpaid based upon an imbalanced pay scale of the enterprise.

The standard business model reflects that the cost of labor should be between 20% and 30% of gross revenue. The pay scale of all employees would be adjusted over time to ensure that the cost of labor remains within the 20% to 30% of gross sales. The increase minimum wage would probably result in a more compressed pay scale for all employees over time as that is the easiest way to balance the total cost of labor without increasing prices.

No, it comes from gross revenue which is what pays for all expenses of the enterprise. We can note that the $15/hr minimum wage law in Seattle is allowing several years for the enterprises to accomodate the minimum wage increase based upon revisions to their pay scales as well as incorporating it into an expenditure funded from gross revenue just like every other expenditure of the enterprise. The problem for many is that they seem to fail to understand that employee compensation isn't any different from any other expense of the enterprise. Whatever it is merely needs to be rolled into the business plan so that it is funded from the gross revenues of the enterprise.

This is backwards. If people have more to spend then more products are produced and the price goes down based upon the economics of scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

Demands for higher wages are based upon increased productivity so there is no cost increase to the enterprise and prices do not need to be increased. In fact the enterprise benefits more from the increased productivity of the worker than the worker does because the worker typically only receives between 20% and 30% of the increase in gross revenue from the increased productivity (based upon the standard business plan).

They're not "willing" work for low wages but instead are "forced" to work for low wages because the enterprises won't pay what they're worth. They either work for the low wages and rely on government welfare or they become homeless and perhaps starve to death because many states won't provide welfare assistance is they refuse the employment that only pays starvation wages.

In the past we had the power of organized labor that counter-acted the downward push on compensation created by "Market Pressure" but the power of organized labor (that really built the middle class in America during the 50's, 60's and even into the 70's) is all but gone today because of "union-busting" legislation. Union membership is at the lowest point in 76 years. No individual alone is capable of fighting against the Market Pressure that has created the spiraling decline in compensation the last 40 years (mostly in the last 7 years where median household income has dropped from $52,000/yr to $50,000/yr).

The individual trying to fight against the downward pressure on compensation by the Market is in a David and Goliath struggle but unlike Biblical myth David always loses.

Only organized labor has the power to fight the downward pressure on compensation by the market where a negotiated mutually acceptable voluntary compensation contract is agreed to between the workers and the owners/management of the enterprise.

 

The only thing a democracy/constitutional republic and a free market system is fully dependent upon is the protection of property, access and usage. Products and services are secondary. Taxing anyone for being of service or providing a product, particularly food and clothing is insane. But, some of the trolls of the seventeen hundreds were able to prevent the few millwrights, smiths, and craftsmen of the day,those that had educated themselves, from getting to and speaking on the floor about the true basis of a democracy. Fortunately those who cared and knew better were able to procrastinate any action on the subject for a hundred years. But, when the industrialist made the bankers rich then the craftsmen had to be left holding the bag for all the war expenses. If the only taxes were based on properties protected, no deductions or exemptions and the spending of that money required a two thirds majority popular vote we would have no waste, hoarding or inflation. We would have efficiency, lowest possible prices and better protection for all at a lower cost. Provided three percent of the population participated in the political process.

 

Depends sometimes you want that people spend money certain way.

Invest in companies for example, if you tax that heavy ...

But yes, tax things like consumption more and labor less is something that should be implemented ,

 

Apparently the Clintons are not paying their fair share, since they have accumulated $100 million.

 

The biggest problem is that we have a middle class that doesn't have the spending power to drive a robust economy, especially when we have austerity going on.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you say "apparently"? Do you think they've been paying their fair share or not?

 

They should be paying at least 45%.

 

because the rich are not spending and are sending jobs overseas

 

so get rid of tax loop holes and only give tax breaks to the rich for things that help the economy

you tax labored and unlabored income the same.... you do not tax labored income more.....

.

 

interesting graphic



now it was wrong for what they were trying to show, but it does show that under Bush, American incomes went down

 

Paying a "fair share" should mean paying a fair share of tax on your Ordinary Income earned. So are the Democrats and the President when they claim the "so-called" rich, (those individuals earning $200k and Couples earning $250K) are not paying their fair share. No, IMO. Here are some hard, undisputable facts.

"It seems so long ago, but the central point of contention in the 2012 presidential race was over the question of whether the rich pay their fair share of taxes. As President Obama argued, “Those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families...”

The top one percent of income earners, who paid 38 percent of federal income taxes, faced an effective tax rate of 23 percent. This was nearly seven times higher than the effective rate of 3 percent paid by the bottom half of income earners. The bottom half of income earners paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes and earned 11 percent of total adjusted gross income.

Do the rich really not pay their fair share?

As the graphic below shows, the top half of income earners paid 97 percent of all federal income taxes in 2012. " http://www.economics21.org/commentary/rich-pay-fair-share-tax-foundation-income-2015-1-09
While you may claim that those earning more are unfairly earning more, which I disagree with. They are paying IMO more than their fair share.

A "fair share" should be a given percentage of gross ordinary income for all earners of Ordinary income as Ordinary income is defined as income derived from performing a given job, it is not income earned on investments which is taxed at the "capital gains tax rate". Wages paid for performing a given job is based on education, skill, supply and value to the success of the business. So a job that requires formal education is more valuable and the employee will earn more than an employee performing a job that requires little if any education, skill or experience. Wages are also determined by the availability of potential employees to fill a specific job. So, while low skill jobs that require little education and where the employee can be trained quickly to perform the job have a larger supply of potential employees to hire while jobs that require a formal education, extensive experience or proven skill have less number of potential applicants to draw from. This is why employers are able to pay lower skilled employees lower wages as they can replace these individuals more easily and their overall value to the success of the business is less. Makes sense. Like everything else in business, it is based on supply and demand.

So, for the most part those that are able to earn more have advanced education, years of experience or a given skill for which there are less individuals that perform. Should that mean they pay higher taxes on their ordinary earned income? Shouldn't they pay the same percentage of tax as all workers? I think so. But, I believe Capital Gains taxes should be more progressive than Ordinary Income Tax because only those earning $500K and up can take full advantage of the lower Capital Gains Taxes because they have the disposable income to invest. Therefore I believe Capital Gains Taxes should have rates set at 10%, 25% and 40% based on capital gains income received in a given tax year. And, it is under Capital Gains Tax that middle and lower income earners should get deductions and credits much more than under Ordinary Income Tax rates.

 

Why would the rich need specific gov assistence?

Why? Again it all depends on what a gov wants to do and hwo that income is made.

You might tax some diferent depending on the situation. But I agree in principale we should strive for less tax on income from labor and more from other means of making money or consumption/polution/speculation/....

 

Maybe you should read Ford vs Dodge Brothers.

 

It's an argument based loosely on a thermo abou tpopulation control. People who use this argument stereotype grous of pepel based on social status, ethnicity, race, nationality, etc.

 

There is no such thing as a fair share in tax policy. It is an archaic, political term used by those t oconvince people or groups that what they are payng is artificially low.

In every tax policy there are winners and losers. The idea of tax polc is first to generate substantial revenue to fund government operations, both discretionary and non discretionary . The second function is the amount of burden placed on those who pay for the tax. Burden is not defined by how much, but by complexity of the code to fulfill the requirements of due diligence.

In most foreign countries that have a progressive, marginal based income tax, most people do not fill out tax returns unless they are getting a refund. In the United States and Canada,, as well in some European countries, we fill out tax returns as a requirement to determine our liability. In the end, it is up to us, as individuals, to perform this duty and that is why filling out the forms is part of the equation. Take out the requirement of the forms and we can have lower rates, but with little or not deductions based on size of family, type of income, amount of income, and source of income.

 

This graph just illustrates the problem of income inequality.

While average income of the bottom 90% has stagnated, average income overall has risen significantly.



How could that be so?