How much is a fair share?

[Dragon]

how can it mean nothing when you are talking about how others should pay their fair share of FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

But I am not talking about that, and really neither is Obama. He is talking about the tax burden in general, even if the income tax is the vehicle he chooses to use to redress the matter. (You may recall that he also put through a temporary cut in Social Security tax, so in reality even the choice of vehicle isn't absolute. And I wouldn't be surprised to see some attention given to capital gains tax, too.)

 

[Ame®icano]

The question was about earned income or grades.
Not taxes.
Taxes would be how each is punished or rewarded.

What is the fair share?
How much money should someone be allowed to make?
Why should someone be taxed harder the more money they make?
You can call it a bumper-sticker slogan but, to me, it's punishing success.

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

interesting concept but not sure if it is well thought out.
Take this scenario:

Person A earns 75K a year....after taxes, he nets 50K a year

Person B earns 5 Million a year.....

what amount of take home would you deem an equal burden to 25K of a gross of 75K?

Take home 1 million? 2 million?

Furthermore, who makes that decision and what is it based on?

Person C: One that pays nothing in it (and actually earn from the tax system).

 

[DiamondDave]

The claim is that they pay zero federal income taxes. . . and it's 100% accurate.

That's not what was stated. It was stated that 47% of the people pay zero federal taxes. No qualification that they were talking about income taxes.

Of course they were, but the implication that these folks are some kind of tax deadbeats was deliberate, and was a lie.

More simply, the claim is either something meaningless and unimportant, or something false. If the claim is merely that 47% of the people pay no income tax, then that is true, but means nothing in view of the taxes that they do pay. If the claim is that 47% of the people pay no federal taxes, then it is false.

Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit

 

[bitterlyclingin]

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal"

not, "Well the law says that I have to admit you into Harvard Law School despite your "C" average in poly sci at Columbia.

A post at powerline referred to a quote by either Plato, Aristotle or Socrates that if you let the individual members of the Democracy apportion the city amongst themselves, pretty soon you have no city.

Barack Obama firmly believes in apportioning out Ronald Reagan's "Shining City On The Hill"

 

[Dragon]

Do you believe that they pay a significant portion of their income to the federal government?

In most cases, yes.

If they pay $1000 in taxes and get back $4000 they are making $3000. They must be paying another $3000 in taxes to even be just a zero liability voter.

If you're claiming that these figures describe 47% of U.S. households, I need some documentation.

 

[Ame®icano]

The claim is that they pay zero federal income taxes. . . and it's 100% accurate.

That's not what was stated. It was stated that 47% of the people pay zero federal taxes. No qualification that they were talking about income taxes.

Of course they were, but the implication that these folks are some kind of tax deadbeats was deliberate, and was a lie.

More simply, the claim is either something meaningless and unimportant, or something false. If the claim is merely that 47% of the people pay no income tax, then that is true, but means nothing in view of the taxes that they do pay. If the claim is that 47% of the people pay no federal taxes, then it is false.

This whole topic is about paying the "fair share" of federal income taxes and what "fair share" should be. So, cut the crap, will ya?

 

[Ame®icano]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

The concept of "burden" is completely subjective, so your rule means the govenrment can take whatever it likes. It's no rule at all.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZTT!!

thanks for playing!

As is wealth and poverty. The only thing objective about taxes is the amount of money the government seeks to raise via taxes. From that point on, all decisions are subjective. All our tax laws are the result of the collective opinion of Congress.

I agree.

But we vote them in, so they are representing our interest.

Our, means interest of all people, not just 47% of people, right?

 

[Dragon]

This whole topic is about paying the "fair share" of federal income taxes and what "fair share" should be. So, cut the crap, will ya?

If that's so, then the whole topic is based upon a lie.

 

[kwc57]

Dear Leader wants "rich" people to pay their "fair share" in income tax while 47% of Americans pay zero in income tax.

No matter how you try to spin it, income tax is only one federal tax, not all of them. The fact that someone pays zero income tax, by itself, means nothing. Presenting this fact in isolation, without considering what other taxes they pay, in order to create the false impression that they are undertaxed, is dishonest.

Look, I'm only going to take one more crack at this before I blow you off as being purposely obtuse. The discussion is INCOME tax which Obama wants to increase on people he deems rich. Now, he has already defined the wealthy as those making over $200,000. What he has yet to define is what is their "fair share" to pay in income tax. He isn't talking about any other kind of federal tax and neither are we, so we need you to focus and stay on track. When Obama discusses a "fair share", why is he asking the 53% of people who pay income tax to pay even MORE without the slightest hint of asking the 47% who pay absolutely NOTHING in income tax to put a little skin in the game. You do realize that there are those among this 47% who actually get a "refund" check from the government don't you. I know this happens because I have a 28 year old deadbeat step-nephew who might manage to hold down a minimum wage job for a couple of weeks at a time who gets a check each year. Like I said, if you want to engage in this discussion, you need to follw the conversation. Income tax. 53% pay, 47% don't. What is meant by "fair share"? Why is it only applied to those already paying and not those who don't. Focus.

 

[Jarhead]

This whole topic is about paying the "fair share" of federal income taxes and what "fair share" should be. So, cut the crap, will ya?

If that's so, then the whole topic is based upon a lie.

The topic is that Obama beleives that the wealthiest Americans need to pay more income taxes than they already do.

There are those that oppose him..

Soi he has elaborated and said that they need to pay their "fair share".

And so those that oppose said "but there are 47% that do not pay any federal income taxes at all...so how is increasing that on those that do pay deemed as "paying their fair share?"

So exactly what is a lie, there.

 

[Ame®icano]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

interesting concept but not sure if it is well thought out.
Take this scenario:

Person A earns 75K a year....after taxes, he nets 50K a year

Person B earns 5 Million a year.....

what amount of take home would you deem an equal burden to 25K of a gross of 75K?

Take home 1 million? 2 million?

Furthermore, who makes that decision and what is it based on?

The highest amount that would not lower economy productive. That amount is decided by Congress.

Okaaaaay, so why president doesn't let Congress to decide?

 

[Dragon]

The discussion is INCOME tax

Then the discussion is deliberately misleading. Setting the parameters artificially in that way distorts reality and is, quite simply, a lie.

 

[Ame®icano]

The 47% figure applies to income tax.

Then, as I said, it means absolutely squat.

Are you intentionally being stoopid? Dear Leader wants "rich" people to pay their "fair share" in income tax while 47% of Americans pay zero in income tax. This means that the other 53% are paying ALL of the income taxes that the gubmint are collecting. Seems Dear Leader thinks that they are not paying enough even though they pay it all and the other 47% are riding on their coattails. This begs the question, when are the 47% paying nothing going to get some skin in the game and pay their "fair share". Zero isn't a share.

If you want to be part of the conversation, you need to first understand the conversation being discussed. Otherwise go back to the kid's table and let the adults talk.

Are you still talking about Jets game?

 

[Jarhead]

The discussion is INCOME tax

Then the discussion is deliberately misleading. Setting the parameters artificially in that way distorts reality and is, quite simply, a lie.

uh...excuse me...YOU are the one that opted to bring other taxes into the conversation.

Obama was referring to income taxes.

The opposition referred to 47% do not pay income taxes.

And the YOU opted to say that was not true becuase they pay OTHER taxes.

YOU are the one who artifically set the parameters AFTER the parameters were already set.

That is known as diversion from the topic at hand.

 

[kwc57]

The discussion is INCOME tax

Then the discussion is deliberately misleading. Setting the parameters artificially in that way distorts reality and is, quite simply, a lie.

Thanks for confirming that you're an idiot. If you don't like the discussion at hand, find a different thread.

 

[Ame®icano]

A fair share of the taxes would be such that the burden is the same for all income groups.

curious...

would this mean that the government should decide if someone should be able to pay for and own a yacht or not....?

I mean..here is the reality....

If someone earns 5 million, they can easily live a nice comfortable lifestyle with a take home of 250K......so should they be taxed 4.75 Million?

No, the high end of the tax brackets should be based on an estimate as to what effect the tax would have on the economic productivity of the people in that bracket. Obviously taking 95% of the person's income will destroy all incentive to produce. Whether taking 70%, 50%, or 40% destroys incentive to produce to an extent that it hurts the economy is a question for economists. In my opinion anything over a 50% rate would probably effect incentive to produce.

And you think is fair that some pays 50% while some pays nothing?

Just asking.

 

[Dragon]

uh...excuse me...YOU are the one that opted to bring other taxes into the conversation.

Yes, because they need to be brought in. If you are going to evaluate Obama's assertions, you have to start with full facts, not with deliberately-foreshortened facts that amount to lies.

If you want to dispute the claim that "the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes," and in support of this talk about poorer people paying no income taxes, then you MUST, for the sake of honesty, include other federal taxes that poorer people DO pay, because that is the ONLY way that you can properly evaluate the amount of taxes that they pay and use them for a real comparison. To restrict the discussion of poor and working-class people's taxes to federal income tax alone is a deliberate distortion of reality designed to create the false impression that the president's proposals are giving these people a free ride.

And that's just as true on the other end. If you want to talk about rich people who don't pay any federal income tax (and there are some), then you have to recognize that these same people DO pay capital gains tax, 'cause there's no way they can have zero income and be rich.

If you want to honestly evaluate the president's proposals, include all federal taxes in your picture. If you refuse to do that, you're lying.

 

[Dragon]

Thanks for confirming that you're an idiot.

You put out a blatant lie, you expect no one to call you on it, and I'M an idiot?

I don't think so, dude.

 

[Ame®icano]

This whole topic is about paying the "fair share" of federal income taxes and what "fair share" should be. So, cut the crap, will ya?

If that's so, then the whole topic is based upon a lie.

Not my lie, dude... his.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAIjoaDVbDY]Obama's Next Step On Debt: Tax Rich To Pay Fair Share - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sDp08Q-TUk]Obama:Everyone To Pay Fair Share For Jobs Bill - YouTube[/ame]

If we're going to make spending cuts, many of which we wouldn't make if we weren't facing such large budget deficits, then it's only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share. - Rich should pay 'fair share' to reduce debt - USAToday

President Barack Obama said on Saturday that Americans need to be ready to "pay their fair share" to narrow the deficit, previewing his proposals to Congress that are expected to include more taxes on the rich. - Americans must pay fair share to cut deficit - Huffington Post

So, you were saying...?

 

[jillian]

Obama keep talking about rich not paying their "fair share" but I never heard what that "fair share" really is. There is an argument on both sides, but I would like hear your opinion, how much exactly is the "fair share" rich and/or others should pay? Give me exact number.

fair share is when the largest part of wealth for rich people (which is passive investment income) is taxed at the same rate as income.

don't you think that's fair?

fair share is when exxon/mobil pays the same percentage on it's PROFITS as I would pay on my income... certainly not less.

in reality, it isn't really that complicated. fair is getting rid of the bush tax cuts. we did fine with them when clinton was president... and it's been disasterous for us since they were imposed.

you don't think that's unfair, do you?

also, when people post graphs, i think it's important to say where the graphs came from. not all source material is equal.