Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Kosh]

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

That's awful, Ivan.
Let me know when your PMS ends and you're able to discuss the actual numbers.

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

And proof that the far left will only accept far left math, which has no connection to reality or any real mathematics used on the planet.

only the right claims that through diversion since they never understand the concepts, to begin with.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

 

[danielpalos]

does it matter since you don't have a clue or a Cause as to the actual concepts?

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

And proof that the far left will only accept far left math, which has no connection to reality or any real mathematics used on the planet.

only the right claims that through diversion since they never understand the concepts, to begin with.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

We can work with any realistic scenario, y'all want; but we need to agree to be on the same page or same chapter, regarding definitions.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.


alles klar herr kommissar

 

[Kosh]

No, I don't care if you ever get the real numbers to discuss this further.
Liberals are, after all, really bad at math.

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

And proof that the far left will only accept far left math, which has no connection to reality or any real mathematics used on the planet.

only the right claims that through diversion since they never understand the concepts, to begin with.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

We can work with any realistic scenario, y'all want; but we need to agree to be on the same page or same chapter, regarding definitions.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.


alles klar herr kommissar

See we have to agree with what the far left wants and how they want to define things, perfect example why it is just easier to call them far left drones than engage in any of their propaganda postings..

 

[danielpalos]

we are not to the math portion, yet, if you don't understand the simple concepts involved.

And proof that the far left will only accept far left math, which has no connection to reality or any real mathematics used on the planet.

only the right claims that through diversion since they never understand the concepts, to begin with.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

We can work with any realistic scenario, y'all want; but we need to agree to be on the same page or same chapter, regarding definitions.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.


alles klar herr kommissar

See we have to agree with what the far left wants and how they want to define things, perfect example why it is just easier to call them far left drones than engage in any of their propaganda postings..

I am giving you a starting point simply because I have a point and not mere diversion.

 

[Ernie S.]

here is your clue and your Cause: What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario?

Did you answer my question somewhere?
I don't see any numbers in your posts.
Try again?

don't understand anything but your party, propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor

Distinguish all you want. Let me know when you can prove his claim.
Here it is.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

You may have noticed, he doesn't define the income level of the workers or the income level of the wealthy. Without that info, his claim is unfalsifiable.

Help him out, he needs it.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

Just remember that those living off the sweat of their capital raised their capital living off the sweat of their labor.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nothing but barely coherent tripe; how very Left of you.

all you need is a clue and a Cause to understand it.

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

The Obama's only paid 20% in taxes, did they pay their fair share?

Rich people don't pay their fair share. Is this news to you?

Let's just say that you make $50,000/year. What is your fair share.
And, let's say I make $500,000/year. with a flat tax, I would pay 10 times the tax you pay, but with the current system, it's more like 15 times.

What is fair about that? What do I get in return? Do I get 15 votes to your one? Do I get softer roads to drive on? Do I get only cops with an MS in Criminology?

What is fair to you is me paying your way through life. What's fair about 1% of the population paying the lion's share of taxes when those taxes support 47% of the population that pays no income tax at all?

It only works because 47 poor people voting their interests can demand whatever they want from 1 rich guy.
Call it tyranny by the poor.

How about just for 20 years, we assign each citizen a number of votes based on their financial participation. Hell! Everyone gets one vote and for every $1,000 they pay the IRS, they get another vote.
We'll call this tyranny by the rich.
Which is more fair to you? I submit that the second scenario is more fair.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone talking about a "fair share" should be required to give a number. Otherwise, it just means "More".

Never mind a number. I want a hard, non-negotiable definition to the kindergarten concept of "fair". Otherwise, the left just slips and slithers around like a greased eel, meaning something different every time they utter it, depending entirely on what they want. Before we decide what amount they think is "fair", I want to hear what the criteria is for determining that number.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only the Right prefers to appeal to ignorance of Capitalism regarding being Taxed what one is worth in favor of the Socialism of equality.

No, I think a lot of people find socialism's equality of misery to be unpalatable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The 'rich' certainly do pay more than their fair share...

...to (read 'to buy') 'our' representatives.

Since they're for sale, why shouldn't they?

Well, there sure aren't any slave to buy any more, so...

Oh, please. I wouldn't take a slave if you were giving them away. If I want something done, I'll take an employee motivated by a paycheck over a slave any day of the week.

 

[AntiParty]

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

On Title alone, NO. And no American can debate that.
It's factually proven that many Corporations avoid taxes by buying politicians and creating tax loopholes. It's factually proven many of these rich Corporate owners hide their money in other Countries so it won't be taxed. (To love something so much you don't use it is beyond me, I'm not superficial)

Then we get into "Fair share". Many think the "Income Tax" is Unconstitutional.

No matter which way you look at it, the Rich Business owners are always trying to convince poor people they don't make enough money because of Government. "The Government takes so much I can't afford to give you a raise" is the slogan. It keeps poor people hating Government because they are poor instead of demanding a fair days wage for a fair days work.

Corporate profits are all time high and workers wages are all time low for a reason. It's not GOVERNMENT!

 

[danielpalos]

don't understand anything but your party, propaganda and rhetoric, Person on the Right?

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor

Distinguish all you want. Let me know when you can prove his claim.
Here it is.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

You may have noticed, he doesn't define the income level of the workers or the income level of the wealthy. Without that info, his claim is unfalsifiable.

Help him out, he needs it.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor; thus, thanks to Republicans, the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor, as compared and contrasted to non-earned income such as capital gains.

let's assume capitalists for the wealthiest and laborists for labor

Capitalists never have wages?
Laborists (LOL!) never have capital gains? LOL!

the wealthiest capitalists pay less as a percentage of earned income than less wealthy laborists providing labor

You're still going to have to provide income levels for those "laborists", before we can test your theory.

in general, for the sake of argument, capitalists may live off the sweat of their Capital while laborists may still live off the sweat of their Labor

any other silly diversions, Persons on the Right who Only allege to have a "gospel Truth" Cause?

Just remember that those living off the sweat of their capital raised their capital living off the sweat of their labor.

That is just a generalization and potential fallacy.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but barely coherent tripe; how very Left of you.

all you need is a clue and a Cause to understand it.

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

The Obama's only paid 20% in taxes, did they pay their fair share?

Rich people don't pay their fair share. Is this news to you?

Let's just say that you make $50,000/year. What is your fair share.
And, let's say I make $500,000/year. with a flat tax, I would pay 10 times the tax you pay, but with the current system, it's more like 15 times.

What is fair about that? What do I get in return? Do I get 15 votes to your one? Do I get softer roads to drive on? Do I get only cops with an MS in Criminology?

What is fair to you is me paying your way through life. What's fair about 1% of the population paying the lion's share of taxes when those taxes support 47% of the population that pays no income tax at all?

It only works because 47 poor people voting their interests can demand whatever they want from 1 rich guy.
Call it tyranny by the poor.

How about just for 20 years, we assign each citizen a number of votes based on their financial participation. Hell! Everyone gets one vote and for every $1,000 they pay the IRS, they get another vote.
We'll call this tyranny by the rich.
Which is more fair to you? I submit that the second scenario is more fair.

Only the Right believes in Social worth based on Capital worth. Did Jesus the Christ teach the Right nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

I made a motion for the object orientation of Capitalists versus Labor.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

I made a motion for the object orientation of Capitalists versus Labor.

Would you happen to remember where approximately that is within the 44 pages?

.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

I made a motion for the object orientation of Capitalists versus Labor.

Would you happen to remember where approximately that is within the 44 pages?

.

There is a re-cap in the last few pages; but, here is a summary for your ease and convenience: we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

I made a motion for the object orientation of Capitalists versus Labor.

Would you happen to remember where approximately that is within the 44 pages?

.

There is a re-cap in the last few pages; but, here is a summary for your ease and convenience: we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

So you're saying to make cap gains tax rates the same as earned income tax rates?

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

I made a motion for the object orientation of Capitalists versus Labor.

Would you happen to remember where approximately that is within the 44 pages?

.

There is a re-cap in the last few pages; but, here is a summary for your ease and convenience: we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

So you're saying to make cap gains tax rates the same as earned income tax rates?

.

All sources of income should be taxed at the same rate.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

I made a motion for the object orientation of Capitalists versus Labor.

Would you happen to remember where approximately that is within the 44 pages?

.

There is a re-cap in the last few pages; but, here is a summary for your ease and convenience: we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

So you're saying to make cap gains tax rates the same as earned income tax rates?

.

no. it was merely a distinction for clarification to actually begin arguing.

However, let's start with a moral point. Is an Iron Age work ethic of "work or die" really appropriate in one of the world's largest economies in modern Information Age times. And, if it is appropriate, is it also an injunction on wealthy capitalists regardless of wealth or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

I made a motion for the object orientation of Capitalists versus Labor.

Would you happen to remember where approximately that is within the 44 pages?

.

There is a re-cap in the last few pages; but, here is a summary for your ease and convenience: we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

So you're saying to make cap gains tax rates the same as earned income tax rates?

.

All sources of income should be taxed at the same rate.

i agree that the capital gains distinction should end whenever wages for Labor don't outpace inflation.