Fair Share

[finknottle]

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

 

The current progressive tax scheme *with the Bush tax cuts* is still a sliding scale precentage of disposable income. The 'after paying' stuff is accounted for by the personal deduction.

 

The question remains - if I earn $500k, what is my fair share of taxes? How much should I be allowed to keep?

 

Here's a separate question: If I am single and earning 200k, I am told I am rich and need to pay my fair share through higher taxes. But what if I earn 200k because I am busting my butt for a few years working 80 hrs a week at two 100k jobs, trying to get ahead and save for the future? Am I still considered rich and therefore not paying my fair share?

[3rdnlng]

The current progressive tax scheme *with the Bush tax cuts* is still a sliding scale precentage of disposable income. The 'after paying' stuff is accounted for by the personal deduction.

 

The question remains - if I earn $500k, what is my fair share of taxes? How much should I be allowed to keep?

 

Here's a separate question: If I am single and earning 200k, I am told I am rich and need to pay my fair share through higher taxes. But what if I earn 200k because I am busting my butt for a few years working 80 hrs a week at two 100k jobs, trying to get ahead and save for the future? Am I still considered rich and therefore not paying my fair share?

 

It's simple, if you are making more than pBrain you are rich and not paying your fair share.

[pBills]

It's simple, if you are making more than pBrain you are rich and not paying your fair share.

 

 

Again... proving how brilliant you are and why nothing can get done in this country.

[Gene Frenkle]

The current progressive tax scheme *with the Bush tax cuts* is still a sliding scale precentage of disposable income. The 'after paying' stuff is accounted for by the personal deduction.

 

The question remains - if I earn $500k, what is my fair share of taxes? How much should I be allowed to keep?

 

Here's a separate question: If I am single and earning 200k, I am told I am rich and need to pay my fair share through higher taxes. But what if I earn 200k because I am busting my butt for a few years working 80 hrs a week at two 100k jobs, trying to get ahead and save for the future? Am I still considered rich and therefore not paying my fair share?

You need to do one of several things...

 

1. Pay back into the system that allows you to make $500K or the system that allows you to make $500K will fall apart.

2. Come up with a better system and start your own country.

3. Move to a country which is using a better system.

 

Good luck!

[DC Tom]

1. Pay back into the system that allows you to make $500K or the system that allows you to make $500K will fall apart.

 

 

Unless you're a government contractor, I don't see what system "allows" you to make $500k. At best, the "system" stays out of your way.

[3rdnlng]

You need to do one of several things...

 

1. Pay back into the system that allows you to make $500K or the system that allows you to make $500K will fall apart.

2. Come up with a better system and start your own country.

3. Move to a country which is using a better system.

 

Good luck!

 

What is his fair share though?

[GG]

You need to do one of several things...

 

1. Pay back into the system that allows you to make $500K or the system that allows you to make $500K will fall apart.

 

This guy likely pays about $100K in federal income taxes, while the guy making $50K likely pays $5K in income taxes. 10x salary = 20x in taxes. Fair?

 

 

2. Come up with a better system and start your own country.

 

The entire foundation of the US law is the protection and respect of private property, with the tax system an outgrowth of that ethos. The tax code has always been designed to allow the entrepreneurs, innovators and workers to maximize their utility without fear of a land grab from the government.

 

It's only in the last generation that you're seeing the importation of the European progressive thought that greater taxation and government involvement leads to a better life.

 

So there's really no reason to start a better system or start your own country, when you're defending your own country from the nanny state invasion.

 

3. Move to a country which is using a better system.

 

Good luck!

 

See #2.

[Gene Frenkle]

This guy likely pays about $100K in federal income taxes, while the guy making $50K likely pays $5K in income taxes. 10x salary = 20x in taxes. Fair?

$400K > $45K and the guy taking home $400K wouldn't be doing so if it weren't for the guy taking home $45K. All part of the same system.

 

Also, life is not fair.

 

 

The entire foundation of the US law is the protection and respect of private property, with the tax system an outgrowth of that ethos. The tax code has always been designed to allow the entrepreneurs, innovators and workers to maximize their utility without fear of a land grab from the government.

 

It's only in the last generation that you're seeing the importation of the European progressive thought that greater taxation and government involvement leads to a better life.

 

So there's really no reason to start a better system or start your own country, when you're defending your own country from the nanny state invasion.

Unless the system is perfect, which it's far from, you can ALWAYS improve on the system. The rest of that is just rhetoric.

[DC Tom]

$400K > $45K and the guy taking home $400K wouldn't be doing so if it weren't for the guy taking home $45K. All part of the same system.

 

Yeah, right. I couldn't have made $150k last year if it wasn't for some sixteen year-old burger-flipper supporting me.

 

Now you're just being !@#$ing ridiculous.

 

Also, life is not fair.

 

And will continue to not be fair, no matter how much you try to legislate fairness.

[GG]

$400K > $45K and the guy taking home $400K wouldn't be doing so if it weren't for the guy taking home $45K. All part of the same system.

 

 

You know how yesterday I said that I misread your post, I take that back. It was only a matter of time until you reverted to form.

 

Yes, that guy making $500K only did so by stepping on the backs of the poor saps on his way up.

[Dante]

$400K > $45K and the guy taking home $400K wouldn't be doing so if it weren't for the guy taking home $45K. All part of the same system.

 

Also, life is not fair.

 

 

 

Unless the system is perfect, which it's far from, you can ALWAYS improve on the system. The rest of that is just rhetoric.

Damn. Miss the Soviet Union much? geeze. This country was created to get away from people exactly like you. How about, if it weren't for the guy who makes 400k the 45k guy wouldn't have a job. Especially if he depends on the government to give it to him.

I agree the US system isn't perfect but its as close as any other society has come. And leftist have been trying to "improve" it for 80 years or so. Look where its got us.

[DC Tom]

You know how yesterday I said that I misread your post, I take that back. It was only a matter of time until you reverted to form.

 

Yes, that guy making $500K only did so by stepping on the backs of the poor saps on his way up.

 

Actually, I think his point was that the guy making $500k only did so because of the poor saps doing the scut work in the world, so he didn't have to think about it.

 

I'm still missing the part where that requires the guy making $500k to pay in order to maintain "the system". What kind of !@#$ing system is he advocating now? Are we now taxing the rich in order to keep the poor poor, so the rich can be rich?

[Gene Frenkle]

And will continue to not be fair, no matter how much you try to legislate fairness.

When we are living in Robot Utopia, life will be wonderful for all.

 

Until the robots take over, that is.

 

You know how yesterday I said that I misread your post, I take that back. It was only a matter of time until you reverted to form.

 

Yes, that guy making $500K only did so by stepping on the backs of the poor saps on his way up.

All part of the same system. One would not exist without the other.

 

Damn. Miss the Soviet Union much? geeze. This country was created to get away from people exactly like you. How about, if it weren't for the guy who makes 400k the 45k guy wouldn't have a job. Especially if he depends on the government to give it to him.

I agree the US system isn't perfect but its as close as any other society has come. And leftist have been trying to "improve" it for 80 years or so. Look where its got us.

Yes, our Capitalist System (if that's what you want to call it) is perfect and there're are no more improvements that could possibly make it better. Since we've completely solved that one, perhaps we should next concentrate on a real challenge like cold fusion and solve that whole energy problem.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Gene Frenkle

[KD in CA]

Actually, I think his point was that the guy making $500k only did so because of the poor saps doing the scut work in the world, so he didn't have to think about it.

 

I'm still missing the part where that requires the guy making $500k to pay in order to maintain "the system". What kind of !@#$ing system is he advocating now? Are we now taxing the rich in order to keep the poor poor, so the rich can be rich?

 

 

I think Gene has been taking logic lessons from EII.

[birdog1960]

This guy likely pays about $100K in federal income taxes, while the guy making $50K likely pays $5K in income taxes. 10x salary = 20x in taxes. Fair?

 

so what do you figure the disposable income of each is? assuming the guy making 50k is being taxed on this alone, the assumption would be 15k. using that same number (35k) for necessities. the 500k earner has a disposable income of465k. so the guy payin 5k on his 15k disposable income is paying more as a percentage than the guy making 500k. how is that fair?

Edited August 4, 2011 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

so what do you figure the disposable income of each is? assuming the guy making 50k is being taxed on this alone, the assumption would be 15k. using that same number (35k) for necessities. the 500k earner has a disposable income of465k. so the guy payin 5k on his 15k disposable income is paying more as a percentage than the guy making 500k. how is that fair?

 

So fair would be both of them paying 33% of disposable income?

 

Just curious...does "disposable income" exclude the $500k earner's work expenses?

[birdog1960]

So fair would be both of them paying 33% of disposable income?

 

Just curious...does "disposable income" exclude the $500k earner's work expenses?

ah and there lies the source of our disagreement. what is essential and what is disposable? i would argue that essentials should be the same for all. if someone making 50k is expected to survive on 35 or 40k depending on dependents, then the high earner should be held to the same standard. everything else is disposable. and i would argue that fair would be the current progressive scale minus the bush tax cuts on disposable income.

Edited August 5, 2011 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

ah and there lies the source of our disagreement. what is essential and what is disposable? i would argue that essentials should be the same for all. if someone making 50k is expected to survive on 35 or 40k depending on dependents, then the high earner should be held to the same standard. everything else is disposable.

 

So all the expenses you incur in your practice should be after-tax expenses?

[birdog1960]

So all the expenses you incur in your practice should be after-tax expenses?

all my expenses go through my pc. not on my individual return. don't see why that couldn't apply to everyone.

[GG]

all my expenses go through my pc. not on my individual return. don't see why that couldn't apply to everyone.

Sounds like a tax loop hole to me.

[birdog1960]

Sounds like a tax loop hole to me.

you're an idiot

[pBills]

Damn. Miss the Soviet Union much? geeze. This country was created to get away from people exactly like you. How about, if it weren't for the guy who makes 400k the 45k guy wouldn't have a job. Especially if he depends on the government to give it to him.

I agree the US system isn't perfect but its as close as any other society has come. And leftist have been trying to "improve" it for 80 years or so. Look where its got us.

 

 

I find this funny. It's the same ol' crap. If it wasn't for the guy making the decisions (making $400k) the other guy wouldn't be anything. People have to remember the guy making $400k also isn't doing the down and dirty work which in many cases keeps a company moving. Same thing can also be said that the guy making $400k can also be the one who F's over other workers by making bad decisions.

 

Not sure why the Soviet Union relates to someone saying that we can always be better. That should be a common goal for everyone. So in your mind the U.S. system is very close to being perfect and should never be improved upon. Makes sense. As the world moves forward the "perfect" system is the one which is making changes, adapting and moving forward. Trying to be the best, not just preserving the past.

[GG]

you're an idiot

Really? So your expenses are OK because they go through the PC? Why isn't that a loophole?

[birdog1960]

Really? So your expenses are OK because they go through the PC? Why isn't that a loophole?

because they aren't personal expenses. paper for the copy machine, water, electric, decent wages for the employees don't personally benefit me. if i closed my business and became an employee, i would lose no loophole. i'd actually almost certainly do better.

[GG]

because they aren't personal expenses. paper for the copy machine, water, electric, decent wages for the employees don't personally benefit me. if i closed my business and became an employee, i would lose no loophole. i'd actually almost certainly do better.

 

And who gets to determine whether one set of deductions is more fair than another? Why is you paying an someone to answer your phone calls a deductible expense, while me paying a guy to fix a roof on my house is not? Sounds like a handout to business special interests to me.

[3rdnlng]

And who gets to determine whether one set of deductions is more fair than another? Why is you paying an someone to answer your phone calls a deductible expense, while me paying a guy to fix a roof on my house is not? Sounds like a handout to business special interests to me.

 

Because the roof on your house is not a business expense.

[birdog1960]

And who gets to determine whether one set of deductions is more fair than another? Why is you paying an someone to answer your phone calls a deductible expense, while me paying a guy to fix a roof on my house is not? Sounds like a handout to business special interests to me.

um, congress, maybe? and we've all recently seen how fair and pragmatic it can be. stop being ridiculous...it's unbecoming

[Kevbeau]

I find this funny. It's the same ol' crap. If it wasn't for the guy making the decisions (making $400k) the other guy wouldn't be anything. People have to remember the guy making $400k also isn't doing the down and dirty work which in many cases keeps a company moving. Same thing can also be said that the guy making $400k can also be the one who F's over other workers by making bad decisions.

 

Depends on the definition of "dirty work." I get the feeling you have a perception of people at that socioeconomic rung as a bunch of sherry swilling country club goers...keep watching TV. Most of them are extreme workaholics, who do the "down & dirty work" through a combination of intelligence & risk analysis and are compensated for that. You can go out and find another guy to put Nut A on Bolt B, but the kind of people you're referring to don't grow on trees.

[GG]

um, congress, maybe? and we've all recently seen how fair and pragmatic it can be. stop being ridiculous...it's unbecoming

 

Yes, I know Congress deems business expenses valid, but personal expenses invalid. But how is that more fair, since that's the topic at hand? In both cases you are paying a person for services rendered.

[3rdnlng]

Yes, I know Congress deems business expenses valid, but personal expenses invalid. But how is that more fair, since that's the topic at hand? In both cases you are paying a person for services rendered.

 

One is in the act of making a living while the other one is a personal expense.

[GG]

One is in the act of making a living while the other one is a personal expense.

 

So, what? An expense is an expense. Why is one more fair than the other?

[3rdnlng]

So, what? An expense is an expense. Why is one more fair than the other?

 

 

Take it to the exreme then. Let's say you own a manufacturing company that has 500 employees. If I can't deduct the weekly massage that Candy gives me, should you be prevented from deducting the wages and benefits of your 500 employees?

[GG]

Take it to the exreme then. Let's say you own a manufacturing company that has 500 employees. If I can't deduct the weekly massage that Candy gives me, should you be prevented from deducting the wages and benefits of your 500 employees?

 

There's no extreme. Why can't somebody answer a simple question? If this debate is about fairness, why are business expenses deemed fair, while personal expenses are not?

[DC Tom]

There's no extreme. Why can't somebody answer a simple question? If this debate is about fairness, why are business expenses deemed fair, while personal expenses are not?

 

Who said business expenses were fair?

 

I originally asked if the hypothetical guy making $500k should be allowed to deduct his costs related to making $500k...birddung's answer was that everyone should subject to the same deduction for basic living expenses, everything above that was discretionary.

 

But now they're apparently only deductible if Mr. Hypothetical is a corporation.

 

In other words, birddog wants to tax individuals, but give tax breaks to corporations.

 

In the interest of "fairness".

 

Good argument, birddog.

[GG]

Who said business expenses were fair?

 

I originally asked if the hypothetical guy making $500k should be allowed to deduct his costs related to making $500k...birddung's answer was that everyone should subject to the same deduction for basic living expenses, everything above that was discretionary.

 

But now they're apparently only deductible if Mr. Hypothetical is a corporation.

 

In other words, birddog wants to tax individuals, but give tax breaks to corporations.

 

In the interest of "fairness".

 

Good argument, birddog.

 

Question really wasn't meant for you, idiot, as you're not supposed to give the answers away.

[DC Tom]

Question really wasn't meant for you, idiot, as you're not supposed to give the answers away.

 

Oh, I know. And I've enjoyed watching you try to get him to realize his own raging stupidity. But face it, you were never going to get a coherent answer from him, and it was time to wave his raging stupidity in his face and let him try to weasel out of the hypocritical swamp he's stuck himself in.

 

Though we probably could have simply sent him a copy of "Animal Farm".

[Barry in KC]

Again, the talking point of the year is: " The wealthiest Americans should give their fair share."

 

What does "Fair Share" mean and who is it that decides what fair is?

[finknottle]

I find this funny. It's the same ol' crap. If it wasn't for the guy making the decisions (making $400k) the other guy wouldn't be anything. People have to remember the guy making $400k also isn't doing the down and dirty work which in many cases keeps a company moving. Same thing can also be said that the guy making $400k can also be the one who F's over other workers by making bad decisions.

 

And what if I live and work overseas? Why is the US demanding my money in excess of what I pay the local government?

[DC Tom]

Again, the talking point of the year is: " The wealthiest Americans should give their fair share."

 

What does "Fair Share" mean and who is it that decides what fair is?

 

"Fair share" means unfair share.

 

As decided by people who think it's unfair that they're wealthy.

[finknottle]

You need to do one of several things...

 

1. Pay back into the system that allows you to make $500K or the system that allows you to make $500K will fall apart.

2. Come up with a better system and start your own country.

3. Move to a country which is using a better system.

 

Good luck!

 

Untill you take a position on what fair share actually is, I can only assume from your postings that you will always define it as 'more,' regardless of whether they pay 50%, 80%, or 99% of their income.