Pay your "Fair Share"

[Amberchgo]

I've heard this comment many times that people need to pay their "fair share."

1) What is the "fair share"? Is it a percent of your income? If so, how much

2) Is an individuals income capped? If so, at what level

3) Is there a minimum? In other words, should everyone pay some level of tax or is half paying, half not paying OK?

 

[Bry1313]

I've heard this comment many times that people need to pay their "fair share."

1) What is the "fair share"? Is it a percent of your income? If so, how much

2) Is an individuals income capped? If so, at what level

3) Is there a minimum? In other words, should everyone pay some level of tax or is half paying, half not paying OK?

It's not ok that you believe that 50% of people don't pay taxes, or you don't believe and you are just echoing a bs talking point.

 

[RobDownSouth]

1) What is the "fair share"? The cornerstone of the progressive income tax system Is it a percent of your income? Yes If so, how much Right now it's a maximum of 39%. This isn't enough to cover current expenditures. A return to 1982 Reagan-era rates would be a good start.

2) Is an individuals income capped? No If so, at what level

3) Is there a minimum? No In other words, should everyone pay some level of tax or is half paying, half not paying OK? "Half not paying" is Republican talking point. The poorest Americans still pay state taxes, a disproportionate percent of their income in sales taxes, FICA, and fuel taxes.


Now then, I've answered your questions. I'd appreciate you answering MY question from yesterday:

Do you believe the DailyKos opinion that you posted that President Obama is the most conservative Democratic president since Woodrow Wilson?

 

[Amberchgo]

Everyone who purchases anything pays sales tax.
Anyone who drives, flies etc pays fuel taxes.
Anyone who works pays SS taxes.




From CBPP:

The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.) [3]

These figures are sometimes cited as evidence that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes. Yet these figures, their significance, and their policy implications are widely misunderstood.

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]





Let me rephrase:

3) Is there a minimum or is it Ok that only 60% of the people pay federal taxes or should everyone pay something?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Everyone who purchases anything pays sales tax.
Anyone who drives, flies etc pays fuel taxes.
Anyone who works pays SS taxes.

And no one's denying that.
I said they pay a disproportionate percentage of their income vis-a-vis the 1%.

Now, then, with regard to my question (fourth attempt to elicit an answer from you):
Do you agree with the DailyKos' opinion piece you posted yesterday that President Obama is the most conservative Democratic president since Woodrow Wilson? A simple yes or no will do.....

 

[bronzeage]

Tax the poor and raise their benefits.

 

[Bry1313]

Everyone who purchases anything pays sales tax.
Anyone who drives, flies etc pays fuel taxes.
Anyone who works pays SS taxes.




From CBPP:

The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.) [3]

These figures are sometimes cited as evidence that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes. Yet these figures, their significance, and their policy implications are widely misunderstood.

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]





Let me rephrase:

3) Is there a minimum or is it Ok that only 60% of the people pay federal taxes or should everyone pay something?

Everyone pays something, you keep referring to just one kind of tax. Are you intentionally doing this or are you just a parrot that repeats Romney campaign talking points?

 

[garbage can]

I'd consider a flat tax on all income (earned and unearned) capped at say....1 million, but a free ride for those making under 40k.

 

[trysail]

Wealth — Any income that is at least $100 more a year than the income of one's wife's sister's husband.

- H.L. Mencken​

​

 

[garbage can]

Everyone pays something, you keep referring to just one kind of tax. Are you intentionally doing this or are you just a parrot that repeats Romney campaign talking points?

Not true, if you're talking federal income tax.

 

[Queersetti]

Everyone who purchases anything pays sales tax.
Anyone who drives, flies etc pays fuel taxes.
Anyone who works pays SS taxes.




From CBPP:

The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.) [3]

These figures are sometimes cited as evidence that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes. Yet these figures, their significance, and their policy implications are widely misunderstood.

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]





Let me rephrase:

3) Is there a minimum or is it Ok that only 60% of the people pay federal taxes or should everyone pay something?

Make up your mind. Do 60% pay no federal taxes, or do they pay fuel taxes, social security, etc.?

 

[Bry1313]

Not true, if you're talking federal income tax.

But he isn't saying income taxes. He is saying Federal Taxes. Words matter.

 

[Amberchgo]

Some interesting points from Marketwatch:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/



This chart, based on data from the liberal-leaning Tax Policy Blog, makes it clear that higher income folks pay more of their income in Federal taxes than lower income folks do.

As you can see from the next chart produced by the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, we have not had tax revenues of more than 20% of GDP for any length of time since at least 1960. This is true even though w have had much higher tax rates in earlier years, in fact, we once had a marginal rate of 91%. Despite higher tax rates, tax revenues still tended to trend around the level of 18% of GDP. There were short periods when revenues went up to 20% of GDP. So, we can safely state that the long-term average for actual tax revenues is 18% to 20% of GDP

How does this work? Well, it should be no surprise to readers of this blog, that when you raise tax rates, investors and taxpayers change their behavior accordingly.

The clear message from the Wall Street Journal chart is that the gold line (tax revenues) has been pretty steady at about 18-20% of GDP for 60 years even though the other line (tax rates) fluctuated from a high rate of 91% to a low of just under 30%. Despite changing tax rates, the actual tax revenues as a percentage of GDP really have not changed much.

Unfortunately, tinkering with the tax code seems to be irresistible to almost all politicians. In addition, raising taxes on the ‘rich’ is a populist theme many politicians have adopted. This idea is widespread even though there is a very good chance that higher tax rates will not lead to higher tax revenues. Our political leaders often misunderstand the long-term consequences of tax law changes and they advocate policies that bear little or no relationship to economic reality.






So raise the rate to as high as you want.... in the end, the politicians are NEVER the smartest guys in the room.

 

[Amberchgo]

Everyone pays something, you keep referring to just one kind of tax. Are you intentionally doing this or are you just a parrot that repeats Romney campaign talking points?

Romney's not running. Neither is Bush. You need to move on.

 

[Adre]

We are about the 50th highest taxed country in the world, give or take. You would not know this by listening to the whining RWCJ around this place, who don't want to pay much but who seem to like some of the stuff tax money buys including a huge military presence around the world. Oh wait, they do hate food stamps. Even though many military families apparently receive them.

 

[Queersetti]

But he isn't saying income taxes. He is saying Federal Taxes. Words matter.

It's a common conservative dodge. They conflate "taxes" with "income taxes" in order to portrayal system that is unfair to the wealthy. When you try to pin them down on it, they shift back and forth between the two concepts as fits with their argument of the moment.

They do a similar thing on the other side of the equation when they try to define all government benefits as "welfare". When Romney claimed that 47% of Americans were moochers, he was including retirees who receive social security, people on disability, including veterans, kids who get free school lunches, etc. but every time you bring up a specific program, they say, or we didn't mean that.

 

[islandman]

I've heard this comment many times that people need to pay their "fair share."

1) What is the "fair share"? Is it a percent of your income? If so, how much

2) Is an individuals income capped? If so, at what level

3) Is there a minimum? In other words, should everyone pay some level of tax or is half paying, half not paying OK?

This presumes that "fair" means the same to all people. It does not.

However, to answer your question, a "fair share" is an emotional calculation arrived at by people unable to think past a "one size fits all" mentality.

 

[Queersetti]

Romney's not running. Neither is Bush. You need to move on.

Actually, there have been some indications that he may try again, now that Christie is circling the drain, and he sees a possible opening for a "moderate" candidate.

 

[Bry1313]

Romney's not running. Neither is Bush. You need to move on.

Which is why it is so strange that, two years later, you are still quoting Romney's discredited talking points. I agree, it's time to move on.

 

[garbage can]

Some interesting points from Marketwatch:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/



This chart, based on data from the liberal-leaning Tax Policy Blog, makes it clear that higher income folks pay more of their income in Federal taxes than lower income folks do.

As you can see from the next chart produced by the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, we have not had tax revenues of more than 20% of GDP for any length of time since at least 1960. This is true even though w have had much higher tax rates in earlier years, in fact, we once had a marginal rate of 91%. Despite higher tax rates, tax revenues still tended to trend around the level of 18% of GDP. There were short periods when revenues went up to 20% of GDP. So, we can safely state that the long-term average for actual tax revenues is 18% to 20% of GDPHow does this work? Well, it should be no surprise to readers of this blog, that when you raise tax rates, investors and taxpayers change their behavior accordingly.

The clear message from the Wall Street Journal chart is that the gold line (tax revenues) has been pretty steady at about 18-20% of GDP for 60 years even though the other line (tax rates) fluctuated from a high rate of 91% to a low of just under 30%. Despite changing tax rates, the actual tax revenues as a percentage of GDP really have not changed much.

Unfortunately, tinkering with the tax code seems to be irresistible to almost all politicians. In addition, raising taxes on the ‘rich’ is a populist theme many politicians have adopted. This idea is widespread even though there is a very good chance that higher tax rates will not lead to higher tax revenues. Our political leaders often misunderstand the long-term consequences of tax law changes and they advocate policies that bear little or no relationship to economic reality.



So raise the rate to as high as you want.... in the end, the politicians are NEVER the smartest guys in the room.

If tax revenues have remained relatively constant, while tax rates have fluctuated wildly, I'd opt for a flat rate.

 

[Bry1313]

If tax revenues have remained relatively constant, while tax rates have fluctuated wildly, I'd opt for a flat rate.

Flat rate on what?

Income? Assets?

Are you eliminating all other fees and taxes including FICA and Medicare?

Are we eliminating all deductions including those to education, religion and other charities?

Are we eliminating deductions and tax credits for families as well?

 

[garbage can]

Flat rate on what?

Income? Assets?

Are you eliminating all other fees and taxes including FICA and Medicare?

Are we eliminating all deductions including those to education, religion and other charities?

Are we eliminating deductions and tax credits for families as well?

A flat rate on Federal income tax.

The other taxes and deductions are negotiable.

Personally, I'd turn FICA over to the private sector to be invested similar to a 401k.

 

[Liar]

Not true, if you're talking federal income tax.

Please explain why that is relevant to anything. TIA.

 

[islandman]

A flat rate on Federal income tax.

The other taxes and deductions are negotiable.

Personally, I'd turn FICA over to the private sector to be invested similar to a 401k.

Nothing like playing russian roulette (see 2008's financial crisis) with the benefits of current Social Security recipients or those utilizing Medicare.

But, hey, should the private sector get into trouble, the government will bail them out (see 2008's financial crisis). After all, we can't have all those retirees eating cat food, right?

...and the band played on.

 

[garbage can]

Please explain why that is relevant to anything. TIA.

I was responding to Bry 1313's post.