Paying a "fair share"

That is not true. First families do not have to pay for meals and such connected to official events, but they have to otherwise pay for their own expenses like food, toiletries, dry cleaning, haircuts and the like. It works like room/concierge service at hotels.

 

Are you implying an illegality? If you aren't, are you of the belief that legal tax breaks and deductions should be readily available?

Why should anyone pay more than they are legally required to pay?

Apparently oily-fingered liberals don't know how to hold onto their post-taxed money long enough to allow it to grow investment for them, so that they are no longer taxed at a wage rate, but at a dividend rate.

Yes?

- - - Updated - - -

Provide a link?

 

Anyone who thinks the "better off" should pay more taxes than the poor should look under a bridge and bring a homeless person home with them. It's the same principle.

 

Interesting idea. Would you support just only using sales tax, or property tax, or what? I've never heard a proposal abolishing income tax. I'm curious.

 

I actually make quite a decent living, far beyond average/mean wages. It has nothing to do with that .
Any society where there is a too big income difference is inherently unstable. I simply dont want that.

Again I see little difference in paying for armed forces or paying for SS, both are needed .

 

Logic fail.

If your position is you should only pay what you use, how can you justify every paying the same tax rate where the rich are paying much more than what they use?

What you really want is a per capita tax rate where everyone pays the same amount, isn't it? That is really what would be "fair" in your view, isn't it?

 

I dont recall any system that would generate half the revenue needed even if you eleminate most social programs.

SO do tell what would be let and how you would pay for it.

 

I agree with you, TD. If you look at Article I, section 8 for the services that the US government may provide, you basically have coining money, operating post offices and post roads, granting patents and copyrights, operating a navy, and raising and supporting armies. Those are the services provided to the populace. The other powers have to do with establishing laws.

Putting aside the navy and army for the moment, the other services (coining money, operating post offices and post roads, and granting patents and copyrights) all have specific users who could be charged for their actual use of these services. These would not need to be paid for out of general tax revenues.

As far as funding the navy and army, these are what economists refer to as "public goods", so there must be some way for everyone to chip in. Up until 1913, these were funded by tariffs and excise taxes. This would be my preferred way to fund these services.

 

Then you should head to Cuba, it's not far off our coast. What Bill Gates (self-made $$$) makes has nothing to do with what the burger flipper (satisfied with low $$$ and low experience job) makes.

 

Sales tax is fine along with property tax. This country got along without an income tax for around 150 years. Back then a lot of the money the government got was via tariffs which because of all our free trade deals is probably not an option now.

I really haven't given it that much thought as to what would replace it. With the size the federal has grown to, it is probably unrealistic to try.

 

Why? While it can be improved the US has a partial redestributiona nd partial social security system that helps most.

Its people that dont agree with that that should move.

Lets see some of the best countries for this
Germany 6.9 4.3 30.6 2010 6.9 2000 27.0 2006
Finland 5.6 3.8 26.9 2000 5.7 2000 26.8 2008
Luxembourg 30.8 2000 6.8 2000 26.0 2005
Austria 6.9 4.4 26.0 2007 6.8 2004 26.0 2007
Slovakia 6.7 4.0 26.0 2009 6.7 1996 26.0 2005
Norway 6.1 3.9 25.8 2000 6.0 2000 25.0 2008
Denmark 8.1 4.3 28.1 2012 12.0 2000 est. 24.8 2011 est.
Hungary 5.5 3.8 31.2 2007 5.6 2002 24.7 2009
Montenegro 30.0 2008 24.3 2010
Slovenia 5.9 3.9 31.2 2004 5.9 1998 23.8 2011
Sweden

SOme of the worst :

South Africa 33.1 17.9 65.0 2011 31.9 2000 65.0 2005
Lesotho 39.8 44.2 52.5 2003 48.2 2002 est. 63.2 1995
Botswana 43.0 20.4 61.0 1994 63 1993
Sierra Leone 87.2 57.6 42.5 2003 87.2 1989 62.9 1989
Central African Republic 69.2 32.7 56.3 2008 68.1 1993 61.3 1993
Namibia 106.6 56.1 61.3 2010 129.0 2003 59.7 2010
Haiti 54.4 26.6 59.2 2001 68.1 2001 59.2 2001
Colombia 60.4 25.3 53.5 2012 56.3 2008 58.5 2011
Honduras 59.4 17.2 57.4 2011 35.2 2003 57.7 2007
Guatemala 33.9 20.3 52.4 2012 48.2 2002 55.1 2007

bye bye

Of course it does, both live in the same society both benefist. A bill gates is only possible because of the US as it is. Bill gates is almost impossible in any of those countries I mention here above as "worst".

 

It really isn't an obscure fact to find with a simple google search you know..... http://mentalfloss.com/article/20681/who-pays-obama-familys-food

 

18% seems a tad bit high, I pay about 15% myself. So I guess he is paying his "fair share"

 

The pay for what you use is the ideal situation but we know that will never happen so paying the same rate is an acceptable alternative. The main goal is to get rid of a tax system that encourages politicians to buy the votes of the many with promises of handouts paid for by tax increases on the few. You are right, a flat fee for one's citizenship dues that is the same for everyone is the most pure version of fair but that cannot work until peole stop using more government services than they pay for

Nice to see you again assuming you are the same poster I recall from DP

- - - Updated - - -

effective rate on earned income or an actual rate on dividend/LTCG

 

I note you must be a racist -- your best list is countries of light skinned people, your worst is countries of dark skinned people.

 

So in your view, if two people use $16,000 of government services, they should both pay $16,000 in taxes, right? The fact that one guy makes $16,000 and is left with no money at all and the other makes $100,000,000 and is left with $99,984,000 is completely irrelevant, right?

So why do we know that will never happen if that is "fair"? Why is paying the same rate "an acceptable alternative" when it leads to the terrible injustice (in your view) of the guy making $100,000,000 paying far more that what he uses in government service?

The one and only! : ) I remember you too, good to see you.

- - - Updated - - -

15% is about what Mitt pays, so from that vein, Obama paying 19% is paying more that his "fair" share.

 

All the hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel him and Michelle use to go on vacation should be declared as income too.

Its kind of funny he rails against rich people and he are one!!!!

As people have pointed out only Obama can (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about rich people and then hold a $30,000 per plate fund raiser.

 

If you point out how the richest are taking a larger and larger portion of the nation's income and wealth, that means you cannot be rich? Why? Class traitorism or something?

 

People who keep using the word "fair" always want others to ante up while they themselves are as tight as a hat band. What's fair is to leave people alone to "earn" (that means hard work) what ever earnings they "seek" (not wish for or want someone else to supply).

 

As long as all millionaires can pay the same.

- - - Updated - - -

Did the Obama's pay their 'fair share' or not?

 

I'm conservative -- I say they paid too much. It's sinful that the government would take that much money from a person. I also say Obama is highly overpaid for his knowledge, ability, and productivity.

 

Collectivism alert. An individual's income is not "the nation's income". Income is not "taken" but rather it is voluntarily given.

 

Sure it is. The nation's income is the total income of the people of the nation. It's called gross personal income.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 Table 2.1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=58

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=405100&page=5&p=1064921440#post1064921440

- - - Updated - - -

Someone has to pay taxes. Are you arguing that only people who don't "earn" through hard work (e.g. trust fund babies) should pay taxes?

 

So 18.8% is "fair", but less is not?

 

Okay, and now explain what you mean by "the richest are taking a larger and larger portion of the nation's income".

If by "the nation's income" you merely mean the total income of the people of the nation, please explain exactly what is being "taken" from whom.