• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taxation: What does "pay your fair share" mean?

J

jimithyashford

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
808
Reaction score
156
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We've heard a lot of talk for years, nay decades (this is a perennial political debate) about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. But what does "fair share" mean?

>To some people there is no such thing as a "fair" tax and any/all taxation like activity should only be voluntary in exchange for benefits like a Nation is a club you pay membership dues to and can opt out of if you feel you don't need their benefits.

>To some people "fair share" means all income is taxed at a flat rate across the board, that if you have $1 to your name then that $1 is taxed at the same rate as someone who has a few billion of them, and that is "fair".


I'm going to tell you what "fair" means to me. I invite your input:

To me "fair" means that the taxes you pay are proportionate to the amount of the economy you control, to the amount of wealth or business you control/drive. You do a ton of business and control a ton of wealth, you pay a ton of taxes compared to someone who controls very little. That is what seems fair to me, that the tax you pay is proportionate to what you have and what commerce you partake in. Now obviously I agree with the idea of a progressive tax that ensures you will never end up making less money because you made more, but that never the less the more and more you make, the larger % of that more you pay in taxation.

This makes sense from a economic perspective, but also a practical real world perspective, as a person who is already fantastically wealthy will not have their lifestyle/health/wellbeing negatively impacted by paying more taxes out of the additional money they continue to make on top of their existing fortune. In other words if you already have 10 Billion dollars, then only getting to keep 600 Million out of your next billion will still leave you rich and comfortable. Whereas a person with only $100 to their name probably really needs every cent out of that next $100 they have coming.

Now, to put this in broad terms as it applies to our country today. The top 1% of the country controls roughly 40% of all of the wealth in the nation, so it makes sense for them to pay roughly 40% of the taxes. Tax proportionate to wealth, that is what "fair" means in my book.
 
If you can't cite a formula to determine one's fair share, chances are, you're not actually interested in "fair," just "more."
 
fair is subjective in the current tax realm

indirect taxes are fair because the Citizen controls his own taxes

direct taxes are unfair because the government controls the Citizens taxes
 
To me, fair means each person pays the same tax rate on all of their expendable income. Expendable income means the portion of that persons income which is not necessary to provide basic necessities (i.e. food, shelter, transportation, etc.). And all income should be treated equally, no sources of income should receive special treatment.
 
jimithyashford said:
We've heard a lot of talk for years, nay decades (this is a perennial political debate) about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. But what does "fair share" mean?

>To some people there is no such thing as a "fair" tax and any/all taxation like activity should only be voluntary in exchange for benefits like a Nation is a club you pay membership dues to and can opt out of if you feel you don't need their benefits.

>To some people "fair share" means all income is taxed at a flat rate across the board, that if you have $1 to your name then that $1 is taxed at the same rate as someone who has a few billion of them, and that is "fair".


I'm going to tell you what "fair" means to me. I invite your input:

To me "fair" means that the taxes you pay are proportionate to the amount of the economy you control, to the amount of wealth or business you control/drive. You do a ton of business and control a ton of wealth, you pay a ton of taxes compared to someone who controls very little. That is what seems fair to me, that the tax you pay is proportionate to what you have and what commerce you partake in. Now obviously I agree with the idea of a progressive tax that ensures you will never end up making less money because you made more, but that never the less the more and more you make, the larger % of that more you pay in taxation.

This makes sense from a economic perspective, but also a practical real world perspective, as a person who is already fantastically wealthy will not have their lifestyle/health/wellbeing negatively impacted by paying more taxes out of the additional money they continue to make on top of their existing fortune. In other words if you already have 10 Billion dollars, then only getting to keep 600 Million out of your next billion will still leave you rich and comfortable. Whereas a person with only $100 to their name probably really needs every cent out of that next $100 they have coming.

Now, to put this in broad terms as it applies to our country today. The top 1% of the country controls roughly 40% of all of the wealth in the nation, so it makes sense for them to pay roughly 40% of the taxes. Tax proportionate to wealth, that is what "fair" means in my book.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that you have contradicted yourself here is my simple plan.

The income tax code that has only two numbers: a truly standard deduction (of say $30K) and flat tax rate (of say 20%) on annual income, from all sources, over that amount. While it has a flat rate it is also progressive relative to one's gross income. For example, one with an income of $50K would pay $4K of tax of (an 8% effective rate) while one with an income of $200K would pay 34K$ of tax (a 17% effective rate). Under that system the wealthy still pay more of the total taxes but those nearer the bottom are not getting screwed either.
 
jimithyashford said:
We've heard a lot of talk for years, nay decades (this is a perennial political debate) about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. But what does "fair share" mean?

>To some people there is no such thing as a "fair" tax and any/all taxation like activity should only be voluntary in exchange for benefits like a Nation is a club you pay membership dues to and can opt out of if you feel you don't need their benefits.

>To some people "fair share" means all income is taxed at a flat rate across the board, that if you have $1 to your name then that $1 is taxed at the same rate as someone who has a few billion of them, and that is "fair".


I'm going to tell you what "fair" means to me. I invite your input:

To me "fair" means that the taxes you pay are proportionate to the amount of the economy you control, to the amount of wealth or business you control/drive. You do a ton of business and control a ton of wealth, you pay a ton of taxes compared to someone who controls very little. That is what seems fair to me, that the tax you pay is proportionate to what you have and what commerce you partake in. Now obviously I agree with the idea of a progressive tax that ensures you will never end up making less money because you made more, but that never the less the more and more you make, the larger % of that more you pay in taxation.

This makes sense from a economic perspective, but also a practical real world perspective, as a person who is already fantastically wealthy will not have their lifestyle/health/wellbeing negatively impacted by paying more taxes out of the additional money they continue to make on top of their existing fortune. In other words if you already have 10 Billion dollars, then only getting to keep 600 Million out of your next billion will still leave you rich and comfortable. Whereas a person with only $100 to their name probably really needs every cent out of that next $100 they have coming.

Now, to put this in broad terms as it applies to our country today. The top 1% of the country controls roughly 40% of all of the wealth in the nation, so it makes sense for them to pay roughly 40% of the taxes. Tax proportionate to wealth, that is what "fair" means in my book.
Click to expand...

So if these rich people are going to be responsible for paying for the bulk of the government operations, they should have a proportional say in how it's run.

So voting power should be based on taxes paid, and bonus points awarded based on percentage of the total tax revenue provided.

I mean, somebody who contributes little to nothing to the revenue needed to run the government should have no say in how it's run, or who gets elected to run it.

:cool:
 
jimithyashford said:
We've heard a lot of talk for years, nay decades (this is a perennial political debate) about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. But what does "fair share" mean?

>To some people there is no such thing as a "fair" tax and any/all taxation like activity should only be voluntary in exchange for benefits like a Nation is a club you pay membership dues to and can opt out of if you feel you don't need their benefits.

>To some people "fair share" means all income is taxed at a flat rate across the board, that if you have $1 to your name then that $1 is taxed at the same rate as someone who has a few billion of them, and that is "fair".


I'm going to tell you what "fair" means to me. I invite your input:

To me "fair" means that the taxes you pay are proportionate to the amount of the economy you control, to the amount of wealth or business you control/drive. You do a ton of business and control a ton of wealth, you pay a ton of taxes compared to someone who controls very little. That is what seems fair to me, that the tax you pay is proportionate to what you have and what commerce you partake in. Now obviously I agree with the idea of a progressive tax that ensures you will never end up making less money because you made more, but that never the less the more and more you make, the larger % of that more you pay in taxation.

This makes sense from a economic perspective, but also a practical real world perspective, as a person who is already fantastically wealthy will not have their lifestyle/health/wellbeing negatively impacted by paying more taxes out of the additional money they continue to make on top of their existing fortune. In other words if you already have 10 Billion dollars, then only getting to keep 600 Million out of your next billion will still leave you rich and comfortable. Whereas a person with only $100 to their name probably really needs every cent out of that next $100 they have coming.

Now, to put this in broad terms as it applies to our country today. The top 1% of the country controls roughly 40% of all of the wealth in the nation, so it makes sense for them to pay roughly 40% of the taxes. Tax proportionate to wealth, that is what "fair" means in my book.
Click to expand...

The definition of 'fair share' is whatever is in the mind of the person that says 'fair share'. Some are thinking that 90% income taxation is fair.
I don't possibly see how, but that's what they think, and properly draws attention to the 'subjectiveness' of the that term. Everyone's idea of 'fair' is vastly different.
 
eohrnberger said:
The definition of 'fair share' is whatever is in the mind of the person that says 'fair share'. Some are thinking that 90% income taxation is fair.
I don't possibly see how, but that's what they think, and properly draws attention to the 'subjectiveness' of the that term. Everyone's idea of 'fair' is vastly different.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is true but it is (should be?) based on what the government's "fair share" of the GDP is. Presently (based on current spending) that is about 20% of GDP at the federal level. The argument then becomes: how will that level of taxation be achieved?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I suppose that is true but it is (should be?) based on what the government's "fair share" of the GDP is. Presently (based on current spending) that is about 20% of GDP at the federal level. The argument then becomes: how will that level of taxation be achieved?
Click to expand...

True. No one is disputing that there needs to be a federal government, nor that this government needs to be properly funded.

I think it equally legitimate a position to think that the federal government shouldn't be funded a single dime more than it really needs, and that there should be a measure of self-reliance that the population should adopt (yes, local charity efforts mitigate the full fledged self-reliance for those less fortunate, but its not something I think the government need be so deeply involved in - i.e. the choosing of winners and losers, whom to take from and whom to give to).
 
jimithyashford said:
We've heard a lot of talk for years, nay decades (this is a perennial political debate) about the rich paying their fair share of taxes. But what does "fair share" mean?

>To some people there is no such thing as a "fair" tax and any/all taxation like activity should only be voluntary in exchange for benefits like a Nation is a club you pay membership dues to and can opt out of if you feel you don't need their benefits.

>To some people "fair share" means all income is taxed at a flat rate across the board, that if you have $1 to your name then that $1 is taxed at the same rate as someone who has a few billion of them, and that is "fair".


I'm going to tell you what "fair" means to me. I invite your input:

To me "fair" means that the taxes you pay are proportionate to the amount of the economy you control, to the amount of wealth or business you control/drive. You do a ton of business and control a ton of wealth, you pay a ton of taxes compared to someone who controls very little. That is what seems fair to me, that the tax you pay is proportionate to what you have and what commerce you partake in. Now obviously I agree with the idea of a progressive tax that ensures you will never end up making less money because you made more, but that never the less the more and more you make, the larger % of that more you pay in taxation.

This makes sense from a economic perspective, but also a practical real world perspective, as a person who is already fantastically wealthy will not have their lifestyle/health/wellbeing negatively impacted by paying more taxes out of the additional money they continue to make on top of their existing fortune. In other words if you already have 10 Billion dollars, then only getting to keep 600 Million out of your next billion will still leave you rich and comfortable. Whereas a person with only $100 to their name probably really needs every cent out of that next $100 they have coming.

Now, to put this in broad terms as it applies to our country today. The top 1% of the country controls roughly 40% of all of the wealth in the nation, so it makes sense for them to pay roughly 40% of the taxes. Tax proportionate to wealth, that is what "fair" means in my book.
Click to expand...


I would work into your plan that above the average cost-of-living in $, based on single, number in household, geographical location, any etc., is not taxed. Also, that whatever the final tax is, that the average national savings account amount be deducted. Last I heard that was $4,220. And, yes, that we have a progressive tax based on net worth between the top 1% of what portion of the US they are equal to, adjusted annually. As of 2010, the 40th percentile net worth was $22,026, would pay 1% in gross taxes. Their average household income was $41,600. The top 1% was $36,644,280 in net worth would pay 40% in gross taxes. As of 2014, their average household income was $1.3M.

You could apply the same tax plan to business and give relief to small business.

Of course, you’d have to run the number to see what the numbers and do a risk analysis to see what the consequences, both positive and negative would be.
Your tax plan is definitely a wish list item, but looks practicable to me, IMO.
 
There is no such thing as a "fair share". No matter how you structure it somebody is always going to be disproportionately burdened depending on what metric you use. With a progressive tax the rich are disproportionately burdened because they pay a higher percentage. With a flat tax or consumption tax the poor and middle class are disproportionately burdened because it cuts into a higher percentage of their non-discretionary income.

So my philosophy is if someone is going to be disproportionately burdened it should be those who can best shoulder it.
 
I pay too much. Trump pays too little. /thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom