What Is "Fair Share of Taxes"?

[dannyboys]

Every millionares pay the same rate on the same amount of income as the poor folks.

You're seriously not this fucking dense, are you?

Yes 'Blind...' is that fucking stupid.
If every millionaire paid that rate they'd soon be multimillionaires.
'Blind.....' isn't going to ever be a millionaire unless he learns to spell the word first. LOL!

 

[FJO]

Liberals talk about fair share of taxes. Liberal talk about living wage. The two are tied together, logically.

Suppose they reach a consensus about what a living wage is. Let's say that amount is $50,000.00 per year.

To liberals "fair share" would be that everyone whose income is less than that should not have to pay any taxes, because they are poor - well not exactly poor, because they have a "living wage" - but paying any taxes, no way, they could not afford it.

Everybody whose income is more than that hand over all they have to the government. After all, if some people can live on the "living wage" everybody should be able to. Nobody needs to live on more and have and keep anything more than the "living wage".

What could be any more fair than that?

 

[gallantwarrior]

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not buying a house, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not having kids, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not owning the right kind of refrigerator, that is not a fair system.

That is the system we have today.

A fair system is one in which people who earn identical incomes pay identical taxes. A fair system is one in which the government does not pick the winners and losers. A fair system is one in which the government does not perpetrate a massive behavioral control program on its citizens.

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.

That's why I favor the Fair Tax. It has three advantages.

One, it is a tax on consumption instead of a tax on production (income tax).

Two, everyone has to pay it. So if the rubes want to demand the government provide free puppies to hookers, EVERYONE will pay a higher Fair Tax to cover the cost. No more, "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

Three, you can't hide a tax increase.

I've done a lot of reading about the Fair Tax and I fully agree. Pay for what you consume. It also takes into account any black market or other incomes. Buy a yacht, pay the price. Buy a canoe, pay the price.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not buying a house, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not having kids, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not owning the right kind of refrigerator, that is not a fair system.

That is the system we have today.

A fair system is one in which people who earn identical incomes pay identical taxes. A fair system is one in which the government does not pick the winners and losers. A fair system is one in which the government does not perpetrate a massive behavioral control program on its citizens.

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.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Liberals talk about fair share of taxes. Liberal talk about living wage. The two are tied together, logically.

Suppose they reach a consensus about what a living wage is. Let's say that amount is $50,000.00 per year.

To liberals "fair share" would be that everyone whose income is less than that should not have to pay any taxes, because they are poor - well not exactly poor, because they have a "living wage" - but paying any taxes, no way, they could not afford it.

Everybody whose income is more than that hand over all they have to the government. After all, if some people can live on the "living wage" everybody should be able to. Nobody needs to live on more and have and keep anything more than the "living wage".

What could be any more fair than that?

Yanno, all the liberals who are fretting about "living wages", the "working poor" and "fair taxes" should take a look at some of the other countries on this planet. The "poor" in this country have it pretty damned good. Obesity is not a common problem in countries where REAL poverty exists. I can assure you, the poor in most other countries are not driving cars or living in real dwellings.

 

[bripat9643]

I think if you benefit most from the government's handouts then you should have to pay them.

Hate to tell you this but the multi millionaire that writes off 750k in mortgage interest, that write off is much greater than the 2k that comes back to a MW worker getting the EITC.

But I doubt you are thinking of removing the interest deductions for mortgages for the ultra wealthy. Right?

You want to ding the low wage worker. Right?

Paul Ryan and the republicans budget proposal that they can't pass, EXPANDS the EITC. Again.

Sanders wants more people to pay taxes and would cut the EITC.
Weird.

We should remove ALL deductions and tax everyone at a lower flat rate
It makes no sense at all to take money from people only to give some of it back

Trump says he wants to make America great again. What era was that? And my second question is did we have a flat tax back then? You know back when we were great?

Hey if you want to go back to the "good ol' days" of the 90% bracket just remember that back then a 30K income put you in the 47% bracket

I don't remember paying 47% of my income in taxes

You were paying taxes in 1964? That's when Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.

 

[gallantwarrior]

According to the RWnuts, fair share means corporations should pay no income taxes,

but the person making minimum wage should have some 'skin in the game'.

Who the hell said that?

80% of the RWnuts on this forum.

Quote one saying that.

OK, I say that. I also think that if every taxpayer were presented a bill annually instead of having taxes diverted from their paychecks, there'd be hell to pay. As it stands, taxpayers who receive refunds are getting their money back, without receiving interest on the money held by the government. It was their money all along but they have been led to believe they are receiving some great government beneficence when they get that refund check.

 

[gallantwarrior]

According to the RWnuts, fair share means corporations should pay no income taxes,

but the person making minimum wage should have some 'skin in the game'.

So what if corps pay no income taxes?

Every cent of corporate money gets paid out to people so it will be taxed then

English please.

What about that didn't you understand? It was a pretty simple sentence

Simple is the very definition of NYcaribineer.

 

[sealybobo]

Hate to tell you this but the multi millionaire that writes off 750k in mortgage interest, that write off is much greater than the 2k that comes back to a MW worker getting the EITC.

But I doubt you are thinking of removing the interest deductions for mortgages for the ultra wealthy. Right?

You want to ding the low wage worker. Right?

Paul Ryan and the republicans budget proposal that they can't pass, EXPANDS the EITC. Again.

Sanders wants more people to pay taxes and would cut the EITC.
Weird.

We should remove ALL deductions and tax everyone at a lower flat rate
It makes no sense at all to take money from people only to give some of it back

Trump says he wants to make America great again. What era was that? And my second question is did we have a flat tax back then? You know back when we were great?

Hey if you want to go back to the "good ol' days" of the 90% bracket just remember that back then a 30K income put you in the 47% bracket

I don't remember paying 47% of my income in taxes

You were paying taxes in 1964? That's when Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.

There are times when taxes on the rich need to be lowered. Now is not one of those times.

 

[sealybobo]

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not buying a house, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not having kids, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not owning the right kind of refrigerator, that is not a fair system.

That is the system we have today.

A fair system is one in which people who earn identical incomes pay identical taxes. A fair system is one in which the government does not pick the winners and losers. A fair system is one in which the government does not perpetrate a massive behavioral control program on its citizens.

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

 

[bripat9643]

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not buying a house, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not having kids, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not owning the right kind of refrigerator, that is not a fair system.

That is the system we have today.

A fair system is one in which people who earn identical incomes pay identical taxes. A fair system is one in which the government does not pick the winners and losers. A fair system is one in which the government does not perpetrate a massive behavioral control program on its citizens.

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.

 

[sealybobo]

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not buying a house, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not having kids, that is not a fair system.

If your neighbor earns the same income you do, but one of you pays more taxes than the other because you are being punished for not owning the right kind of refrigerator, that is not a fair system.

That is the system we have today.

A fair system is one in which people who earn identical incomes pay identical taxes. A fair system is one in which the government does not pick the winners and losers. A fair system is one in which the government does not perpetrate a massive behavioral control program on its citizens.

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

According to the RWnuts, fair share means corporations should pay no income taxes,

but the person making minimum wage should have some 'skin in the game'.

Who the hell said that?

80% of the RWnuts on this forum.

Quote one saying that.

OK, I say that. I also think that if every taxpayer were presented a bill annually instead of having taxes diverted from their paychecks, there'd be hell to pay. As it stands, taxpayers who receive refunds are getting their money back, without receiving interest on the money held by the government. It was their money all along but they have been led to believe they are receiving some great government beneficence when they get that refund check.

I agree and tax day should be the day before election day
Let's see how people vote the day after the government takes a big wet bite out of their asses

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberals talk about fair share of taxes. Liberal talk about living wage. The two are tied together, logically.

Suppose they reach a consensus about what a living wage is. Let's say that amount is $50,000.00 per year.

To liberals "fair share" would be that everyone whose income is less than that should not have to pay any taxes, because they are poor - well not exactly poor, because they have a "living wage" - but paying any taxes, no way, they could not afford it.

Everybody whose income is more than that hand over all they have to the government. After all, if some people can live on the "living wage" everybody should be able to. Nobody needs to live on more and have and keep anything more than the "living wage".

What could be any more fair than that?

How many Liberals say that?

I'm Liberal and I don't say that. I think you just made it up.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Fifty percent of people with jobs pay NOTHING! in Federal income tax. NOTHING!

Thanks to republicans Ford and particularly Reagan.
And Paul Ryan wants to EXPAND the EITC so that about 54% would pay no income tax.

Thanks republicans. You repubs control congress. Why won't they DO anything about the EITC?

 

[hadit]

According to the RWnuts, fair share means corporations should pay no income taxes,

but the person making minimum wage should have some 'skin in the game'.

Who the hell said that?

80% of the RWnuts on this forum.

Quote one saying that.

OK, I say that. I also think that if every taxpayer were presented a bill annually instead of having taxes diverted from their paychecks, there'd be hell to pay. As it stands, taxpayers who receive refunds are getting their money back, without receiving interest on the money held by the government. It was their money all along but they have been led to believe they are receiving some great government beneficence when they get that refund check.

I agree and tax day should be the day before election day
Let's see how people vote the day after the government takes a big wet bite out of their asses

Do that and eliminate payroll withholding, making everyone pay quarterly taxes, and tax reform is virtually guaranteed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

According to the RWnuts, fair share means corporations should pay no income taxes,

but the person making minimum wage should have some 'skin in the game'.

Who the hell said that?

80% of the RWnuts on this forum.

Quote one saying that.

Bet me $1000 no one has ever said that on this forum.

I won $2000 yesterday, so beware.

I'm not going to claim no one has ever said it. Right wingers have said corporate taxes should be reduces to zero, but not because that is what's "fair." They say it because taxing corporations only screws the little guy. It doesn't help him.

lol, corporations are people, remember?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fifty percent of people with jobs pay NOTHING! in Federal income tax. NOTHING!
.

I'm guessing you can't prove that.

 

[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".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fair taxes would be businesses paying more.

However the US is set up so that different areas of the US are competing for business so everyone has to have unrealistically low taxes for businesses.

Imagine if there were no taxes. Imagine if you had to pay every time you used the roads, imagine you had to pay for security from both the police and the armed forces. Imagine if everything you get from taxes you had to pay for.

How much would businesses have to pay?

A lot.

They'd end up educating people, because poor people wouldn't be able to afford education, so businesses would then have to teach their workers to read and write, perhaps from a young age and then sign them to long term contracts.

Healthcare, again, businesses would end up paying a lot of healthcare.

Roads and infrastructure. These are essential for businesses to function, many businesses use not only roads but telephone lines and all sorts of things.

Basically it's be an expensive job to be a business.

So instead businesses get off lightly.

So who should take up this burden then? The poorer people who are slightly better off with government services. They aren't enslaved to the businesses who would have to pay for a lot of things to get adequate workers.

Or the rich people who are able to make a lot more money because of all the services that the govt provide? Business people are making a lot of money because of the govt spending money so their business doesn't have to pay much in taxes, compared to what they probably should have to pay.

Or a combination of the two?