NotEliTanenbaum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2012
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 33
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
What do you think?
No I do not. I think if you got rid of loopholes and wound it back to Clinton era they would pay about what they should be paying. As for the rest of us, I think all of us making over $20,000 should be paying more federal taxes than we do right now. I don't want to, but even if we were to bring down war and welfare spending to pre-9/11 levels it would take awhile to balance everything back out and quit borrowing from other countries.
First you must define "fair share". Many, it appears that includes YOU, will not define that as either a percentage of gross or net income. What is the fair share of corporate income? What is the fair share of a worker making $30,000 per year? Is it fair to tax two ctitzens, making the same gross income different amounts, based on number of dependents, paying rent vs. paying mortagage, paying cash vs. using credit or whether they live in different zip codes? You do not even define what is rich; a single worker in NYC making $100K/year is not considered rich yet in rural MS that worker would indeed be considered to be rich.
I intentionally left "fair share" vague, I think it should be left to the reader to decide what that means.
You're right about my failure to define "rich." That was unintentional. For future posts, I'll define it as the top income decile.
No, of course not. Almost everybody pays between 20% and 30% of their income towards taxes overall. The only exceptions are people living in poverty, who pay 16%, and the super rich, who pay 15%. Obviously it is not fair for super rich people to get lower taxes than working people. All it is is corruption. They have enough money to buy politicians and they use that power to get tax perks for themselves.
Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?
What do you think?
No. Only a flat tax can give you that.
But then, the tax system is so out of balance (complicated and like a Swiss cheese), so a flat tax per se wouldn't really matter now.
"Definition of 'Regressive Tax'
A flat tax is regressive.
There is no such thing as a 'fair' share; or, at least, it is not as important as other things.
There is an optimal progressivity to the tax structure which yields the greatest prosperity for the middle class. This is the 'correct' level of tax burden distribution. Currently, there is too much money in the hands of the already wealthy... so much so that they collectively cannot find enough opportunities which are worthy of their investment. Simply put, the middle class and poor cannot consume everything the investor class could produce. This is inefficient toward the goal of overall optimal prosperity.
In brief, we need the 'Goldilocks' level of taxation of the wealthy, not what is 'fair'.
Sorry, I don't buy that. This is some socialistic gibberish, trying to present solidarity as justice. NO!
No - it is a "flat" tax. A regressive income tax would be one that taxed the lower brackets at higher rates.
Oh, and tax capital gains as standard income.
Which is why I question what defintion we're using. If by fair, we mean fair for the society, to keep America strong, then at least a regression to the pre-Bush tax cuts would be warranted. There is a valid and proper reason we and other countries have relied on a progressive tax.
However, I think some are look for a mathimatical definition of fair, like with a falt tax, same percentage. This has a certain fairness in that everyone carries some of the burden, but that does increase the burden on those least able to handle it and doesn't help grow the middle class, which is essential to the success of this country.
Nope. As referenced above:
cpwill said:A regressive income tax would be one that taxed the lower brackets at higher rates.
A flat tax doesn't distribute 'burden' evenly. Distributing burden evenly would be making it as difficult/easy for everyone to meet their tax obligation. The middle class citizen has a harder time paying ten dollars in taxes than a billionaire does paying 100 million. And we could argue endlessly about how to measure burden, but it certainly has zero to do with the percentage people pay.
But more to your point, yes a return to Clinton levels might be the ultimate goal, but something more drastic may be in order for the short term.
reading comprehension much?
We are talking about income taxes, not sales taxes.