• 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!

What is a "fair tax" for the bottom 50%

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In another thread a conservative poster made this argument...

Remember, there are people in that 44% who don't earn money at all. They are on the Gov teat to begin with
[...]


The point is, they pay Nada, zero, zilch and zelda towards the militarily...(protection)
Click to expand...

That makes little sense to me. Not even as a matter of fairness but as a matter of simple math.

The total Adjusted Gross Income of the country is about $11 trillion. The top 50% has about $10 trillion and the bottom 50% had about $1 trillion. We spend, as a country, about $1.5 trillion in income taxes. About 97% of that is covered by the top 50% and the remaining 3% by the bottom 50%.

My question is how much would the bottom 50% have to pay for it to be fair?

Nominally speak, half of $1.5 trillion is about $750 billion. That means the bottom 50% would have to pay 75% of their combined income to cover half the country's tax burden.

Keep in mind that to be in the bottom 50%, you have to make less than $40,000 a year.

So are the folks who are making $40,000 a year "living off the government teet" if they are not contributing $30,000 a year (75%) to income taxes? That is how I interpret the quote above. The poster is claiming that those who pay little or no taxes are a burden.

I can't figure out what a "fair share" tax for the bottom 50% would look like to conservatives. The top 50% will always pay more, which means no matter how much the bottom 50% pays, it will never be enough.
 
CriticalThought said:
In another thread a conservative poster made this argument... Remember, there are people in that 44% who don't earn money at all. They are on the Gov teat to begin with [...] That makes little sense to me. Not even as a matter of fairness but as a matter of simple math. I can't figure out what a "fair share" tax for the bottom 50% would look like to conservatives. The top 50% will always pay more, which means no matter how much the bottom 50% pays, it will never be enough.
Click to expand...

I was recently made aware of a tax provision that's been on the books for a long time, but recently got popular in around 2015, for IPOs. Basically, if you own a company and can issue stock for that ownership, and own it for at least 5 years, you don't have to pay long term cap gains (15%...laughing at you people making $80K paying higher taxes), you pay 0% taxes. Republicans pushed to keep this on the books of course. Anyone can look this up, and yes you can thank me if it applies to you and you were not aware.

Fair is a concept the rabble simply don't understand...to them concepts that are important, are to be ridiculed and laughed at. Fair is what you can manage to take...and they applaud it, while decrying it in other ways. They are ignorant fools.

The idea that you are looking to "make sense" of modern conservative brainwashed rhetoric is what doesn't make sense. You know they do not use reason first and foremost. You know they have no interest in concepts like truth, fair, reasonable, compromise, sense, good will, etc. unless they feel it helps them (cost to others is ultimately irrelevant).

You see it 1000 times a day on this forum. The constant trolling that they pass of as "discussion". The parroting of Hannity and company as reasonable. And when challenged, having absolutely no issue denying reality, or simply trolling in response. It's like when you have an assignment in school you need to get a good grade on, and you're assigned to work in a group. Some of the group will do nothing...you have to carry their sorry asses. Elites in this country figure if they have to carry these intentionally idiotic conservatives, that they will milk them for their money and power so at least the wealth/elites can enjoy working with such morons. Many Democrats instead spend their time trying to show them why slacking off on a "group project" is counterproductive. And round and round we go.
 
There is no such thing as "fair tax," that is ideological in presentation but not economically sound in any regard. Even saying "what is fair to tax" for any income ends up clouded in political desire against economic impact.
 
Fairness does not apply.

Letting my kids have equal driving time is fair, yet my son is 7, so probably not advisable.

You want the maximum amount of people to have the maximum amount of disposable income. Period.
 
Mach said:
I was recently made aware of a tax provision that's been on the books for a long time, but recently got popular in around 2015, for IPOs. Basically, if you own a company and can issue stock for that ownership, and own it for at least 5 years, you don't have to pay long term cap gains (15%...laughing at you people making $80K paying higher taxes), you pay 0% taxes. Republicans pushed to keep this on the books of course. Anyone can look this up, and yes you can thank me if it applies to you and you were not aware.

Fair is a concept the rabble simply don't understand...to them concepts that are important, are to be ridiculed and laughed at. Fair is what you can manage to take...and they applaud it, while decrying it in other ways. They are ignorant fools.

The idea that you are looking to "make sense" of modern conservative brainwashed rhetoric is what doesn't make sense. You know they do not use reason first and foremost. You know they have no interest in concepts like truth, fair, reasonable, compromise, sense, good will, etc. unless they feel it helps them (cost to others is ultimately irrelevant).

You see it 1000 times a day on this forum. The constant trolling that they pass of as "discussion". The parroting of Hannity and company as reasonable. And when challenged, having absolutely no issue denying reality, or simply trolling in response. It's like when you have an assignment in school you need to get a good grade on, and you're assigned to work in a group. Some of the group will do nothing...you have to carry their sorry asses. Elites in this country figure if they have to carry these intentionally idiotic conservatives, that they will milk them for their money and power so at least the wealth/elites can enjoy working with such morons. Many Democrats instead spend their time trying to show them why slacking off on a "group project" is counterproductive. And round and round we go.
Click to expand...

While you are spewing invective at the conservative idea of using a lighter tax hand on entrepreneurs is a consertave plot to “hold the little guy down”, you somehow manage to ignore the tax burden imposed by most blue states. In California, a breathing tax is certainly being discussed.

Federal tax policy is not blind, nor should it be blind to encouraging risk capital, and yes there is certainly abuse. The tax code is known as “The Book of Favors and Abuses”. Be my guest and try to get the law changed. Good luck with that.
 
CriticalThought said:
In another thread a conservative poster made this argument...



That makes little sense to me. Not even as a matter of fairness but as a matter of simple math.

The total Adjusted Gross Income of the country is about $11 trillion. The top 50% has about $10 trillion and the bottom 50% had about $1 trillion. We spend, as a country, about $1.5 trillion in income taxes. About 97% of that is covered by the top 50% and the remaining 3% by the bottom 50%.

My question is how much would the bottom 50% have to pay for it to be fair?

Nominally speak, half of $1.5 trillion is about $750 billion. That means the bottom 50% would have to pay 75% of their combined income to cover half the country's tax burden.

Keep in mind that to be in the bottom 50%, you have to make less than $40,000 a year.

So are the folks who are making $40,000 a year "living off the government teet" if they are not contributing $30,000 a year (75%) to income taxes? That is how I interpret the quote above. The poster is claiming that those who pay little or no taxes are a burden.

I can't figure out what a "fair share" tax for the bottom 50% would look like to conservatives. The top 50% will always pay more, which means no matter how much the bottom 50% pays, it will never be enough.
Click to expand...
He complains about the 44% of low income earners not paying any FIT but doesn't say a word about large Corporations making millions if not billions in US profits not paying a cent in US income taxes
the GAO posted that in 2017 42% of all US corps. making over a Million dollars in US profits did NOT pay a cent in FIT and that they expected that percent to go up to 65% after the Trump tax cuts
I guess he expects people that are working making min. wage some working 2 jobs and a spouse working too and just getting by to pay more in FIT then a large corp. making millions if not billions in US profits
Have a nice night
 
I don't think your stats are right, but assuming they were, then the bottom 50% should just not have to pay taxes because clearly they don't make enough for it to matter.
 
KevinKohler said:
Fairness does not apply.
Letting my kids have equal driving time is fair, yet my son is 7, so probably not advisable.
You want the maximum amount of people to have the maximum amount of disposable income. Period.
Click to expand...

Short term or long term? Aha.
 
chuckiechan said:
While you are spewing invective at the conservative idea of using a lighter tax hand on entrepreneurs is a consertave plot to “hold the little guy down”, you somehow manage to ignore the tax burden imposed by most blue states. In California, a breathing tax is certainly being discussed.
Click to expand...
Because I post X, I therefore ignore Y in the totality of my discourse?

That's stupid chuckiechan, why did you type it?

Federal tax policy is not blind, nor should it be blind to encouraging risk capital, and yes there is certainly abuse..
Click to expand...
It's not abuse, it's been on the books for I believe, over a decade. It's use, by Republicans. Stop acting so ignorant, it's depressing. If you admit it's abuse, then you admit it's wrong. And if it's wrong, ethically you should support fixing it it...but...
The tax code is known as “The Book of Favors and Abuses”. Be my guest and try to get the law changed. Good luck with that
Click to expand...

But you throw up your hands in futility and defeat, and support their "abuse and favors"? Might as well change your lean to Nihilist.

Why can't you learn to reason?
 
A flat tax for everyone, same rate, no exceptions, no deductions except for children.
 
joko104 said:
A flat tax for everyone, same rate, no exceptions, no deductions except for children.
Click to expand...
that would be more fair if it included large Corporations
you could possibly keep it as low as 10 percent for everybody.
again that percentage is arbitrary it could be more or less , it has to generate enough revenue to support the Federal Government,
and If you have personal exemptions of what they estimate it costs per year to raise a child
and as I have suggested before pass a law where the Government can not spend more then it takes in except in time of war or a real bad recession/depression
and a 1 percent sales tax dedicated just to paying off the national debt and would be repealed after it is paid off and could be reinstated IF we had to run a debt because of a war or a bad recession/depression
Have a nice afternoon
 
joko104 said:
A flat tax for everyone, same rate, no exceptions, no deductions except for children.
Click to expand...

The rich love love love that idea. They pay less and the poor pays more
 
vegas giants said:
The rich love love love that idea. They pay less and the poor pays more
Click to expand...
if would be fair IF you could deduct what it costs a year to raise a child
it is est. that it costs between 13 to 15000 a year so if you could deduct 14,000 a year per child a family with 2 kids could deduct 28000 a year 4000 more then the standard deduction is now.
a family of 5 could deduct 42,000 a year
and as I said a 10% tax rate
have a nice day
 
Tbird19482 said:
if would be fair IF you could deduct what it costs a year to raise a child
it is est. that it costs between 13 to 15000 a year so if you could deduct 14,000 a year per child a family with 2 kids could deduct 28000 a year 4000 more then the standard deduction is now.
a family of 5 could deduct 42,000 a year
and as I said a 10% tax rate
have a nice day
Click to expand...

Even then the poor would pay more and the rich less
 
CriticalThought said:
In another thread a conservative poster made this argument...

"Remember, there are people in that 44% who don't earn money at all. They are on the Gov teat to begin with"
Click to expand...

They're trying to "veil" their real suspicion, which is that they're convinced that fully HALF the country isn't working at all and the poor put upon con-tards are supporting half the country.

The Reagan Welfare Queen myth ON STEROIDS.

Meanwhile...

scooter patriot.jpg
 
CriticalThought said:
We spend, as a country, about $1.5 trillion in income taxes. About 97% of that is covered by the top 50% and the remaining 3% by the bottom 50%.
Click to expand...

Something is off here. What we spend is NOT covered by the 100% of collections at all. That's why we run deficits and have a huge debt.

CriticalThought said:
My question is how much would the bottom 50% have to pay for it to be fair?
Click to expand...

People that often complain about this assume it would be a flat tax on income; not what you mentioned in the rest of your post (where everyone pays the same dollar amount)

What often does NOT get reported is all those OTHER taxes people play, aside from (federal) income tax. Because many are regressive (based on percentage of income that goes towards paying them), overall, we do NOT seem to have a very progressive tax system, after all...

taxes_barely_regressive.jpg
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
In another thread a conservative poster made this argument...



That makes little sense to me. Not even as a matter of fairness but as a matter of simple math.

The total Adjusted Gross Income of the country is about $11 trillion. The top 50% has about $10 trillion and the bottom 50% had about $1 trillion. We spend, as a country, about $1.5 trillion in income taxes. About 97% of that is covered by the top 50% and the remaining 3% by the bottom 50%.

My question is how much would the bottom 50% have to pay for it to be fair?

Nominally speak, half of $1.5 trillion is about $750 billion. That means the bottom 50% would have to pay 75% of their combined income to cover half the country's tax burden.

Keep in mind that to be in the bottom 50%, you have to make less than $40,000 a year.

So are the folks who are making $40,000 a year "living off the government teet" if they are not contributing $30,000 a year (75%) to income taxes? That is how I interpret the quote above. The poster is claiming that those who pay little or no taxes are a burden.

I can't figure out what a "fair share" tax for the bottom 50% would look like to conservatives. The top 50% will always pay more, which means no matter how much the bottom 50% pays, it will never be enough.
Click to expand...

So you believe it is fair for income earning Americans to pay ZERO for FEDERAL INCOME TAXES to fund the operating expenses of the gov't that gives them the opportunity to earn income in this country through defense? It does seem that the problem here is that far too many have no understanding as to what taxes people pay and what FIT was created to fund. I have posted the line items many times only to be ignored.. 44% of income earning Americans pay ZERO where the top 1% pay 40%, is that fair?
 
Slavister said:
Something is off here. What we spend is NOT covered by the 100% of collections at all. That's why we run deficits and have a huge debt.



People that often complain about this assume it would be a flat tax on income; not what you mentioned in the rest of your post (where everyone pays the same dollar amount)

What often does NOT get reported is all those OTHER taxes people play, aside from (federal) income tax. Because many are regressive (based on percentage of income that goes towards paying them), overall, we do NOT seem to have a very progressive tax system, after all...

View attachment 67258612
Click to expand...

Total income????? Total Income is irrelevant!! You don't drive a car you don't pay Excise Taxes, you don't collect SS you don't pay Federal Income taxes. What is relevant is FIT which 44% of income earners pay ZERO!!
 
joko104 said:
A flat tax for everyone, same rate, no exceptions, no deductions except for children.
Click to expand...


It worries me that I agree with joko, but yeah. A flat PERCENT tax for everyone, no deductions, no exemptions including for children - maybe an income floor below which no tax and maybe a different corporate percent but still no deductions or exemptions. Multiply your W-2 by the percent - two-line 1040.
 
CHuDWah said:
It worries me that I agree with joko, but yeah. A flat PERCENT tax for everyone, no deductions, no exemptions including for children - maybe an income floor below which no tax and maybe a different corporate percent but still no deductions or exemptions. Multiply your W-2 by the percent - two-line 1040.
Click to expand...

The most unfair tax possible
 
CriticalThought said:
In another thread a conservative poster made this argument...



That makes little sense to me. Not even as a matter of fairness but as a matter of simple math.

The total Adjusted Gross Income of the country is about $11 trillion. The top 50% has about $10 trillion and the bottom 50% had about $1 trillion. We spend, as a country, about $1.5 trillion in income taxes. About 97% of that is covered by the top 50% and the remaining 3% by the bottom 50%. What’s not fair is for 50% to pay federal taxes and the other fifty percent do not.

My question is how much would the bottom 50% have to pay for it to be fair?

Nominally speak, half of $1.5 trillion is about $750 billion. That means the bottom 50% would have to pay 75% of their combined income to cover half the country's tax burden.

Keep in mind that to be in the bottom 50%, you have to make less than $40,000 a year.

So are the folks who are making $40,000 a year "living off the government teet" if they are not contributing $30,000 a year (75%) to income taxes? That is how I interpret the quote above. The poster is claiming that those who pay little or no taxes are a burden.

I can't figure out what a "fair share" tax for the bottom 50% would look like to conservatives. The top 50% will always pay more, which means no matter how much the bottom 50% pays, it will never be enough.
Click to expand...

Here’s why! Because no matter how much the rich pay it’s never enough is it. The liberals keep dreaming up new and extravahant schemes to tax the rich more. A fair flat tax is fair because everyone pays the exact same rate no exceptions and you’ll never hear the poor or the liberals scream for tax hikes ever again.
 
The argument for a progressive tax has nothing to do with fair.

You can make a case that some need protection. You can make a case that some can more easily afford it. You can even make the case that the the top 1% owe it to the rest. But, you make all of those cases starting with the assumption that the rich pay a greater share of their income than the poor. No fairness is involved. Instead, you are arguing that the government should be unfair for overriding policy reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom