What is a fair share?

[Gary M]

Joe Biden said yesterday that he wants to makes sure everyone pay their fair share of taxes

 

This table shows the top 10% pay 69% of all taxes. This doesn't seem fair to me, fair would be everyone contributes equally.

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Gary M

[PetermansRedemption]

“Fair Share” is one of my biggest pet peeve words that politicians use. To me, a fair share is a flat tax. That’s literally “fair” in the sense of the word. Obviously none of these politicians are advocating for a flat tax, so stop using the word. How is a fair share paying 70% of your income over a certain threshold? I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t enact that tax policy, I just want them to stop saying “fair share”. Start using “proportional share”. 

[US Egg]

34 minutes ago, Gary M said:

Joe Biden said yesterday that he wants to makes sure everyone pay their fair share of taxes

.....Burisma bucks not included.

[Gary M]

6 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

.....Burisma bucks not included.

 

How about 3.5 million rubles, or 300 million yen?

[Tiberius]

29 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:

“Fair Share” is one of my biggest pet peeve words that politicians use. To me, a fair share is a flat tax. That’s literally “fair” in the sense of the word. Obviously none of these politicians are advocating for a flat tax, so stop using the word. How is a fair share paying 70% of your income over a certain threshold? I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t enact that tax policy, I just want them to stop saying “fair share”. Start using “proportional share”. 

What makes me mad is that more Republicans don't take up this idea. It is so bad that I wish they were stuck with it. 

[oldmanfan]

We once again missed the chance to have a real debate this election about the real question that is ignored time and time again:  what is the role of the federal government?

 

What we have in this country is the paradox of people wanting more goods and services (social programs for the left, big military spending for the right), and low taxes.  That math simply does not work.  Wanting more things at your home without the money to pay for it does not work at your kitchen table, unless you are stupid enough to put yourself into debt you cannot handle (which admittedly happens way too often).  Why do people expect the government to be different?  We as a citizenry have acted like spoiled children for far too long.  we have let politicians act like spoiled children as well and not held  them, and ourselves, to account.

 

If, as a society, we feel that governmental programs are necessary, then we need to pony up the taxes to pay for them.  Instead, we have politicians handing out pork with no concern other that their electoral future, and paying for it by going into what is now 23 trillion dollars debt.   If as a society we feel that we shouldn't have such a vast array of federal programs, then get rid of them, and you still would have to pay higher taxes for a while to bring this absurd debt down to some manageable level.

 

I think the federal government should be doing what it is mandated to do under the Constitution.  We have far too many federal government departments and programs.  Get rid of them, rely on benevolent organizations, churches etc. to help with social needs for the poor and such, and institute a flat tax where billionaires pay a ton more than their administrative assistants, and a reasonable corporate rate.  We have to return to some sense of fiscal sanity.

 

 

[US Egg]

The Federal fat cat mindset has seeped into all levels of government and education in this country.

 

Good luck getting anything more than lip service from the lifers running or prospering from them.

 

As far as the "benevolent groups", well,  there are some, but it still a bottom line undertaking.

 

 

[Kemp]

 

[Doc]

7 hours ago, Tiberius said:

What makes me mad is that more Republicans don't take up this idea. It is so bad that I wish they were stuck with it. 

 

This could have addressed in Barry's first year.  It wasn't.  Care to guess why (no, the answer isn't "Republican Congress," Joe)?

[4merper4mer]

The left's definition of fair share has always been easily defined with one word:

 

More

[Tiberius]

14 hours ago, Doc said:

 

This could have addressed in Barry's first year.  It wasn't.  Care to guess why (no, the answer isn't "Republican Congress," Joe)?

If Republicans want a stupid flat tax they should campaign for it. The regressive tax movement would be a huge failure, and it should be. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

If Republicans want a stupid flat tax they should campaign for it. The regressive tax movement would be a huge failure, and it should be. 

Let’s see if you feel the same if you ever make some real money. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Let’s see if you feel the same if you ever make some real money. 

I'll want a flat tax when I'm a millioniaire? 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I'll want a flat tax when I'm a millioniaire? 

Yes you will. However it’s not the problem that you’re making it out to be.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 10/28/2020 at 10:16 AM, Gary M said:

Joe Biden said yesterday that he wants to makes sure everyone pay their fair share of taxes

 

This table shows the top 10% pay 69% of all taxes. This doesn't seem fair to me, fair would be everyone contributes equally.

 

 

Yeah, “fair share” is vague populist political jargon. Though I should be “fair” to Joe Biden and admit that he does have a clearly articulated tax plan on his web site, and it is distinctly to the left of Donald Trump. Now how much of that would Joe actually push for and how much could he actually achieve during his presidency? Probably very little.

 

Americans can’t ever agree on what constitutes paying a “fair share” of taxes. Liberals advocate for all types of progressive income tax codes. Far leftists demand highly progressive tax brackets to go along with stuff like Wall Street speculation taxes and aggressive closings of various tax loopholes. Libertarians seem to want flat taxes. Super libertarians probably want a Fair Tax on consumption only and not production (i.e. sales versus income). A few super duper libertarians want no taxation at all! I’m personally less interested in the ethical debates of various tax policies and more into the economic optimization ones.

 

If forcing the top 10% to pay 69% is unfair, then what approximate range for this “share of total income taxes paid” percentage number would be considered reasonable? It happens to be a number heavily dependent on the particular population income distribution. And even with a proportional (flat) tax, the wealthiest 10% could still easily end up paying a very sizable portion of the total annual federal income tax revenue that is generated and collected. They will certainly pay a much larger portion than, say, the bottom 10%. That’s just plainly how the flat tax math works out for all realistic population income distributions. And forcing the bottom 10% to pay something like, say, the same 10% of the total federal income tax revenue as the wealthiest 10% would be insanely punitive toward the poor. It would also be impractical and mathematically impossible for most budgetary demand scenarios. Furthermore, what would be considered a fair share of the tax burden for the middle class? They are the economic engine of a consumer economy, but they will have to shoulder a bigger portion of the tax burden if some of the responsibility is taken off the wealthiest decile.

 

On 10/28/2020 at 10:29 AM, PetermansRedemption said:

“Fair Share” is one of my biggest pet peeve words that politicians use. To me, a fair share is a flat tax. That’s literally “fair” in the sense of the word. Obviously none of these politicians are advocating for a flat tax, so stop using the word. How is a fair share paying 70% of your income over a certain threshold? I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t enact that tax policy, I just want them to stop saying “fair share”. Start using “proportional share”. 

 

There’s nothing fair about a flat tax!! It comes down to the marginal utility theory of income. Taxing 25% of someone who makes $1 million annually is a matter of inconvenience. Taxing 25% of the income of a single mother making $30,000 a year is a matter of survival. One of only two positive aspects of the flat tax is the simplicity in the tax code, but that’s a pathetic reason for destroying the socioeconomic mobility of a large swath of the population (it would also mean less jobs for accountants and IRS employees)! The other positive aspect is SUPPOSED to be the increase in job creation and private charity as the tax burden on the wealthy is reduced and the responsibility for improving social welfare shifts away from the government, but all the economic data I see suggests that is not actually the case in many macroeconomic scenarios (like the ones we’ve been living through for much of the past 40 years…including this current k-shaped recovery…).

 

On 10/28/2020 at 10:59 AM, Tiberius said:

What makes me mad is that more Republicans don't take up this idea. It is so bad that I wish they were stuck with it. 

 

Yes, absolutely! The flat tax would serve as the catalyst issue needed to finally unite the white working class with the rest of the American working class on the political left. Cultural issues may matter more than economic ones for many people, but everyone has their limits. Republicans can’t win elections without the white working class. If the Austrian School economic libertarians so blatantly take over the GOP like that and start peddling their proportional and regressive tax policies, expect a very turbulent political realignment era to immediately follow.

 

Actually…I’m not so sure a flat tax is even popular among those in the highest income tax bracket?? Simplified tax codes, after all, will close off many useful tax loopholes for the rich.

 

On 10/28/2020 at 11:25 AM, oldmanfan said:

We once again missed the chance to have a real debate this election about the real question that is ignored time and time again:  what is the role of the federal government?

 

What we have in this country is the paradox of people wanting more goods and services (social programs for the left, big military spending for the right), and low taxes.  That math simply does not work.  Wanting more things at your home without the money to pay for it does not work at your kitchen table, unless you are stupid enough to put yourself into debt you cannot handle (which admittedly happens way too often).  Why do people expect the government to be different?  We as a citizenry have acted like spoiled children for far too long.  we have let politicians act like spoiled children as well and not held  them, and ourselves, to account.

 

If, as a society, we feel that governmental programs are necessary, then we need to pony up the taxes to pay for them.  Instead, we have politicians handing out pork with no concern other that their electoral future, and paying for it by going into what is now 23 trillion dollars debt.   If as a society we feel that we shouldn't have such a vast array of federal programs, then get rid of them, and you still would have to pay higher taxes for a while to bring this absurd debt down to some manageable level.

 

I think the federal government should be doing what it is mandated to do under the Constitution.  We have far too many federal government departments and programs.  Get rid of them, rely on benevolent organizations, churches etc. to help with social needs for the poor and such, and institute a flat tax where billionaires pay a ton more than their administrative assistants, and a reasonable corporate rate.  We have to return to some sense of fiscal sanity.

 

But U.S. government debt is NOT the same as personal debt! Our federal government can issue its own currency (directly controlling inflation via monetary supply) and has a monopoly on risk-free treasury securities (inversely controlling interest rates via government debt). These are concepts on which Chicago schoolers, Krugman Keynesians, and MMT’ers can all agree. So the major questions and disagreements concern the “when” and “where” fiscal restraint should be practiced. As long as confidence remains high (relative to the rest of the world) in our government’s stability and as long as we are perceived to be responsible (i.e. not in danger of defaulting), I will argue that we have WAY more debt leeway than typical deficit hawks and austerity zealots think.

 

As for revisiting the expected role of our federal government: yes, plenty of government waste to trim and departments to streamline, but there is also a certain silliness to looking at a late eighteenth century document as some sacred scroll. Sure, the U.S. Constitution is a remarkably effective first draft (er…second…Articles of Confederation and all) of guidelines for organizing a society in 2020 and beyond. Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have possibly anticipated all of the technological advancements made since the Industrial Revolution, the macroeconomic experiences and ethical cases analyzed since the Age of Enlightenment, the environmental science knowledge accumulated, and just the general overall explosion of sociological complexity witnessed over 231 years. From a modern perspective, IMHO, the two biggest components of society in which we must consider the federal government’s expanded role include all aspects of health care and all levels of education (albeit in a more nuanced coordination with the states for this latter one).

 

I’d like to hear more from others on what they think would be a “reasonable” corporate tax rate. I believe Obama had 35%, Trump has 21%, and Biden wants 28%. “Reasonable” to me would be something like the GDP-weighted corporate tax rate average of the European countries plus Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. I don’t know what that would be…maybe halfway between Trump and Biden at ~25%? Then again, I wouldn’t recommend raising it while we’re still navigating through a pandemic-fueled recession.

 

EDIT: format mistake with a quoted text.

Edited November 2, 2020 by RealKayAdams

[SoCal Deek]

Thanks Kay

As usual, another really long post that completely misses the Mark. Well done. 
Switching to a flat tax (which will never happen, by the way) takes a great deal of power away from the government class. It gives everyone skin in the game and would serve to put Washington on a much needed diet. It would actually be pretty simple to enact, and it would NOT mean lowering the income of your single mother example. Since all anyone pays attention to is their NET income, the change could be made across the board rather easily. Higher earners would take a gross pay cut. Lower income earners would get a pay raise. Everyone’s NET income remains the same, as would the total intake of the federal government. Then, in Year Two, when everyone is paying the same percentage we’ll see what everyone thinks is a ‘fair’ share. Again...it’ll never happen.

[Greybeard]

11 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

But U.S. government debt is NOT the same as personal debt! Our federal government can issue its own currency (directly controlling inflation via monetary supply) and has a monopoly on risk-free treasury securities (inversely controlling interest rates via government debt). These are concepts on which Chicago schoolers, Krugman Keynesians, and MMT’ers can all agree. So the major questions and disagreements concern the “when” and “where” fiscal restraint should be practiced. As long as confidence remains high (relative to the rest of the world) in our government’s stability and as long as we are perceived to be responsible (i.e. not in danger of defaulting), I will argue that we have WAY more debt leeway than typical deficit hawks and austerity zealots think.

 

As for revisiting the expected role of our federal government: yes, plenty of government waste to trim and departments to streamline, but there is also a certain silliness to looking at a late eighteenth century document as some sacred scroll. Sure, the U.S. Constitution is a remarkably effective first draft (er…second…Articles of Confederation and all) of guidelines for organizing a society in 2020 and beyond. Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have possibly anticipated all of the technological advancements made since the Industrial Revolution, the macroeconomic experiences and ethical cases analyzed since the Age of Enlightenment, the environmental science knowledge accumulated, and just the general overall explosion of sociological complexity witnessed over 231 years. From a modern perspective, IMHO, the two biggest components of society in which we must consider the federal government’s expanded role include all aspects of health care and all levels of education (albeit in a more nuanced coordination with the states for this latter one).

 

I’d like to hear more from others on what they think would be a “reasonable” corporate tax rate. I believe Obama had 35%, Trump has 21%, and Biden wants 28%. “Reasonable” to me would be something like the GDP-weighted corporate tax rate average of the European countries plus Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. I don’t know what that would be…maybe halfway between Trump and Biden at ~25%? Then again, I wouldn’t recommend raising it while we’re still navigating through a pandemic-fueled recession.

 

EDIT: format mistake with a quoted text.

           MMT theory believes money grows on trees.  Eventually the debt will overcome the country, perhaps when the petrodollar falls.  When it does, the minimum that can be expected is a lower standard of living for most Americans.

 

          Since a flat tax would never be allowed by politicians, I would think the next best thing would be a minimum tax based on gross numbers.  There would have to an exclusion at some minimal level for individuals but not for corporations.  This would prevent individuals with large income and corporations getting away with paying no tax.  I don't consider someone like Trump or Murdock paying a minimum an evil thing, they are just applying the tax code as it stands.  The tax code is really at fault, and of course that comes from politicians.  Maybe a minimum of 10% for individuals and 15% for corporations.

[BullBuchanan]

On 10/28/2020 at 9:16 AM, Gary M said:

Joe Biden said yesterday that he wants to makes sure everyone pay their fair share of taxes

 

This table shows the top 10% pay 69% of all taxes. This doesn't seem fair to me, fair would be everyone contributes equally.

 

 

The rich don't pay income tax they pay capital gains. Income tax caps out at the upper middle class. 

[BullBuchanan]

Make America Great Again, like our WW2 Antifa forefathers did

Federal - 1945 Single Tax Brackets

Tax Bracket	Tax Rate
$0.00+	23%
$2,000.00+	25%
$4,000.00+	29%
$6,000.00+	33%
$8,000.00+	37%
$10,000.00+	41%
$12,000.00+	46%
$14,000.00+	50%
$16,000.00+	53%
$18,000.00+	56%
$20,000.00+	59%
$22,000.00+	62%
$26,000.00+	65%
$32,000.00+	68%
$38,000.00+	72%
$44,000.00+	75%
$50,000.00+	78%
$60,000.00+	81%
$70,000.00+	84%
$80,000.00+	87%
$90,000.00+	90%
$100,000.00+	92%
$150,000.00+	93%
$200,000.00+	94%

[SoCal Deek]

14 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

The rich don't pay income tax they pay capital gains. Income tax caps out at the upper middle class. 

You apparently have no idea how much I pay in taxes.