What is the "fair share"?

Quote from andyfico : Why is 22.8% fair?

22.7 is too little.

Quote from garric : Boo hoo.. someone has more money than you and now the whole system is rigged. Your whole political ideology is shaped by jealousy.

Thats what happen when people only look at the "now" instead of looking at what it took those evil rich to get to where they are now.

And instead of trying to follow the wise choices others have made, they just sit back and hurr durr somebody owes me hurr durr.

Of course, we have NO financial education in this country, which just leads to more people with this kind of thinking.

Tax everyone at 100%.

The 47% pays as much as the 1%

Problem 1%?

The one tax graph you really need to know [washingtonpost.com]

At the heart of the debate over “the 47 percent” is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from “how much in taxes do you pay” to “how much in federal income taxes do you pay?” This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It’s bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There’s a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans,payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax — it’s the tax we’ve designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we’ve done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don’t know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren’t paying federal income taxes, they’re outraged — even if they’re among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they’re paying taxes, and there’s no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren’t classified as “federal income taxes.”

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he’s not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That’s the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it’s a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who’s paying what in taxes, you don’t want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes — you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes — which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more — paid by different income groups:

Yes, using the incomes of the non productive in a chart is always illuminating.

How about a flat tax on all income above 50K? No deductions, no loopholes. You name the percentage.

Deal?

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?

Basically "fair share" would be the maximum amount you can tax the wealthy without significantly removing the financial incentive for innovation and entrepreneurship in this country. In my opinion, the wealthy espcially the self-made ones have a moral responsibility to ensure that the "ladder" that they used to climb to achieve their success is intact, so that others who are wiling to put the effort through can have the same opportunity to climb it as well. However the fiscal conservatives (assuming you) mistaken this for jealously, socialism, income redistribution and punishing success.

I would like to assign a number to "fair share" as well, but I don't know what that is. You probably have to emulate our economy in a super computer and experiment by adjusting parameters to determine what that ideal number is. I assume that number would fluctuate depending on where we are on the business cycle.

Quote from Foreveryours : But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?

Sounds like the guy making 40K is getting the deal. He gets coverage on the same government programs for a lot less money. And he'll take more out in benefits from those government programs, in relation to what he paid in than the rich guy too.

And of course he pays a whole lot less in income taxes as well.

But I know, there has to be a fairer way to get even more to the guy that makes less money.

This is a house that was built by one American man in North Carolina. This man never worked a day in his life. This is what happens when the wealthy pay little or no income taxes and there is no inheiritance taxes: The money gets increasingly concentrated into the hands of a few. Wealth does not grow for all Americans, just for a cadre of people like this. This man was so wealthy that the construction of his house created an entire town named after his house. His house.
And what did he do to earn all this? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. What's more, his brother got over 5 times more money.

Here's another picture. This woman inherited all of her money as well. She's now worth $23 billion, and most of her company's employees receive government benefits. She worked for the company for about six months in 1971, which wasn't quite enough time to earn her the $23 billion.
This is her mugshot after being arrested for her second DUI. Previously, she had been involved in several car accidents without being charged with a DUI. In one of them, she killed a person, but she wasn't charged. Great what money buys you.


Should we be able to earn money? Absolutely. Should we be able to pass wealth to our children? Of course. Should this wealth be greater than the economies of some nations? No, not by a long shot.

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/49939444

Quote : Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney have managed to create one of the enduring myths of our tax debate: that the rich pay a lower rate than the rest of America. But nationally, the tax code is still broadly progressive. The more your make, the more taxes you pay as a percentage of your income. According to new data from the IRS, people who make $1 million or more had an average tax rate of 20.4 percent in 2010. Tax filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 paid an average rate of 4.8 percent, while those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7 percent. Those making under $30,000 had a negative effective rate, meaning they paid no federal income taxes after deductions and credits.

Quote from CyberGuy : Basically "fair share" would be the maximum amount you can tax the wealthy without significantly removing the financial incentive for innovation and entrepreneurship in this country. In my opinion, the wealthy espcially the self-made ones have a moral responsibility to ensure that the "ladder" that they used to climb to achieve their success is intact, so that others who are wiling to put the effort through can have the same opportunity to climb it as well. However the fiscal conservatives (assuming you) mistaken this for jealously, socialism, income redistribution and punishing success. I would like to assign a number to "fair share" as well, but I don't know what that is. You probably have to emulate our economy in a super computer and experiment by adjusting parameters to determine what that ideal number is. I assume that number would fluctuate depending on where we are on the business cycle.

How about my idea of flat taxing all income above 50K?

Doesn't the guy making 75K have a moral responsibility to ensure the ladder they used to climb up from 20K is intact?

I'll just leave his right here. The second paragraph is particularly enlightening for those who claim that the poor people pay as much as the rich (in percentages) when factoring in other taxes.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/e...LIccbe9Kc1

Quote : Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their "fair share," they never specify what percentage of the nation's tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent. But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.

Quote from andyfico : http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/49939444

Did you miss this?

Quote from Rebound : This is a house that was built by one American man in North Carolina. This man never worked a day in his life. This is what happens when the wealthy pay little or no income taxes and there is no inheiritance taxes: The money gets increasingly concentrated into the hands of a few. Wealth does not grow for all Americans, just for a cadre of people like this. This man was so wealthy that the construction of his house created an entire town named after his house. His house. And what did he do to earn all this? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. What's more, his brother got over 5 times more money. Here's another picture. This woman inherited all of her money as well. She's now worth $23 billion, and most of her company's employees receive government benefits. She worked for the company for about six months in 1971, which wasn't quite enough time to earn her the $23 billion. This is her mugshot after being arrested for her second DUI. Previously, she had been involved in several car accidents without being charged with a DUI. In one of them, she killed a person, but she wasn't charged. Great what money buys you. .

Wow, rebound.........you found some rich people that are bad people......

Who knew?

That settles it then. Being rich makes you a bad person.

Quote from Rebound : Should we be able to earn money? Absolutely. Should we be able to pass wealth to our children? Of course. Should this wealth be greater than the economies of some nations? No, not by a long shot.

How about a flat tax of 75% on all inheritances above 50K?

Quote from Elmer : Yes, using the incomes of the non productive in a chart is always illuminating. How about a flat tax on all income above 50K? No deductions, no loopholes. You name the percentage. Deal?

I'd like to keep a progressive tax system with no deductions. Say 25% at 50k and step it up 1% for each additional 50k up to a max of 35%.