What is the "fair share"?

I keep hearing this term repeated every time Obama or any Dem talks. Literally, "fair share" is being repeated nonstop as if they all sat down a year ago and made a plan to say this term as much as possible? I guess if you keep repeating a lie as much as possible it finally becomes true, but I digress..

Basically they are claiming that rich people don't pay the "fair share" of taxes and we must raise it.

But what share do the income groups actually pay in taxes?

The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.
The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes.
The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.

So I ask the libs on Slickdeals to tell me how much they believe the fair share needs to be?

Quote from garric : I keep hearing this term repeated every time Obama or any Dem talks. Literally, "fair share" is being repeated nonstop as if they all sat down a year ago and made a plan to say this term as much as possible? I guess if you keep repeating a lie as much as possible it finally becomes true, but I digress.. Basically they are claiming that rich people don't pay the "fair share" of taxes and we must raise it. But what share do the income groups actually pay in taxes? The top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes. The top 10% pay 50% of taxes. The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes. The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes. So I ask the libs on Slickdeals to tell me how much they believe the fair share needs to be?

I think the top 1% should pay 22.8%. If you disagree please tell us why and define what you mean by "fair."

Thanks.

If not gathered from the post I largely believe the term "fair share" as nothing more than a buzzword with no real meaning, exploited for politics.

"Fair" to them just means more.

This old right-wing thinktank saw again. I guess if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes true, but I digress. Your figures only deal with INCOME taxes, conveniently excluding payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc, which fall more on middle to low income brackets.

How about asking what share of the country's wealth is actually owned by different groups? Wealth and income inequality is far more germane to the issue of fairness than equality of the percentage of income tax paid by various groups. Here are some reciprocal factoids from Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland.

“…the top 20% own 84% of the total wealth in the US… in 1950 is was just 32%...”

“Consider America’s economic recovery in 2009-10. Overall income in that period grew by 2.3%... Look more closely at the data… and it turns out that average Americans were right to doubt the economic comeback. That’s because for 99% of Americans, incomes increased by a mere 0.2%. Meanwhile, the incomes of the top 1% jumped by 11.6%. It was definitely a recovery – for the 1%.”

“In 2005, Bill Gates was worth $46.5 billion and Warren Buffett $44 billion. That year, the combined wealth of the 120 million people who made up the bottom 40% of the U.S. population was around $95 billion – barely more than the sum of the fortunes of these two men.”

What is the fair share bsg75?

Put a number on it.

Quote from garric : If not gathered from the post I largely believe the term "fair share" as nothing more than a buzzword with no real meaning, exploited for politics. "Fair" to them just means more.

Fine. I still think they should pay 22.8%. Do you object?

Please don't tell me that such share would be....ahem.....unfair.

Quote from garric : I keep hearing this term repeated every time Obama or any Dem talks. Literally, "fair share" is being repeated nonstop as if they all sat down a year ago and made a plan to say this term as much as possible?

It is ironic because the last thing on the planet the libs want is for people to pay their "fair share."

"Fair share" to me would be something that falls equally across the electorate either in absolute or percentage terms.

Quote from garric : What is the fair share bsg75? Put a number on it.

I did. Then I dared you to dispute it and you declined. And now this. What gives?

Quote from BigBananaMess : It is ironic because the last thing on the planet the libs want is for people to pay their "fair share." "Fair share" to me would be something that falls equally across the electorate either in absolute or percentage terms.

Head tax for the win.

After all what is more equal/fair than Rmoney and a teacher with 5 children pay the same dollar amount of tax.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
-- Anatole France

Quote from garric : What is the fair share bsg75? Put a number on it.

You put a number on it. The entire economic system has been increasingly rigged by and for the super-rich. There is no sense in picking INCOME tax rate as a point of debate on the issue of fairness.

What is being proposed is letting the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire, allowing them to revert to the rates from the Clinton years, which were lower than the rates from the years of your savior, Ronald Reagan. If you think the Clinton-era rates would be more unfair to the long-suffering 1% than the Bush rates which are set to expire, please explain why. What tax rate for the super-rich do you think would be fair? Many,like Mitt Romney, go to extreme lengths to shelter their income and pay next to nothing in taxes--making the entire question doubly moot.

Quote from bsg75 : What is being proposed is letting the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire, allowing them to revert to the rates from the Clinton years,

Bush tax cuts??? You must mean the 2010 0bama Tax Cuts.

Quote from bsg75 : You put a number on it. The entire economic system has been increasingly rigged by and for the super-rich. There is no sense in picking INCOME tax rate as a point of debate on the issue of fairness. What is being proposed is letting the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire, allowing them to revert to the rates from the Clinton years, which were lower than the rates from the years of your savior, Ronald Reagan. If you think the Clinton-era rates would be more unfair to the long-suffering 1% than the Bush rates which are set to expire, please explain why. What tax rate for the super-rich do you think would be fair? Many,like Mitt Romney, go to extreme lengths to shelter their income and pay next to nothing in taxes--making the entire question doubly moot.

Boo hoo.. someone has more money than you and now the whole system is rigged.

Your whole political ideology is shaped by jealousy.

Quote from bsg75 : What is being proposed is letting the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire, allowing them to revert to the rates from the Clinton years, which were lower than the rates from the years of your savior, Ronald Reagan. If you think the Clinton-era rates would be more unfair to the long-suffering 1% than the Bush rates which are set to expire, please explain why. What tax rate for the super-rich do you think would be fair? Many,like Mitt Romney, go to extreme lengths to shelter their income and pay next to nothing in taxes--making the entire question doubly moot.

How dare you refute slogans with facts.

Quote from TRNT : I think the top 1% should pay 22.8%. If you disagree please tell us why and define what you mean by "fair." Thanks.

Why is 22.8% fair?