What is Fair Share?
- Thread starter lowell
- Start date
You're focusing on only Federal income tax.
If you also include Social Security, Medicare, State, Local, sales and gasoline, you'll find the rich often pay a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class. In a good many cases, they pay not just a smaller percentage, but a smaller total. Sit on your ass and pay less than the guy who works hard.
The truly rich usually avoid most or all SS and Medicare because much of their income is not earned. But they are eligible for Medicare even if they pay in zero of million dollar incomes.
They pay the same rate, but a much smaller % of income in gasoline and sales taxes.
Their property taxes are often a smaller part of income.
What is fair? First I'll tell you what is not fair:
15% tax rate on unearned income (capital gains which is the source of much income for rich folks) against a top rate of 35% for folks who work and earn. Sit on your backside and pay less than the guy who works hard.
A limit on SS tax to the first $106K of earned income. That means the million dollar earned income pays one-tenth, percentage-wise of what the $100K earner pays. The million dollar capital gainer pays zero SS or medicare tax. Sit on your ass and pay less than the guy who works hard.
Take Ross Perot as just one example. One recent year, he paid $19 million Fed tax on an income of $230 million - 8.5% The average family paid $4248 on an income of $32823 - 12.9%
So, what's fair? Two things: Everyone pays tax on all income. The rich pay a higher percentage than the middle class and the poor.
No, i am not just focusing on income tax, Why would anyone want to pay more taxes when 200 million or so goes to John Murtha airport which has 2-3 flights per day or 538 million goes to Solyndia? There is a lot more a problem with waste than there is a problem with more revenues. We have spent 8-12 trillion on social programs since LBJ Great Society programs started in 1964. Has that money really been spent wisely?
Too much of a common sense answer, Lowell. Many on here think the gov't knows how to spend their money better than they do. Obviously, with a mounting deficit, that has been proven to be false but who cares?!?! Christ - if gov't spending created jobs, we'd need to offer amnesty to all the illegals just to fill all the job openings!
They also have come of the mindset that only the middle class works hard for their money and anyone who is rich, sat on their lazy fat ass and inherited it. The poor and middle class work their fingers to the bone for next to nothing but the rich, well, money just falls from the sky for those bastards. Amazingly, not so long ago, acquiring wealth was viewed as a virtue, something to be modeled after and rather than try and take it away from those who HAD achieved it, you strove to join their ranks. Not anymore.
So, to answer your question, Lowell. What is fair?
It all depends on what end of the gun you are on.
They also have come of the mindset that only the middle class works hard for their money and anyone who is rich, sat on their lazy fat ass and inherited it. The poor and middle class work their fingers to the bone for next to nothing but the rich, well, money just falls from the sky for those bastards. Amazingly, not so long ago, acquiring wealth was viewed as a virtue, something to be modeled after and rather than try and take it away from those who HAD achieved it, you strove to join their ranks. Not anymore.
So, to answer your question, Lowell. What is fair?
It all depends on what end of the gun you are on.
You guys don't like to look at the total picture when discussing taxes. In order to answer what is fair you cannot look at just one tax. You have to look at the whole thing and when you do you will find that the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income on taxes than the the rich do. So I ask you, is that fair?
O's current defict reduction (class warfare) is on fed taxes--not surprising some try to steer from that area to gas tax-property tax etc.
--but back to point--what is fair share
IMO that would depend on how one figures fair.
If it is per % of income--the progressive tax code we now have --the more you make the higher % you pay
Apparently some lean to fair share is believing everyone should have same amount left after "distribution".
We now have
top 1% paying 1/3 of federal taxes
top 5% paying 1/2
top 50% virtually all of taxes
-and bottom 50% next to nothing
What's fair? depends apon who you ask- more importantly is what those paying the taxes think. Not much those not paying taxes can do--but those paying can always take their ball and go elsewhere--as we seen corps do of late.
--but back to point--what is fair share
IMO that would depend on how one figures fair.
If it is per % of income--the progressive tax code we now have --the more you make the higher % you pay
Apparently some lean to fair share is believing everyone should have same amount left after "distribution".
We now have
top 1% paying 1/3 of federal taxes
top 5% paying 1/2
top 50% virtually all of taxes
-and bottom 50% next to nothing
What's fair? depends apon who you ask- more importantly is what those paying the taxes think. Not much those not paying taxes can do--but those paying can always take their ball and go elsewhere--as we seen corps do of late.
Not saying this is not true, as it is understandable that sales tax and such are regressive taxes, but maybe O should articulate that if it is what he means.
The Murtha airport is just one of thousands of earmarks. They should all be ended, just like the bridge to nowhere. Whining about taxes won't stop it; electing those who will not earmark will.
You tell me whether the Johnson anti-poverty programs worked.
Class warfare is being waged against the middle class and the poor by the rich and their bought-and-paid-for whores in Congress.
Class warfare is being waged against the middle class and the poor by the rich and their bought-and-paid-for whores in Congress.
The Redistribution of wealth has already taken place. The middle class has shrunk and the gap between the middle class and the rich has become greater. All this nonsense about tax rates is insane. Look at the whole picture and tell me who pays more of a percentage of their income on taxes.
So, from the chart, poverty rate declined from 18% to 12% or so prior to the Great Society legislation and then, after, declined from the 12% or so level to 9% where it stopped declining and has since vacillated between the 9 - 12% levels.
So, did it do any good?
One could argue that poverty would have continued to decline to the 9% level without the programs and the programs have done nothing to decrease the poverty levels any further and perhaps have made people dependent on them.
There is also probably a base line % in any society for poverty as some will always be in that demographic.
The other interesting thing about 'poverty' -
- the definition of poverty in the US is much different than the definition of poverty elsewhere.....
Poverty in the US
The following are facts about persons defined as ?poor? by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
43 percent have Internet access.
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
So, did it do any good?
One could argue that poverty would have continued to decline to the 9% level without the programs and the programs have done nothing to decrease the poverty levels any further and perhaps have made people dependent on them.
There is also probably a base line % in any society for poverty as some will always be in that demographic.
The other interesting thing about 'poverty' -
- the definition of poverty in the US is much different than the definition of poverty elsewhere.....
Poverty in the US
The following are facts about persons defined as ?poor? by the Census Bureau as taken from various government reports:
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
43 percent have Internet access.
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
ssd;2991351 They also have come of the mindset that only the middle class works hard for their money and anyone who is rich said:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Readily available facts....
Your chart shows that poverty was declining prior to the Great Society legislation.
and that, regardless of the trillions spent, the programs have not been able to reduce the % much more.
As for Paulson - i have no love for Wall Street. I have made that perfectly clear, many times. I think that the $ they make is ridiculous. But you lump all rich people in with him, as a blanket statement and you are being disingenuous.
Many rich people that I know would take offense at your statement. They have worked their asses off to get where they are.
By the way, if ONTY takes off and you get your 10-bagger out of it - are you going to share it as you did not work hard to make that money?
Just wondering.
Your chart shows that poverty was declining prior to the Great Society legislation.
and that, regardless of the trillions spent, the programs have not been able to reduce the % much more.
As for Paulson - i have no love for Wall Street. I have made that perfectly clear, many times. I think that the $ they make is ridiculous. But you lump all rich people in with him, as a blanket statement and you are being disingenuous.
Many rich people that I know would take offense at your statement. They have worked their asses off to get where they are.
By the way, if ONTY takes off and you get your 10-bagger out of it - are you going to share it as you did not work hard to make that money?
Just wondering.
Just keeping it real - this is posted repeatedly, and I'll keep posting this, so we have a real picture of the situation... posted in another thread with no feedback or response:
The applicable numbers here as far as federal taxes go are these (for this discussion):
Top 1% makes 20% of the income in the country, pays 38% of the income tax, and has an average tax rate of 23.27%.
The bottom 50% makes 12.75% of the income in the country, pays 2.7% of the income tax, and has an average tax rate of 2.59%.
The top 50% makes 87.25% of the income in the country, pays 97.3% of the income tax, and has an average tax rate of 13.65%.
Does it make sense to go after the people who make 12.75% of the money in the country - who pay out all they take in and more (as a rule) just to survive and get by in life, who struggle to make it as it is? How is this going to solve ANY of our financial problems as a country?
Let's say they got up to the 13.65% of the top 50% - how much money would that raise? What is 11% of 12.75% of the money in the country? Is that the solution that will make conservatives happy? Or do you want to drop what the upper 1% pays, so they pocket more money (that they don't have to or usually need to spend) and the country takes in even less?
Interesting point on poverty--before welfare most and many are still--aided by charity--O's new bill wants to cut charity by taking away deductions for it- go figure
---it's a totally diff demographics than old days.
We grew up with much less than "the poor" have now and thought of being poor never entered our minds-
The new---American Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
---it's a totally diff demographics than old days.
We grew up with much less than "the poor" have now and thought of being poor never entered our minds-
The new---American Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
I guess the whole charity thing, when it gets right down to it, is WHY you are donating to the charity? In my mind, REAL charity shouldn't be about the tax deduction. And I do agree that this might cut charitable causes, because some probably are doing it in large part because of the deductions. Otherwise, it shouldn't affect things all that much, right?
Really? How many people can you name who have an income, say 10X average and have worked 10X harder? What about 100X? 1000X? How about 100,000X?
If you answer honestly, the answer is zero, nada, none. Nobody works 10 or 100, or 1000X
harder than the guy who collects your garbage.
Yep, I hope to make a lot of money with ONTY. If and when I do, I'll know it's due to a little bit of work and a lot of luck. I'll happily pay whatever tax is due, and I'll share a good bit of it with my fellow citizens who have been less fortunate. And, yes. Ill spend some on myself too. Maybe a month in France instead of two weeks. Maybe a new Perazzi instead of a Browning, but I'll know, looking in the mirror, that it isn't because I've worked harder than the waitress who serves my food.
I'm guessing you're a youngster, right? Maybe, if and when you grow up and learn to separate facts from fiction, you'll get the message. Or maybe you'll keep believing in the Easter Bunny of Capitalism.
In the meantime, just keep on thinking that just a bit more effort is all that separates you from Bill Gates.
Last edited:
Wow, Duff. You're a real peach.
Just because someone works hard, manual labor or waiting tables, etc- does not guarantee them a good living.
I bust my ass daily picking and hauling vegetables - it earns me very little cash but a whole lot of satisfaction. I trade to make a living.
No one is guaranteed any quality of life. If the choices they have made put them into a certain job, they have a choice. Live with it or do better.
Some decide it is the best they can do and keep on doing it. Others decide they want better and strive to make it happen.
Either way, pointing at the rich guy and saying - "he has too much and I want it" is not the American way.
As for wealthy people I know, I have no way to quantify how much harder they worked. How hard do the people collecting welfare work? 10 x 0 is zero. So is 100x or 1000x.
My father, for one, worked 7 days a week, 357 days a year - only day he took off was July 4th and one week of vacation. He busted his ass daily once he got out of the military and made himself wealthy.
Another man I know, left his home and his family every Sunday night and did not return to see his wife and kids until late Friday night. He worked his ass off and made himself wealthy in the process.
Both of these guys made choices, sacrificing certain things for other things.
Never once did they think a rich person owed them something; they wanted to get there on their own.
as for youngster, I wish.
Bill Gates? Don't wanna be him, Duff. I have worked plenty hard writing my software code and testing and backtesting my trading system; getting up for the Asian and European market openings for many, many years; reading and re-reading books about trading and about trading legends. I've put in a lot of effort and it has paid off for me - but do not tell me that I did not work for it.
And lastly, I sure am glad I do not have your cynical, bitter outlook on things. Damn that would be tiring.
Just because someone works hard, manual labor or waiting tables, etc- does not guarantee them a good living.
I bust my ass daily picking and hauling vegetables - it earns me very little cash but a whole lot of satisfaction. I trade to make a living.
No one is guaranteed any quality of life. If the choices they have made put them into a certain job, they have a choice. Live with it or do better.
Some decide it is the best they can do and keep on doing it. Others decide they want better and strive to make it happen.
Either way, pointing at the rich guy and saying - "he has too much and I want it" is not the American way.
As for wealthy people I know, I have no way to quantify how much harder they worked. How hard do the people collecting welfare work? 10 x 0 is zero. So is 100x or 1000x.
My father, for one, worked 7 days a week, 357 days a year - only day he took off was July 4th and one week of vacation. He busted his ass daily once he got out of the military and made himself wealthy.
Another man I know, left his home and his family every Sunday night and did not return to see his wife and kids until late Friday night. He worked his ass off and made himself wealthy in the process.
Both of these guys made choices, sacrificing certain things for other things.
Never once did they think a rich person owed them something; they wanted to get there on their own.
as for youngster, I wish.
Bill Gates? Don't wanna be him, Duff. I have worked plenty hard writing my software code and testing and backtesting my trading system; getting up for the Asian and European market openings for many, many years; reading and re-reading books about trading and about trading legends. I've put in a lot of effort and it has paid off for me - but do not tell me that I did not work for it.
And lastly, I sure am glad I do not have your cynical, bitter outlook on things. Damn that would be tiring.
