Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[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?

.

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

 

[danielpalos]

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

 

[Mac1958]

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current laws, credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

.01% on 1K up to 500K, at which point it is always 50%, make as much as you like.

And estates, 50%, you can't take it with you and it's not good for society to pass it on. See Smith, Adam.

 

[mudwhistle]

Gee....nobody ever asked this question before.....

I'm not sure ..... The question was so out of left-field it took me by surprise.

 

[danielpalos]

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current laws, credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

How do we define fair? Isn't "fair" a social concept and not a capital concept.

 

[Mac1958]

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current laws, credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

How do we define fair? Isn't "fair" a social concept and not a capital concept.

In this case, it's both. It's society deciding how to distribute and control capital.

So what would you do, specifically, based on the above information?

.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Generalization? Maybe so, just like your statement, but the millions of people who start small businesses generally do so with capital and knowledge earned working for someone else.

 

[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.

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

Compare the social worth of drug addicted parasites to a business owner who provides a service to his community in return for fair compensation, a large portion of which he is forced to remit to a government agency to support the parasites.

 

[danielpalos]

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current laws, credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

How do we define fair? Isn't "fair" a social concept and not a capital concept.

In this case, it's both. It's society deciding how to distribute and control capital.

So what would you do, specifically, based on the above information?

.

Solve simple poverty on an at-will basis by reserving labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines in order to abolish capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis through natural rights and Individual Liberty.

 

[Ernie S.]

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current laws, credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

How do we define fair? Isn't "fair" a social concept and not a capital concept.

In this case, it's both. It's society deciding how to distribute and control capital.

So what would you do, specifically, based on the above information?

.

Solve simple poverty on an at-will basis by reserving labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines in order to abolish capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis through natural rights and Individual Liberty.

 

[Mac1958]

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

What, precisely, is "fair share"?

Here are the current marginal tax rates, let's go with Married Filing Jointly:

Current capital gains rates:
AGI in the 10% and 15% brackets: 0%
AGI in the 25%, 33% & 35% brackets: 15%
AGI in the 39.6% bracket: 20%

Federal Estate Tax Exemption:
$5,430,000

Let's see if we can get folks to show some specifics here.

Given all current laws, credits and deductions, what would you do?

.

How do we define fair? Isn't "fair" a social concept and not a capital concept.

In this case, it's both. It's society deciding how to distribute and control capital.

So what would you do, specifically, based on the above information?

.

Solve simple poverty on an at-will basis by reserving labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines in order to abolish capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis through natural rights and Individual Liberty.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

AND YET, if I drive a car and kill someone by accident, I am criminally negligent. The same should apply to the CEO who cuts corners. Except that we have a two-tiered legal system--one set of rules for the pieces of worthless shit who steal our retirement funds, and poison our air and water, and one for those whose lives are not equally protected.

Yes, rich people are NEVER punished by the legal system. Companies are never held liable for cutting corners, wealthy people with good lawyers never go to prison . . . Your persecution fantasies are fascinating.

And private security has nothing to do with how laws are ENFORCED. When the rich are stolen from, the offender is tracked down readily. If an ordinary person's property is stolen, there just aren't enough resources to bother much with it.

Yes, no one ever gets away with stealing from the rich, and no one ever gets prosecuted for crimes committed against the poor. See above re: persecution fantasies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the bottom 47% pay 0% or less on income, why are you looking at 1% of anything?

Because they don't make enough money. Hello? Any intelligent life out there?

Because they don't make enough money.

Exactly. Poor people pay less than rich people.

Any intelligent life out there?

No, you are still dumber than a stump.

Sure. When you have taxes based on income, those that make less, pay less. But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

So basically, your idea of "fair" isn't about paying for your share of what you get back from the government, despite all the yammering about "services". It's about making sure they have less in the end, because you don't think they deserve it. I'm glad we finally got a definition of what you liver-eating halfwits are working toward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is kind of ridiculous. You see, government collects taxes, employs people to manage the roads and decide where they need to go and if they have enough money which ones need to be fixed and then seeks out those hopefully qualified to do the work. It's called management, I know, I know, libertarians don't get it.

How those who never had a real job could manage anything? Let me remind you, the same guys are managing AmTrak, Post Office, Education, Fannie & Freddie... successfully? Yeah, libertarians don't get it.

But you do.

How have they never had a real job? By the way, I went to my mailbox today and I was totally surprised, just like I have been every other fucking weekday of my life in that there was mail in it.

I've worked for the USPS. You SHOULD be surprised.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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..

They really prefer if we allow them to never define anything at all, and just speak in vague bumper sticker slogans.

 

[Ernie S.]

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 wealthy or, only an injunction on Only the least wealthy merely due to a lack of wealth.

I guess I'm looking for more specifics here.

.

specifics about what? I am still trying to define the situation.

And doing a fantastically incoherent job at it, I might add.

 

[HappyJoy]

This is kind of ridiculous. You see, government collects taxes, employs people to manage the roads and decide where they need to go and if they have enough money which ones need to be fixed and then seeks out those hopefully qualified to do the work. It's called management, I know, I know, libertarians don't get it.

How those who never had a real job could manage anything? Let me remind you, the same guys are managing AmTrak, Post Office, Education, Fannie & Freddie... successfully? Yeah, libertarians don't get it.

But you do.

How have they never had a real job? By the way, I went to my mailbox today and I was totally surprised, just like I have been every other fucking weekday of my life in that there was mail in it.

I've worked for the USPS. You SHOULD be surprised.

You should be embarrassed. Leaching off honest tax payers and what not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is kind of ridiculous. You see, government collects taxes, employs people to manage the roads and decide where they need to go and if they have enough money which ones need to be fixed and then seeks out those hopefully qualified to do the work. It's called management, I know, I know, libertarians don't get it.

How those who never had a real job could manage anything? Let me remind you, the same guys are managing AmTrak, Post Office, Education, Fannie & Freddie... successfully? Yeah, libertarians don't get it.

But you do.

How have they never had a real job? By the way, I went to my mailbox today and I was totally surprised, just like I have been every other fucking weekday of my life in that there was mail in it.

I've worked for the USPS. You SHOULD be surprised.

You should be embarrassed. Leaching off honest tax payers and what not.

Hardly. I had a valuable skill set, and they were the highest bidder for the leasing of that skill set. Capitalism, my dear dunderhead: the free exchange of goods or services for remuneration.

Learn the difference between taking a handout from the government and doing business with them. Moron.

 

[HappyJoy]

This is kind of ridiculous. You see, government collects taxes, employs people to manage the roads and decide where they need to go and if they have enough money which ones need to be fixed and then seeks out those hopefully qualified to do the work. It's called management, I know, I know, libertarians don't get it.

How those who never had a real job could manage anything? Let me remind you, the same guys are managing AmTrak, Post Office, Education, Fannie & Freddie... successfully? Yeah, libertarians don't get it.

But you do.

How have they never had a real job? By the way, I went to my mailbox today and I was totally surprised, just like I have been every other fucking weekday of my life in that there was mail in it.

I've worked for the USPS. You SHOULD be surprised.

You should be embarrassed. Leaching off honest tax payers and what not.

Hardly. I had a valuable skill set, and they were the highest bidder for the leasing of that skill set. Capitalism, my dear dunderhead: the free exchange of goods or services for remuneration.

Learn the difference between taking a handout from the government and doing business with them. Moron.

Oh, OK then what you are saying is government employees are ambitious and can get shit done. Thank you.