What Is "Fair Share of Taxes"?

[gallantwarrior]

]Obama keeps pushing his "fair share" of taxes in his speeches. What is fair? Fair is a relative term which means different things to different people. There is no set rule for what one thinks is fair. Is it fair that over forty percent of potential taxpayers pay absolutley no taxes at all? They probably think that is fair. But, do people who pay all the taxes think that is fair? Probably not! Is it fair that people who make more the a million dollars a year pay the largest portion of the federal income taxes? You probably think it is fair but they think they are already paying more than their fair share. So, you can see this is a fruitless debate. It all comes down to there is no way for the government to raise people in lower income brackets to higher ones. Each individual can only do that themselves. Since government can not raise these people to higher levels, in their misguided thinking the only thing they can do is knock the higher income people down as far as they can through tax rates. That at best is un-American and at worst tyrannical government.

Let's see...

If someone struggles to feed their family, pay the rent, pay the doctor bills.....is it fair that they have to use what meager income is left to pay the tax bill?

Is it fair that the wealthy pay a lower tax rate on investment income than someone pays through the sweat of their labor?

Is it fair for our wealthy to pay at the lowest tax rate in 70 years while we run up $19 trillion in debt?

Tell me what other tax is based on ability to pay?

The gas tax nope
real estate tax nope
sales taxes nope
Any of the myriad of federal taxes on all kinds of shit nope


So why should income taxes be any different?

If you earn a dollar then that dollar should be taxed
And all dollars should be taxed at the same rate just like every gallon of gas is

Most of the free world taxes on ability to pay....try to keep up

Do you think a family making $18,000 a year should pay the same as someone making $10 million? Is that what you call fair?

So that's your answer?

What makes tax on an earned dollar any different than a tax on a gallon of gas or an acre of land?

And no they should not pay the same amount but they should pay the same percentage

Just like they pay the same percentage on a gallon of gas

Why should they pay the same percentage?
The first dollar you earn is much, much more critical to your survival than your millionth dollar

Why should they be taxed the same?

Damn! Where's the bullshit button?

 

[gallantwarrior]

So that's your answer?

What makes tax on an earned dollar any different than a tax on a gallon of gas or an acre of land?

And no they should not pay the same amount but they should pay the same percentage

Just like they pay the same percentage on a gallon of gas

Why should they pay the same percentage?
The first dollar you earn is much, much more critical to your survival than your millionth dollar

Why should they be taxed the same?

No it's not

A dollar is a dollar one is not worth more than another

But let's assume your answer applies to all taxes. Isn't the gallon of gas you use to get to work more important than the one used to drive to a strip club? So why not tax that gallon more?

When looking at a poor person. The first dollars they earn go to support their family. Right now that first dollar is tax free. You want that first dollar to only be 85 cents

It was like that before Obama care. Now you have to py Health insurance before you eat or put a roof over your head.

Why do you make shit up

Why do you?

 

[gallantwarrior]

When looking at a poor person. The first dollars they earn go to support their family. Right now that first dollar is tax free. You want that first dollar to only be 85 cents

It was like that before Obama care. Now you have to py Health insurance before you eat or put a roof over your head.

Why do you make shit up

Are you trying to say that buying health insurance is not mandated by law?

Medicaid was expanded for lower income workers. Except in red states
They turned it down to fix that Obama

How dare you help our poor people

What does it matter?

The fact remains obama fucked the poor.




.

No it's not

A dollar is a dollar one is not worth more than another

But let's assume your answer applies to all taxes. Isn't the gallon of gas you use to get to work more important than the one used to drive to a strip club? So why not tax that gallon more?

When looking at a poor person. The first dollars they earn go to support their family. Right now that first dollar is tax free. You want that first dollar to only be 85 cents

It was like that before Obama care. Now you have to py Health insurance before you eat or put a roof over your head.

Why do you make shit up

Are you trying to say that buying health insurance is not mandated by law?

Medicaid was expanded for lower income workers. Except in red states
They turned it down to fix that Obama

How dare you help our poor people

How dare they not help themselves?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Can we get over this lie that 1/2 don't pay taxes ? Is a bullshit claim to disparage lower income people.

And in these fairness discussion , no one talks about services rendered . For example wealthy people benefit from more gov agencies than some low pay stiff .

You have my interest...how do the wealthy benefit more than some "low pay stiff"?

 

[gallantwarrior]

He expanded healthcare, unemployment benefits, equal pay legislation, raised minimum wage

How is that fucking them

He didn't expand health care

Insurance and health care are two completely different things
What he did do was force young people who might choose to go without insurance or who would but minimalist policies to pay far more than they should so as to prop up his subsidies and giveaways

He expanded healthcare to those under 26 on their parents policy, expanded Medicaid for low income workers and provided subsidies

11 million more are insured. That is expansion

Strange how forcing people to buy insurance under penalty of the law "expands healthcare".

You dOny have to buy, but you'll face a tax hit .

What is this nonsense????


How more simple can it be said?

Before Obama care people can put food on the table , a roof over their head and if some money left over they could think about buying health care.

After obama care, buying health care or paying a tax comes first before they can buy food for little Timmy or put a roof over his head


Democrats are the scum of the earth and don't give a crap about poor people.



.

Except for their vote for promised "free" shit.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Can we get over this lie that 1/2 don't pay taxes ? Is a bullshit claim to disparage lower income people.

And in these fairness discussion , no one talks about services rendered . For example wealthy people benefit from more gov agencies than some low pay stiff .

It's not bullshit it is a fact and that is all it is

And the poor get way more benefits since they pay less for them or not at all

Really ? Are the poor using airports all the time , does the SEC protect their investments, does the patent office protect their intellectual properties ?

The SEC does not protect investments
People pay the patent office for their services
And poor people can use an airport just like anyone else

Now the so called rich send their kids to private schools even though their high property taxes go to public schools, The so called rich pay more in sales taxes that also go to state programs for the poor, they pay far more in income taxes which goes to fund social programs for the poor

So you see the so called rich do far more for the poor than you do

So you're saying they're not actually wealthy, just "so-called"? Please explain.

So, the so-called "poor" should not be required to foot their own bills?

 

[bripat9643]

You left out when people get checks after having paid 0 in taxes. It isn't "fair" until everyone has some skin in the game.

Think about the person that makes $10 hr and every time they spend $1 they are taxed 6 cents. That is a huge chunk of their income. You want to tax them more? How much of their $280 a week take home do you want?

So-called "progressive" income tax is not fair in any way. Progressive taxes punish the more productive and favor those who either do not, or cannot produce more. If everyone had some skin in the game, maybe more people would pay attention to the game.

When was america great? Did we have a progressive tax at the time? Yup

America was great in 1915. We had no income tax at the time. It's been downhill ever since.

1913 is when the private bankers took over the federal reserve. Down hill ever sense

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Private banks didn't "take it over." Precisely the opposite occurred. The FR is a government bank that took over the private banks. And, yes, it was not a great step forward for the country but a great step backward.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you trying to say that buying health insurance is not mandated by law?

Medicaid was expanded for lower income workers. Except in red states
They turned it down to fix that Obama

How dare you help our poor people

What does it matter?

The fact remains obama fucked the poor.




.

He expanded healthcare, unemployment benefits, equal pay legislation, raised minimum wage

How is that fucking them

He didn't expand health care

Insurance and health care are two completely different things
What he did do was force young people who might choose to go without insurance or who would but minimalist policies to pay far more than they should so as to prop up his subsidies and giveaways

He expanded healthcare to those under 26 on their parents policy, expanded Medicaid for low income workers and provided subsidies

11 million more are insured. That is expansion

No he allowed people to stay on mommy and daddy's insurance until 26 insurance is not health care

 

[Skull Pilot]

And yet his 12% for one year is probably greater than your 35% over your lifetime.

So what? See, this is the stupid arguments Republicans make. So you want Trump to pay the same amount as someone who makes $12,000 a year? Anything more you would consider "unfair"? Dummy

A little slow on the uptake? Because your response to my post didn't address what I said. The rich guy actually pays a hell of a lot more in taxes than you or me. 47% of Americans pay 0 in taxes. That leaves the other 53% to pick up their slack. Out of that 53%, who do you think pays the lion's share of the tax the government takes in? Hint, it isn't Joe Plumber. I never said that the rich shouldn't pay a lot......because they already do. I'll repeat what I said and maybe you'll understand it this time. "And yet his 12% for one year is probably greater than your 35% over your lifetime." If he pays more in one year than you do in a lifetime, why are you bitching? Why do you feel entitled to someone else's money? Fairness? No, envy.

Because have you seen the debt? You're asking us all to pay more?

Like I said, what works? And the rich are doing just fine. It's the system they made it in. The rich before them paid their fair share and so why do you say that share isn't fair now? Are they greedy? Are you ignorant to buy it?

Yes a rich person will pay more in taxes this year than you will pay in a lifetime. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?

"Yes a rich person will pay more in taxes this year than you will pay in a lifetime. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?"

No. I'm suggesting you quit whining because you don't think it is enough. They contribute a hell of a lot more than you do every year. There money isn't yours to take just because you think they have too much. Do you want them to say that since you pay so little, you should only get to ride a bicycle in the gutter instead of take a lane of the street? You both paid for the road, he just paid a hell of a lot more than you.

Again, it doesn't matter that they contribute more than me. They should. Do you think they shouldn't? So what information do you have that suggests they are being taxed too much? Is it because we have a surplus and so they should get the extra back? Because if that were true I would agree with you. But there is no surplus. Therefore, they are clearly not paying enough.

And clearly neither is anyone else
especially those paying ZERO federal income tax

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is that so horrible . To think a 40 hr week could give u a livable wage ?

It's not anything but if your current skill set doesn't allow you to get the pay you need to pay your bills in 40 hours a week then you have 2 options
Improve your skill set or work more hours

I worked at least 2 jobs at a time for about 60 hours a week right up until my late 30s when we opened our business I worked 100 hours a week for the first 3 years and at least 60 for the next 5. Now I'm at a point where I work about 20

I never whined about working more than 40 hours a week because I know that anyone who ever accomplished anything in life worked more than 40 hours a week, didn't take vacations, and didn't whine all the time

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think everyone's first AND last dollars earned should be tax free. Eliminate federal income taxes entirely.

Ok. But how u gonna pay for stuff?

The fed gov collects taxes other than income taxes.

Also, what do you mean by "stuff", and why should I want to pay for it?

Stuff? Well just name. Astronauts bridges nuclear submarines school I can just keep going on and on. Expect the country to run on smiles and sunshine?

Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.

And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.

Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.

Don't you get anything from exploring space?

I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc

Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com

Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.

The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.

With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).

You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire

The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public

It was an anomaly

 

[bripat9643]

Ok. But how u gonna pay for stuff?

The fed gov collects taxes other than income taxes.

Also, what do you mean by "stuff", and why should I want to pay for it?

Stuff? Well just name. Astronauts bridges nuclear submarines school I can just keep going on and on. Expect the country to run on smiles and sunshine?

Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.

And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.

Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.

Don't you get anything from exploring space?

I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc

Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com

Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.

The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.

With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).

You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire

The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public

It was an anomaly

The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fed gov collects taxes other than income taxes.

Also, what do you mean by "stuff", and why should I want to pay for it?

Stuff? Well just name. Astronauts bridges nuclear submarines school I can just keep going on and on. Expect the country to run on smiles and sunshine?

Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.

And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.

Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.

Don't you get anything from exploring space?

I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc

Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com

Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.

The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.

With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).

You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire

The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public

It was an anomaly

The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.

That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent

 

[bripat9643]

Stuff? Well just name. Astronauts bridges nuclear submarines school I can just keep going on and on. Expect the country to run on smiles and sunshine?

Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.

And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.

Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.

Don't you get anything from exploring space?

I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc

Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com

Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.

The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.

With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).

You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire

The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public

It was an anomaly

The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.

That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent

When you consider the present value of the money spent, they far outweigh the profits private companies earned. furthermore you're assuming private industry would never have developed a space launch capability. That idea hardly seems credible.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, bridges and schools don't require federal taxes, as they are state funded.

And as I said, the fed gov has other tax sources, namely excise taxes and tariffs, with which it can provide for a navy.

Astronauts can be cut, unless individual people really think they're necessary, in which case they can choose to fund the space exploration company of their choice. Taxes should go to governing, not exploring space.

Don't you get anything from exploring space?

I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc

Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com

Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.

The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.

With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).

You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire

The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public

It was an anomaly

The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.

That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent

When you consider the present value of the money spent, they far outweigh the profits private companies earned. furthermore you're assuming private industry would never have developed a space launch capability. That idea hardly seems credible.

It's not just space launch
I have no doubt it would have been taken up by the private sector but it would have taken many decades longer

There were many technological advancements in not only electronics but in material sciences that private industries ran with and improved that put the US far ahead of other countries in many markets

I'm not sure if it can be quantified but you know NASA was such a small part of the budget that I never really had a problem with it

 

[bripat9643]

Don't you get anything from exploring space?

I mean, without space exploration they'd be no satellites, that'd be GPS, a lot of communication systems etc

Space Age inventions you probably use - CNN.com

Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched baby food, protective paint, scratch resistant glasses and so on.

The reality is the government funds a lot of research into things. Businesses then pick up on these ideas later. The biggest are the pharma companies who won't do the risky research, the govt does it, and then the pharma companies then turn the successful research into profit making, and then whine and moan that they pay TOO MUCH TAX. Go figure.

With the attitude of "government should be paying for research" you'd be living like the Amish (well not quite, but you get the point hopefully).

You do know that the whole space race was just another escalation of the cold war don't you? We didn't do it out of some altruistic desire

The space race just happened to be one thing the government did that actually had ancillary benefits for the public

It was an anomaly

The benefits were rather meager in comparison to the cost.

That might be true but I'm not sure that the profits made by private companies who exploited the technology and the benefits to the consumers don't outweigh what the government spent

When you consider the present value of the money spent, they far outweigh the profits private companies earned. furthermore you're assuming private industry would never have developed a space launch capability. That idea hardly seems credible.

It's not just space launch
I have no doubt it would have been taken up by the private sector but it would have taken many decades longer

There were many technological advancements in not only electronics but in material sciences that private industries ran with and improved that put the US far ahead of other countries in many markets

I'm not sure if it can be quantified but you know NASA was such a small part of the budget that I never really had a problem with it

NASA is the least of my concerns with regard to federal spending. However, I don't think it benefited the average American all that much. Teflon is the only material that ever came out of the program that we didn't already have.

 

[rightwinger]

Can we get over this lie that 1/2 don't pay taxes ? Is a bullshit claim to disparage lower income people.

And in these fairness discussion , no one talks about services rendered . For example wealthy people benefit from more gov agencies than some low pay stiff .

It's not bullshit it is a fact and that is all it is

And the poor get way more benefits since they pay less for them or not at all

The wealthy get far more benefits from our legislators than the poor do.....after all, they own them

 

[hadit]

Fair share? A percentage of real income above 30K a year. That means Binky and Chad don't get to hide the trust fund Grandpapa left them overseas. Fairly straightforward.

Admirable, but what happens then when you want to take more, but you've already assigned a "fair share"?

Why do you guys always assume there's a "more"? Fair share is fair share. Binky and Chad should pay at least the same percentage I do, because at least I'm working for mine. They're just sitting there drinking martinis and pestering the housekeeper.

I assume there's always a "more" because there always is a more. Voters always demand more services from the government, and politicians always want to spend more. Why do you think the federal budget grows so much every year, regardless of the state of the economy?

 

[hadit]

"Fair share" only means one thing, more. That's why liberals will never set a value, because then they couldn't demand more and still hide behind "fair share".

I'd say setting a share is very difficult. I'm sure if you got a team working on how much things cost and how much people would have to spend, and how much they do spend etc, then you might get an idea. However this is very complex.

Even a generic answer is almost impossible to come by. The term really is something to hide behind and isn't really about fair at all.

So because you can't measure fair so easily, it should be as unfair as possible then?

How do you get that conclusion from that premise?

It's a question. I'm giving you the chance to explain yourself a bit more.

Then you should have simply said that. My position is quite simple, actually. Demand for other people's money goes up, not down. The term "fair share" is bandied about like it has real meaning, but is never defined. It is never defined because then it becomes a limit, and those who wish to take other's money do not like limits.

 

[rightwinger]

]Obama keeps pushing his "fair share" of taxes in his speeches. What is fair? Fair is a relative term which means different things to different people. There is no set rule for what one thinks is fair. Is it fair that over forty percent of potential taxpayers pay absolutley no taxes at all? They probably think that is fair. But, do people who pay all the taxes think that is fair? Probably not! Is it fair that people who make more the a million dollars a year pay the largest portion of the federal income taxes? You probably think it is fair but they think they are already paying more than their fair share. So, you can see this is a fruitless debate. It all comes down to there is no way for the government to raise people in lower income brackets to higher ones. Each individual can only do that themselves. Since government can not raise these people to higher levels, in their misguided thinking the only thing they can do is knock the higher income people down as far as they can through tax rates. That at best is un-American and at worst tyrannical government.

Let's see...

If someone struggles to feed their family, pay the rent, pay the doctor bills.....is it fair that they have to use what meager income is left to pay the tax bill?

Is it fair that the wealthy pay a lower tax rate on investment income than someone pays through the sweat of their labor?

Is it fair for our wealthy to pay at the lowest tax rate in 70 years while we run up $19 trillion in debt?

Tell me what other tax is based on ability to pay?

The gas tax nope
real estate tax nope
sales taxes nope
Any of the myriad of federal taxes on all kinds of shit nope


So why should income taxes be any different?

If you earn a dollar then that dollar should be taxed
And all dollars should be taxed at the same rate just like every gallon of gas is

Most of the free world taxes on ability to pay....try to keep up

Do you think a family making $18,000 a year should pay the same as someone making $10 million? Is that what you call fair?

The first dollar you earn is taxed at a lower rate than the millionth dollar you earn. That first dollar is much, much more critical to you

not the same as someone making $10 million. How would that even be possible? The same percentage, absolutely. Imagine how things would change if that 45+% of the population had to give up a comparative percentage of their hard-earned income? They'd raise holy hell, that's what! But since most not only pay no taxes, they receive an unearned "rebate" (free money), they are more than happy and willing to be the shills of government, even demanding the extortion of taxes from others who earn a living.

You know what would change if the 45% had to pay more in federal taxes? NOTHING
Their combined income and wealth is insignificant compared to the one percent

You get more revenue from raising taxes one percent on the wealthy ( especially capital gains) than you do by doubling what you get from the 45%