Fair Share

[Barry in KC]

It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets mad, says "I don't get it", and storms away.)

Edited August 4, 2011 by Barry in KC

[KD in CA]

Good luck getting a straight answer on that one. The closest you'll get is "well, the tax rate was xx% in 19xx", as though the year 19xx should be the baseline for determining what is fair (you'll notice those people never advocate using the same timeframe to evaluate the fairness of social program spending).

 

As far as I can tell, it basically means 'people I am jealous of because they are more successful than me should keep paying more until they are forced to live the same lifestyle as me'

[DC Tom]

Good luck getting a straight answer on that one. The closest you'll get is "well, the tax rate was xx% in 19xx", as though the year 19xx should be the baseline for determining what is fair (you'll notice those people never advocate using the same timeframe to evaluate the fairness of social program spending).

 

As far as I can tell, it basically means 'people I am jealous of because they are more successful than me should keep paying more until they are forced to live the same lifestyle as me' we are both forced to live the same lifestyle.

 

Because, really, people that advocate "fairness" think it'll make everyone well off. It never occurs to them that it would drop everyone to the same level.

[pBills]

It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets made, says "I don't get it", and storms away.)

 

 

A certain party has been and is proposing cutting social programs, changing benefits, etc., etc. that clearly affect the middle-class and lower without addressing upper-class. That to many is not fair. How is it that they can alter all of this yet not ask the other group not to do anything?

 

Because, really, people that advocate "fairness" think it'll make everyone well off. It never occurs to them that it would drop everyone to the same level.

 

 

Personally I do not think it's about being on the same level it's about having the same opportunities.

[DaveinElma]

Yeah, I'm not paying enough taxes...

 

[erynthered]

 

 

 

Personally I do not think it's about being on the same level it's about having the same opportunities.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!

[Barry in KC]

A certain party has been and is proposing cutting social programs, changing benefits, etc., etc. that clearly affect the middle-class and lower without addressing upper-class. That to many is not fair. How is it that they can alter all of this yet not ask the other group not to do anything?

 

 

 

 

Personally I do not think it's about being on the same level it's about having the same opportunities.

 

 

And exactly what social programs, that are critical, is the certain party advocating cutting?

[3rdnlng]

And exactly what social programs, that are critical, is the certain party advocating cutting?

 

It's obvious you haven't been here for awhile. There are certain posters here that you just can't ask specific questions. They don't deal with specifics. They only deal with sweeping statements and grand generalizations.

[Barry in KC]

It's obvious you haven't been here for awhile. There are certain posters here that you just can't ask specific questions. They don't deal with specifics. They only deal with sweeping statements and grand generalizations.

That's why I asked to define "fair", since the left uses that term so much.

 

(Actually, I was here during the Clinton- Lewinsky debates. I am impressed that I have't been called a terrorist yet. Maybe things here have gotten civilized.)

[GG]

Because, really, people that advocate "fairness" think it'll make everyone well off. It never occurs to them that it would drop everyone to the same level.

 

You just defined communism.

[3rdnlng]

That's why I asked to define "fair", since the left uses that term so much.

 

(Actually, I was here during the Clinton- Lewinsky debates. I am impressed that I have't been called a terrorist yet. Maybe things here have gotten civilized.)

 

I was trying to tell you that asking certain people to be specific was wasting your time.

[Gene Frenkle]

Life is unfair. Whoever told you it should be was lying to you.

 

You pay back into a system that allows you to thrive so that that system can exist. The system is much more than just you - it includes everyone. The yield of this very complex system is a certain percentage of rich, a certain percentage of poor and a full spectrum in between. A better system might produce fewer poor people, reducing the need for relatively higher-earners like yourself to pay back into that same system which allows you to do so well. Tweak or change the system or suck it up and quit crying about what's fair and unfair and what ought to be.

 

In Soviet Russia, you would have other things to cry about.

[Gary M]

It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets made, says "I don't get it", and storms away.)

 

Why don't we ever discuss whether or not everyone is "doing" their fair share.

[GG]

Life is unfair. Whoever told you it should be was lying to you.

 

You pay back into a system that allows you to thrive so that that system can exist. The system is much more than just you - it includes everyone. The yield of this very complex system is a certain percentage of rich, a certain percentage of poor and a full spectrum in between. A better system might produce fewer poor people, reducing the need for relatively higher-earners like yourself to pay back into that same system which allows you to do so well. Tweak or change the system or suck it up and quit crying about what's fair and unfair and what ought to be.

 

In Soviet Russia, you would have other things to cry about.

 

Soviet Russia was modeled on the premise that the rich are evil and all would be better if everyone paid their "fair share" and that nobody, despite their ability or talent should possess anything of greater value than the neighbor. If only the world was rid of speculators & parasites, a workers' utopia would be attained.

 

Or so they thought.

[Gene Frenkle]

Soviet Russia was modeled on the premise that the rich are evil and all would be better if everyone paid their "fair share" and that nobody, despite their ability or talent should possess anything of greater value than the neighbor. If only the world was rid of speculators & parasites, a workers' utopia would be attained.

 

Or so they thought.

The throwaway "In Soviet Russia" line does not invalidate my point. A fully Capitalist system is just as Utopian and pie-in-the-sky as a fully Socialist system. Our current system lives somewhere on that spectrum and is certainly not so black and white. It's simply convenient for mindless cheerleaders to spew out the supreme virtues of the extremes of either system based on their political ideology of choice.

[GG]

The throwaway "In Soviet Russia" line does not invalidate my point. A fully Capitalist system is just as Utopian and pie-in-the-sky as a fully Socialist system. Our current system lives somewhere on that spectrum and is certainly not so black and white. It's simply convenient for mindless cheerleaders to spew out the supreme virtues of the extremes of either system based on their political ideology of choice.

The throwaway line and your point are equally invalid. Nobody here is arguing that we live in a perfectly capitalistic society. The argument is whether there's a fair contribution by everyone, especially the evil rich. You seem to be in the camp that believes that even though the wealthy pay 70% of income tax they don't pay a fair share, even though they comprise 10% of population and use up that share of resources ( probably much less of public resources)

 

So please keep up the argument that it's the wealthy that are the drain of money. It's like WNY arguing that they're bailing out NYC and downstate, even though about 80% of NYS revenues are generated in the 8 counties south of Putnam.

[finknottle]

Life is unfair. Whoever told you it should be was lying to you.

 

You pay back into a system that allows you to thrive so that that system can exist. The system is much more than just you - it includes everyone. The yield of this very complex system is a certain percentage of rich, a certain percentage of poor and a full spectrum in between. A better system might produce fewer poor people, reducing the need for relatively higher-earners like yourself to pay back into that same system which allows you to do so well. Tweak or change the system or suck it up and quit crying about what's fair and unfair and what ought to be.

 

In Soviet Russia, you would have other things to cry about.

 

How about answering the posters question? It is fairly straight forward.

 

If I earn a million dollars, say, what is my 'fair share' as a percentage of my income? How much of that money is it fair for me to keep?

[birdog1960]

Good luck getting a straight answer on that one. The closest you'll get is "well, the tax rate was xx% in 19xx", as though the year 19xx should be the baseline for determining what is fair (you'll notice those people never advocate using the same timeframe to evaluate the fairness of social program spending).

 

As far as I can tell, it basically means 'people I am jealous of because they are more successful than me should keep paying more until they are forced to live the same lifestyle as me'

here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes

Edited August 4, 2011 by birdog1960

[SWVABillsFan]

It's been a long time since I've written on this forum, but this morning, I heard Ms. Pelosi talk about the rich not "giving one red cent" to help those in need. Over the past several years, I've had many discussions with my business partner who is an extreme liberal. Whenever he says that the rich need to pay their "fair share", it drives me nuts. Would somone please define "fair share", how "fair" is defined, and who is it that decides what "fair" is for the taxpayer? (My business partner cannot answer this, by the way. Whenever I ask him these questions, he gets made, says "I don't get it", and storms away.)

The 1st problem to correct is worrying about what Ms. Pelosi says. I can be considered needy and work 2 jobs, 1 minimum wage, I ask for nothing.

[Booster4324]

here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes

 

Not sure about the percentage, but the rest I agree with. I would add in, raise capital gains at least. Perhaps our biggest corporations could pay a bit more than the 5% or whatever they actually pay. I know GG will take me to task over that possibly as he has espoused no taxation IIRC. Still, it seems silly that small and medium business gets taxed more than the really big boys. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

[whateverdude]

It's simple, rich people are the only people who can afford to hire you for a job. How many of you work or have worked directly for people who are on welfare? Let's not raise taxes for the producers, cut their taxes so that they can invest more money in their ideas. Let them assume the risk of job creation not the government. The rich will do a lot better job of picking winners than the government can.

 

Taxing the rich will not work. In 1987, the richest 1 percent paid roughly one quarter of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid 6 percent. But just 20 years later, the richest 1 percent were paying 40 percent of all income taxes and the bottom 50 percent were paying just under 3 percent. This have got us nowhere.

[DC Tom]

It's simple, rich people are the only people who can afford to hire you for a job. How many of you work or have worked directly for people who are on welfare?

 

I do.

 

Government contractor.

[GG]

Not sure about the percentage, but the rest I agree with. I would add in, raise capital gains at least. Perhaps our biggest corporations could pay a bit more than the 5% or whatever they actually pay. I know GG will take me to task over that possibly as he has espoused no taxation IIRC. Still, it seems silly that small and medium business gets taxed more than the really big boys. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

 

You mean I espouse no tax on business?

 

Yes, that is the case. If there's a business tax, it should be minimal - 5% at most.

[DC Tom]

here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes

 

You just shift the problem from defining "fair" to defining "disposable". Then you have to start worrying about regional differences - median rent in DC is substantially different from median rent in San Francisco or Buffalo...

 

Bottom line is that there's no such thing as "fair" taxation - any system of taxation is going to be unfair to someone (unless you're a mouth-breathing pinhead - yes, I'm thinking of you specifically - and believe that "fair" taxation is forced redistribution of wealth). It mostly comes down to who you think should get !@#$ed, and how you think the money should be spent.

[DaveinElma]

I do.

 

Government contractor.

 

 

Ah, this explains everything.

[DC Tom]

Ah, this explains everything.

 

But remember: the squirrel runs around the tree and jumps into the hole under the tree and comes out the other side. And then your shoe is tied.

 

Now go practice some more. Hope this helps.

[DaveinElma]

But remember: the squirrel runs around the tree and jumps into the hole under the tree and comes out the other side. And then your shoe is tied.

 

Now go practice some more. Hope this helps.

 

I should have known your were a government worker-not very intelligent with an excess of free time.

[Doc]

How about 30% for everyone, no loopholes?

[birdog1960]

Not sure about the percentage, but the rest I agree with. I would add in, raise capital gains at least. Perhaps our biggest corporations could pay a bit more than the 5% or whatever they actually pay. I know GG will take me to task over that possibly as he has espoused no taxation IIRC. Still, it seems silly that small and medium business gets taxed more than the really big boys. Enlighten me if I am wrong.

you're absolutely correct

 

It's simple, rich people are the only people who can afford to hire you for a job. How many of you work or have worked directly for people who are on welfare? Let's not raise taxes for the producers, cut their taxes so that they can invest more money in their ideas. Let them assume the risk of job creation not the government. The rich will do a lot better job of picking winners than the government can.

 

Taxing the rich will not work. In 1987, the richest 1 percent paid roughly one quarter of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid 6 percent. But just 20 years later, the richest 1 percent were paying 40 percent of all income taxes and the bottom 50 percent were paying just under 3 percent. This have got us nowhere.

i work for people on welfare...and rich people too. on medicare, they all pay the same (or nearly- those with medicaid and medicare pay less). the problem with your philosophy is that the "winners" are never satisfied. if they could get away with paying 3$/ hour (and they do in third world countries) they would. that's how they became "winners" in the first place...we need checks and balances...that's what liberals mean when they say "fair".

[GG]

How about 30% for everyone, no loopholes?

 

That's way too high, as the historic effective rates have been around 20% - and that's where the flat tax should be pegged.

 

 

i work for people on welfare...and rich people too. on medicare, they all pay the same (or nearly- those with medicaid and medicare pay less). the problem with your philosophy is that the "winners" are never satisfied. if they could get away with paying 3$/ hour (and they do in third world countries) they would. that's how they became "winners" in the first place...we need checks and balances...that's what liberals mean when they say "fair".

 

and this is the epitome of liberalism, they don't think that people had a say in their lot in life and that incomes should be constantly redistributed, because all one needs is another dollar to lose their inner stupid and the rich got to where they are by lying & cheating, and not by working harder and longer.

[birdog1960]

 

 

 

 

and this is the epitome of liberalism, they don't think that people had a say in their lot in life and that incomes should be constantly redistributed, because all one needs is another dollar to lose their inner stupid and the rich got to where they are by lying & cheating, and not by working harder and longer.

a little hyperbole maybe? not at all what i said. but yes, ridiculous wealth (100's-1000's of times average compensation) is unjustifiable, not to mention inefficient. you're familiar with Deming, right? not exactly a pillar of socialism but he agreed with this. and with such vast separation it become ever more difficult to maintain a middle class. it's happening before your very eyes. do you really not see it or only choose to not see it? how much incentive is enough? there is a reasonable level and now is not it.

Edited August 4, 2011 by birdog1960

[Gene Frenkle]

The throwaway line and your point are equally invalid. Nobody here is arguing that we live in a perfectly capitalistic society. The argument is whether there's a fair contribution by everyone, especially the evil rich. You seem to be in the camp that believes that even though the wealthy pay 70% of income tax they don't pay a fair share, even though they comprise 10% of population and use up that share of resources ( probably much less of public resources)

 

So please keep up the argument that it's the wealthy that are the drain of money. It's like WNY arguing that they're bailing out NYC and downstate, even though about 80% of NYS revenues are generated in the 8 counties south of Putnam.

I didn't say any of that so I'm wondering if that's the best you can do?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I think that the whole "fairness" thing has more to do with the fact that we got into this mess because of a ballooning deficit caused by excessive spending on social programs, defense spending for 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts which by the way were supposed to sunset in 2010. Each of these these had a significant impact on the deficit. Yet when it comes time to fix the deficit, one party signs a pledge that no matter how many trillions need to be cut, it has to all come from spending on social programs.

 

Even if ethanol subsidies don't make any sense, because their repeal would take away a tax deduction, one party has decided it is untouchable.

 

The same with farm subsidies, oil subsidies and the other corporate welfare that company lobbyist have bought and paid for. Is this "fair" that they can't contribute to the solution?

 

One of the provisions of the agreement is for the elimination of subsidies loan interest for graduate school. Sounds reasonable to me. But at the same time, several Republican congressmen are protecting the huge pipeline of federal financial aid funds going to the for-profit college industry. Have you seen how much money in pell grants and student loan subsidies is going towards printing these worthless degrees? Where's the Tea Party on that one?

 

People keep bringing up how 50% of taxpayers don't pay any taxes. The largest cause of this is the Bush tax cuts. With the expansion of child tax credits, American Opportunity Credits, Earned Income credits and others, lots of people making $60k pay no taxes. Maybe the Bush tax cuts need to sunset for all, which is what the Republicans voted for when the bill originally passed.

 

2011 isn't a good time to enact sweeping spending cuts or tax increases as we sit on the edge of another recession. But any "serious" long-term solution should include both.

[birdog1960]

I think that the whole "fairness" thing has more to do with the fact that we got into this mess because of a ballooning deficit caused by excessive spending on social programs, defense spending for 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts which by the way were supposed to sunset in 2010. Each of these these had a significant impact on the deficit. Yet when it comes time to fix the deficit, one party signs a pledge that no matter how many trillions need to be cut, it has to all come from spending on social programs.

 

Even if ethanol subsidies don't make any sense, because their repeal would take away a tax deduction, one party has decided it is untouchable.

 

The same with farm subsidies, oil subsidies and the other corporate welfare that company lobbyist have bought and paid for. Is this "fair" that they can't contribute to the solution?

 

One of the provisions of the agreement is for the elimination of subsidies loan interest for graduate school. Sounds reasonable to me. But at the same time, several Republican congressmen are protecting the huge pipeline of federal financial aid funds going to the for-profit college industry. Have you seen how much money in pell grants and student loan subsidies is going towards printing these worthless degrees? Where's the Tea Party on that one?

 

People keep bringing up how 50% of taxpayers don't pay any taxes. The largest cause of this is the Bush tax cuts. With the expansion of child tax credits, American Opportunity Credits, Earned Income credits and others, lots of people making $60k pay no taxes. Maybe the Bush tax cuts need to sunset for all, which is what the Republicans voted for when the bill originally passed.

 

2011 isn't a good time to enact sweeping spending cuts or tax increases as we sit on the edge of another recession. But any "serious" long-term solution should include both.

[GG]

I didn't say any of that so I'm wondering if that's the best you can do?

 

Oops, I misread your response. (Dangers of reading forums on little phone screens)

 

a little hyperbole maybe? not at all what i said. but yes, ridiculous wealth (100's-1000's of times average compensation) is unjustifiable, not to mention inefficient. you're familiar with Deming, right? not exactly a pillar of socialism but he agreed with this. and with such vast separation it become ever more difficult to maintain a middle class. it's happening before your very eyes. do you really not see it or only choose to not see it? how much incentive is enough? there is a reasonable level and now is not it.

 

Can't disagree with the compensation disparities of the C-level suites & average workers in the US. But the best way to tackle that inequality is through the board room & workplace activism than by government dictat. Government only has one tool in its arsenal - the 50 lb sledgehammer - and that tool is only good for one thing.

[KD in CA]

here's an answer: a sliding scale percentage ( the current progressive tax scheme would do minus the bush tax cuts) of disposable income. after paying a median rent/mortgage, buying food and transportation and without loopholes

Isn't that how the system works now? There is already a standard deduction and an exemption for each person when you prepare your income tax return.

 

And what makes current tax rates 'before the Bush tax cuts' the correct or 'fair' amount?

 

 

 

Personally I do not think it's about being on the same level it's about having the same opportunities.

Ah yes, the dumbest answer of them all, the 'level playing field' fantasy. Opportunities don't come from bloated, corrupt governments attempting to punish one group so they can throw more giveaways to another. They come from intelligence, personality and hard work. Everyone has the opportunity to get an education here.

[birdog1960]

Isn't that how the system works now? There is already a standard deduction and an exemption for each person when you prepare your income tax return.

 

And what makes current tax rates 'before the Bush tax cuts' the correct or 'fair' amount

no, because of loopholes. just 2 examples (i'm certain you can think of many more): mortgage interest deduction and health savings accounts. both disproportionally benefit high earners. the guy with the million$ house has the ability to benefit much more from mortgage interest deductions than the guy with the 100k house or rental. many low earners can't afford the risk of an hsa but if you can they're a great deal tax wise, saving potentially 10's of thousands. and then of course capital gains....

 

the "fair amount" mentioned is a starting point from a level that last resulted in a budget surplus. admittedly many other factors were involved.

[KD in CA]

no, because of loopholes. just 2 examples (i'm certain you can think of many more): mortgage interest deduction and health savings accounts. both disproportionally benefit high earners. the guy with the million$ house has the ability to benefit much more from mortgage interest deductions than the guy with the 100k house or rental. many low earners can't afford the risk of an hsa but if you can they're a great deal tax wise, saving potentially 10's of thousands. and then of course capital gains....

 

the "fair amount" mentioned is a starting point from a level that last resulted in a budget surplus. admittedly many other factors were involved.

 

 

Actually, almost all deductions start to phase out once you reach even a moderately high income, so the disporportionate benefit you imagine isn't as much as you think.

 

However, I'd be in full favor of eliminating all individual exemptions and deductions (other than charitable contributions) if we had a simpler tax system. And if we did that, the only 'fair' system is a flat tax (obviously with some reasonable floor). You earn more, you pay more. If we had that, everyone would be in the same boat so we wouldn't need this bickering over who is getting a tax cut or not. I don't see how that would not be fair.

 

The current 'progressive' rate system isn't the least bit fair. You have a very small segment of the population paying a huge % of the tax burden. Here's the impact on NY State of continuing to increases taxes on only a small % of the population:

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_turns_into_flee_market_ZhSgLLASSZQcppjnOSP4vI

[Magox]

How is it that they can alter all of this yet not ask the other group not to do anything?

This is what you're up against KC.

 

Impossible to reason with people who blindly believe this.

[Barry in KC]

This is what you're up against KC.

 

Impossible to reason with people who blindly believe this.

Yeah, I know. I think it was a simple question.