• 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 the "Fair Share" that democrats talk about?

Re: What is the "Fair Share" that democrats talk about?

By the way, for those curious. Remember when I said that 1% wealth tax doesn't really actually effect the current 1% only those joining them year over year?

It all comes back to how Jeff isn't liquid enough to cover a 1% tax. He could change that quite easily and would if those were the conditions. If for example his investment paid dividends he would have a lot of income.

There in lays the problem. There was a time in '97 amazon stock sold for $1.54/share. That is very accessible. Today it sells for $1620.62 per share. A lot less accessible. That is because its a business model based on growth. They don't pay out they invest in growth.

When owners extract wealth for income from it every year that slows the growth and ups the price lowering access. A lot. Hence the result is opportunities would only exist in non assessable dividend paying stocks and assessable growth stock a rare gem indeed.

And that is not just true of stock. It's a difference between a growth pattern and a maintenance pattern.
 
TurtleDude said:
why should the group that has paid high rates of income tax be the only target of the death tax?
Click to expand...

Poor people pay a great percentage of their income in sales taxes and very rich people might be socked with an estate tax, so both groups are equally free to grumble about our sorry fates. But as I understand it, the persons who earned the money dont pay the estate tax. They are dead. The person who receives it gets the bill. And who can complain if they get the first $10 million free and have to pay on only what is above that? Why should income you work for be taxed and income you didn't work for come to you with no obligations? Or if I work real hard, can my first $10 million in wages be free from taxes?
 
Nickyjo said:
Poor people pay a great percentage of their income in sales taxes and very rich people might be socked with an estate tax, so both groups are equally free to grumble about our sorry fates. But as I understand it, the persons who earned the money dont pay the estate tax. They are dead. The person who receives it gets the bill. And who can complain if they get the first $10 million free and have to pay on only what is above that? Why should income you work for be taxed and income you didn't work for come to you with no obligations? Or if I work real hard, can my first $10 million in wages be free from taxes?
Click to expand...

that's diversionary. Why should the rich pay so much more for their government benefits.
 
rickc said:
Trickle down is a failed economic policy. That is unless you are in the top 1% of income earners
Click to expand...

download.jpgdownload.jpg


a53b58c1-083b-46a0-a6f3-45fdb5f88666.jpg


10-21-10inc-f3.jpg

main-qimg-8d4151784e161cf98510a3d04bbff29e.jpg
 
TurtleDude said:
that's diversionary. Why should the rich pay so much more for their government benefits.
Click to expand...

Because they have more money. They can afford it. Because they didn't work for their inheritance, their rich aunt or whoever did. Poor people in states that depend on sales taxes pay so much more as well.

It's still good to be the king, as Mel Brooks put it some years ago.
 
Nickyjo said:
Because they have more money. They can afford it. Because they didn't work for their inheritance, their rich aunt or whoever did. Poor people in states that depend on sales taxes pay so much more as well.

It's still good to be the king, as Mel Brooks put it some years ago.
Click to expand...

what exactly did the government do to earn it. You wealth attackers always ignore the person whose opinion counts the most-the person who earned the money
 
Nickyjo said:
Poor people pay a great percentage of their income in sales taxes and very rich people might be socked with an estate tax, so both groups are equally free to grumble about our sorry fates.
Click to expand...
Or we could reduce or freeze public spending, who increase are aimed at assisting and benefiting these groups then no one has to grumble as we could eliminate and phase out sales taxes entirely. It wouldn't take very long. Sales tax are not great generates of tax revenues.

And this "great percentage" isn't even near rate of increase in those benefits.

But as I understand it, the persons who earned the money dont pay the estate tax. They are dead. The person who receives it gets the bill. And who can complain if they get the first $10 million free and have to pay on only what is above that?
Click to expand...
Estate tax isn't just unfair its evil.

First thing first it doesn't raise very much tax revenue. So don't go thinking this is funding anything. It's essentially a rounding error. And every dollar of that money has already been taxed but for the most part we aren't even talking money, we are talking non-liquid assets and that where this starts going from unfair to downright evil.

This is to say every dollar of those non-liquid assets will be taxed when converted to income at whatever the market rate is at that time, which they will be, whenever the person who owns them feels they should.

But, somehow people still feel a dead person since they can no longer defend their assets. Should force their inheritor to sell some percentage of those assets so the government can get at that wealth now!

It's honestly rapey.

Wait two month. What the hell is the hurry? Inheritors love to spend.

Why should income you work for be taxed and income you didn't work for come to you with no obligations? Or if I work real hard, can my first $10 million in wages be free from taxes?
Click to expand...
If inheritance was income it would be taxed as income. It's assets!!!!

r if I work real hard, can my first $10 million in wages be free from taxes?
Click to expand...
Someone needs to pay, your limit is a bit high but sure.

For approximently 60% of taxpayers, contributions don't equal their netted benefits by many factors. If there is a solid chance you're not paying your fair share now, why should i be surprised when you feel you should increase that disparity. When someone doesn't contribute much to dinner bill time and time again, you lose the sense they're going to be good for it in the future.

If we spent per capita inflation adjusted on the priorites of what we did in the 1950. Taxes required would be so low you barely notice them. I bet we waive them for the bottom 90th.
 
Last edited:
rickc said:
Trickle down is a failed economic policy. That is unless you are in the top 1% of income earners
Click to expand...
Except you know the fastest rate of growth is those moving into top incomes right? More and more people with tons of money - the horror!

rickc said:
charts
Click to expand...
You'd think we'd we doing so much worse than ~11%?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=US

maybe increasing the amount of people who net payers even when the system grows year over year isn't such a bad idea?
 
TurtleDude said:
what exactly did the government do to earn it. You wealth attackers always ignore the person whose opinion counts the most-the person who earned the money
Click to expand...

Lessee, the government my have allowed him to incorporate to shield him from certain personal liability, it funds FEMA in of catastrophe, it monitors the drugs he might use to keep him safe, it builds interstate highways so his goods can get to market, it assists local police and fire to protect him from harm, it provides a patent office so that people can't steal his ideas... stuff like that.... AND, the Suprme Court decided that money is speech so his corporation's opinion is listened to more than mine is.
 
TurtleDude said:
what exactly did the government do to earn it. You wealth attackers always ignore the person whose opinion counts the most-the person who earned the money
Click to expand...

How can we ignore his opinion, as the Supreme Court decided that his money, i.e., his corporation's speech is the equivalent of mine, only we have to listen to him more than to me or you?

And as to the government earning it, the government allows him to incorporate thus protecting him from certain liability, inspects drugs he might take so he is not harmed, builds interstates to transport his goods, assists local police and fire depts to keep him safe, has a patent office so that his ideas are not stolen... the list goes on.

Sorry, it seems I answered you twice. Lost and couldn't find my first draft.
 
Conaeolos said:
Or we could reduce or freeze public spending, who increase are aimed at assisting and benefiting these groups then no one has to grumble as we could eliminate and phase out sales taxes entirely. It wouldn't take very long. Sales tax are not great generates of tax revenues.

++ Possibly. We could probably still run the world with half our military bases, elimate the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard which are redundant. Those are my playful ideas. What public spending would you like to reduce?

And this "great percentage" isn't even near rate of increase in those benefits.


Estate tax isn't just unfair its evil.

First thing first it doesn't raise very much tax revenue. So don't go thinking this is funding anything. It's essentially a rounding error. And every dollar of that money has already been taxed but for the most part we aren't even talking money, we are talking non-liquid assets and that where this starts going from unfair to downright evil.

This is to say every dollar of those non-liquid assets will be taxed when converted to income at whatever the market rate is at that time, which they will be, whenever the person who owns them feels they should.

++ Seems fair enough about assets. But if my aunt leaves me $80 million, I can see allowing me to receive $2 million a year for 40 years. But what beef do I have if asked to pay taxes on that? It's income. I didn't earn it. So she paid taxes on it when she earned it. I didn't earn it nor pay taxes on it.

But, somehow people still feel a dead person since they can no longer defend their assets. Should force their inheritor to sell some percentage of those assets so the government can get at that wealth now!

It's honestly rapey.

++ They can't defend their assets? They have none, except their tombstones. And taxing them is necrophilia?

Wait two month. What the hell is the hurry? Inheritors love to spend.


If inheritance was income it would be taxed as income. It's assets!!!!

++ My assets/wealth are taxed every year, in the form of property taxes on however many houses I may have. So is my automobile, that too depending on its value.

Someone needs to pay, your limit is a bit high but sure.

For approximently 60% of taxpayers, contributions don't equal their netted benefits by many factors. If there is a solid chance you're not paying your fair share now, why should i be surprised when you feel you should increase that disparity. When someone doesn't contribute much to dinner bill time and time again, you lose the sense they're going to be good for it in the future.

If we spent per capita inflation adjusted on the priorites of what we did in the 1950. Taxes required would be so low you barely notice them. I bet we waive them for the bottom 90th.
Click to expand...

++ (I don't understand your last point about the 1950s.) But I indeed get more back than I contributed to SS, and certainly more than I contributed to Medicare. My good luck, I suppose in having Crohn's disease. Don't know about my interstate highway use, and haven't needed FEMA yet, tho I live in an earthquake zone. But that's the way an insurance system works. If I had died before turning 65, I would have lost out Social Security-wise. And the "disparity" in income has been working the other way for a while, as I assume you have noticed. So I have no problem in increasing taxes on Wall Street and other unfortunates at the top of the pyramid if we need the money to run the government. Trust me. They will continue to do well.
 
Re: What is the "Fair Share" that democrats talk about?

iguanaman said:
Inequality is a potential source of financial instability



Financial Stability and Inequality: A Challenge for Macroprudential Regulation
Click to expand...

TY for the clarification.

FWIW, the risk that macroprudential policy/regulation pertains to is systemic risk, which, though mitigable, is existential, rather than selectable as is investment risk, which is the risk to which I thought you referred. (Everyone is -- if they any sense, they are -- averse to rising systemic risk; whereas rising investment risk, to a limit, attracts some people and repulses others.)



Other:
Since you've broached macroprudential policy (MPP), it's worth noting that though economists can ably design a coherent set of MPPs to minimize systemic risk, the US' unique cultural exigencies borne of its fraught and as yet unresolved discrimination issues (race, class and gender, in particular) make it sociopolitically difficult to implement, and in some instances merely suggest. The LTV ratio MPP "lever" and its attendant feedback loop palpably illustrates that challenge. Leverage-based MMP mitigations, the implementation of which our cultural and jurisprudential preference for "one size fits all" law/policy confounds, are one of specific LTV ratio management techniques that does so.

As a white guy born into what some might call privilege, in my youth I "got" what was morally/ethically amiss and peculiar about discrimination, but being white and wanting for nothing, it wasn't something I saw as affecting me. By the time I commenced my economics degree, I had figured out that discrimination was imprudent because, if nothing else, it diminishes the country's/economy's capacity and output, which, of course, is, in turn, unpatriotic, at least if one willfully and actively contributes to that diminution. My thoughts in that regard were confirmed when I got to grad school and encountered MPP theory, but it was just a postulate back then, and an abstruse one at that.

Now that Borio, Bordo, Frost and others have shown empirically the relationship between systemic risk and income inequality, and the efficacy of MPP policy in attenuating both, we have clear evidence that one need not be minority, female, or hold any particular financial status to suffer the consequences of discrimination. Simply, unless and until we can evolve our country into one whereof we ably and preponderantly disabuse historic objects of discrimination of their doubts about the non-neutrality of public policy and law decisions/implementations, we won't be able to effect coherent MPP. To the extent we cannot enact coherent MPP, we all face higher systemic risk.
 
Nickyjo said:
So I have no problem in increasing taxes on Wall Street and other unfortunates at the top of the pyramid if we need the money to run the government. Trust me. They will continue to do well.
Click to expand...
I don't think they or I will suffer I think the majority will suffer.

I also don't have a problem with your underlaying goal of higher tax revenues although its not my personal preference. The problem with aiming taxes at this group is there really isn't actually more tax revenue to get. You past diminishing returns. See Laffer curve. But you might not buy that. All you need to get is one group has lots of working capital. One group is mostly spending. Working capital works on a growth pattern with spending a negation patten. That is to say, the more you invest in working capital the more you get out(logarithmic so there is a limit), with spending what you put in is pretty close to what you get out (also logarithmic so it not 1:1 but say 1:3).

The problem with taxing the working capital group beyond the point where you actually seriously effecting the amount of working capital in the system is your reducing the total growth. So if say you have a growth patten that goes say: 1:2, 2:6, 3:9, 4:24 and your taxes are keeping it at 2:6 your deferring taxings at the cost of gains on 3:9 & 4:24. You're netting less tax revenue overtime to get more revenue today.

This is why if you look at functioning system you can look at total tax revenue by GDP. : Tax revenue (% of GDP) | Data

You'll see those countries who took more are increasing the tax burden on the middle class. Not the upper, despite the upper still paying a lot of the gross taxes and doing well for themselves no matter what.

Nickyjo said:
++ (I don't understand your last point about the 1950s.)
Click to expand...
In 1950, federal state and local spent a total of $70 billion for 43.5 Million households. $1,607.20 / household In 2019 dollars that's $16,786.37.

The top five spending items:
Defense: 34%
Education: 14%
Welfare: 8%
Agriculture subsidies: 7%
Servicing public debt: 7%

Tax burden per household: $1,437.30
Median Household income: $4,890
So, 29%

In 2019, we have an estimated 128.4 million households estimated spending 7.5 trillion. That's $58,884.65 / household.

The top five spending items:
Health Care: 23%
Old age benefits: 17%
Education: 15%
Defense: 13%
Servicing public debt: 6%

Tax burden per household: $50,878.95
Median Household income(2017): $61,372
So, 82.9%

1950 levels in 2019: $16,786.37 (2.15 T)
Current Income tax revenue from the top 10% plus corporate covers 100% of that.
 
Last edited:
Conaeolos said:
I don't think they or I will suffer I think the majority will suffer.

I also don't have a problem with your underlaying goal of higher tax revenues although its not my personal preference. The problem with aiming taxes at this group is there really isn't actually more tax revenue to get. You past diminishing returns. See Laffer curve. But you might not buy that. All you need to get is one group has lots of working capital. One group is mostly spending. Working capital works on a growth pattern with spending a negation patten. That is to say, the more you invest in working capital the more you get out(logarithmic so there is a limit), with spending what you put in is pretty close to what you get out (also logarithmic so it not 1:1 but say 1:3).

The problem with taxing the working capital group beyond the point where you actually seriously effecting the amount of working capital in the system is your reducing the total growth. So if say you have a growth patten that goes say: 1:2, 2:6, 3:9, 4:24 and your taxes are keeping it at 2:6 your deferring taxings at the cost of gains on 3:9 & 4:24. You're netting less tax revenue overtime to get more revenue today.

This is why if you look at functioning system you can look at total tax revenue by GDP. : Tax revenue (% of GDP) | Data

You'll see those countries who took more are increasing the tax burden on the middle class. Not the upper, despite the upper still paying a lot of the gross taxes and doing well for themselves no matter what.


In 1950, federal state and local spent a total of $70 billion for 43.5 Million households. $1,607.20 / household In 2019 dollars that's $16,786.37.

The top five spending items:
Defense: 34%
Education: 14%
Welfare: 8%
Agriculture subsidies: 7%
Servicing public debt: 7%

Tax burden per household: $1,437.30
Median Household income: $4,890
So, 29%

In 2019, we have an estimated 128.4 million households estimated spending 7.5 trillion. That's $58,884.65 / household.

The top five spending items:
Health Care: 23%
Old age benefits: 17%
Education: 15%
Defense: 13%
Servicing public debt: 6%

Tax burden per household: $50,878.95
Median Household income(2017): $61,372
So, 82.9%

1950 levels in 2019: $16,786.37 (2.15 T)
Current Income tax revenue from the top 10% plus corporate covers 100% of that.
Click to expand...

A- what is your suggestion to remedy the problem? I presume that spending on old age benefits and health care may diminish as boomers die off. B- I am not sure I understand your language about the working capital group, but what is wrong with taxing all income: wages, interest, capital gains, carried interest, etc., on a sliding scale with no deductions? Politically impossible, I presume, but in theory what's the problem?
 
Nickyjo said:
Lessee, the government my have allowed him to incorporate to shield him from certain personal liability, it funds FEMA in of catastrophe, it monitors the drugs he might use to keep him safe, it builds interstate highways so his goods can get to market, it assists local police and fire to protect him from harm, it provides a patent office so that people can't steal his ideas... stuff like that.... AND, the Suprme Court decided that money is speech so his corporation's opinion is listened to more than mine is.
Click to expand...

that's idiotic-it is like saying the ATP tour gave Roger Federer more things than the other pros or that Tiger Woods ought to pay more in PGA dues than the guys who struggled to make the cut every week
 
Nickyjo said:
A- what is your suggestion to remedy the problem?
Click to expand...
It's complicated :mrgreen:

I presume that spending on old age benefits and health care may diminish as boomers die off.
Click to expand...
Not before it gets a lot worse, the biggest group is set to retire in 2030 and they who are who push both healthcare and pension and low average wages because it harder to make income and pace inflation post 65+. Actual retirement impossible to predict.

According to 2017 census, right now those households below $25,000 income are 40% over 65. A group that should be debt free due to lowest income potential, currently has double the average debt of the the group most able to absorb debt 25-34. This is set to get worse with the next bigger demographic group. The average wealth is close to the average home price which shows the savings they do have is most real estate. Demographics will correct the market because seniors downgrade and the younger generations and those upgrading will be a smaller part of the population unlike historic trends meaning ~30% correction.

No one saved any money to help. The public and prive debts are at a record high. And inflation in terms of money supply to actual growth being used up.

So if we survive the upcoming demographic poverty problem. We're actually better set up than most westren countries.
B- I am not sure I understand your language about the working capital group, but what is wrong with taxing all income: wages, interest, capital gains, carried interest, etc., on a sliding scale with no deductions? Politically impossible, I presume, but in theory what's the problem?
Click to expand...
I am fan of that just likely at a much lower rate than you.

The biggest obstacle to this isn't with income tax rate, progressive/flat. And 50%+ top rate might be silly but not the real problem. It all comes down to why we give currently give those deductions.

That is all because we insist on shortsighted wealth taxes like property tax, corporate tax, estate tax or spending taxes like sales tax. An asset whether a house, a bond, a stock, a company, a rare element, or spending. It's inherently working to grow its value. It's a positive for everyone to leave it alone.Taxing is to reduce it. You tax the sale of cigarettes less people buy cigarettes. You tax people to own a houses less people own a houses. You tax income higher you get less people making the effort.

Taxation is a must. We can tax from income, it works and it works well(56% of all taxes fed, state,local) because its has no impact but opportunity. It's universal. More income more opportunity. I can safely say taking less from low income households and more from high income is a good thing. This is absolutely not true when it comes to assets or spending.

Wealth and spending taxes: corporate tax bring in 4%, property 10% & sales/excise 9%. They do way more harm than good and they are why you see dedications and differing rates can be justified.

If we assign every asset to an owner. We tax that owner only when they make income from that asset: sale, dividend/rent, interest…it 's only matter once its income and that get taxes at ___. Doesn't matter how you got it income is income. Simple tax code not complicated exceptions or social engineering necessary. With this there are only two main concerns: 1) people who use corporations to personal disguise income, that is don't report for example their corporation giving them house or car as non-monetary taxable income at the right amount. 2) foreigners making corporations and acting like citizens but not paying our income tax. Both very solvable problems.

This method we make lot of tax revenue and when we raise the taxes we actual raise the tax revenue, with the only problem being capital flight and tax evation.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's idiotic-it is like saying the ATP tour gave Roger Federer more things than the other pros or that Tiger Woods ought to pay more in PGA dues than the guys who struggled to make the cut every week
Click to expand...

Don’t understand. As I recall, I was responding to the notion that the wealthy don’t get benefits from the government, unless I missed the point.
 
Conaeolos said:
It's complicated :mrgreen:


Not before it gets a lot worse, the biggest group is set to retire in 2030 and they who are who push both healthcare and pension and low average wages because it harder to make income and pace inflation post 65+. Actual retirement impossible to predict.

According to 2017 census, right now those households below $25,000 income are 40% over 65. A group that should be debt free due to lowest income potential, currently has double the average debt of the the group most able to absorb debt 25-34. This is set to get worse with the next bigger demographic group. The average wealth is close to the average home price which shows the savings they do have is most real estate. Demographics will correct the market because seniors downgrade and the younger generations and those upgrading will be a smaller part of the population unlike historic trends meaning ~30% correction.

No one saved any money to help. The public and prive debts are at a record high. And inflation in terms of money supply to actual growth being used up.

So if we survive the upcoming demographic poverty problem. We're actually better set up than most westren countries.

I am fan of that just likely at a much lower rate than you.

The biggest obstacle to this isn't with income tax rate, progressive/flat. And 50%+ top rate might be silly but not the real problem. It all comes down to why we give currently give those deductions.

That is all because we insist on shortsighted wealth taxes like property tax, corporate tax, estate tax or spending taxes like sales tax. An asset whether a house, a bond, a stock, a company, a rare element, or spending. It's inherently working to grow its value. It's a positive for everyone to leave it alone.Taxing is to reduce it. You tax the sale of cigarettes less people buy cigarettes. You tax people to own a houses less people own a houses. You tax income higher you get less people making the effort.

Taxation is a must. We can tax from income, it works and it works well(56% of all taxes fed, state,local) because its has no impact but opportunity. It's universal. More income more opportunity. I can safely say taking less from low income households and more from high income is a good thing. This is absolutely not true when it comes to assets or spending.

Wealth and spending taxes: corporate tax bring in 4%, property 10% & sales/excise 9%. They do way more harm than good and they are why you see dedications and differing rates can be justified.

If we assign every asset to an owner. We tax that owner only when they make income from that asset: sale, dividend/rent, interest…it 's only matter once its income and that get taxes at ___. Doesn't matter how you got it income is income. Simple tax code not complicated exceptions or social engineering necessary. With this there are only two main concerns: 1) people who use corporations to personal disguise income, that is don't report for example their corporation giving them house or car as non-monetary taxable income at the right amount. 2) foreigners making corporations and acting like citizens but not paying our income tax. Both very solvable problems.

This method we make lot of tax revenue and when we raise the taxes we actual raise the tax revenue, with the only problem being capital flight and tax evation.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty good. Only objection to that analysis is that inheritance is income. It should be taxed. I got thousands from my parents when they died, never did anything to earn it except being born and a loving son. If the state wanted a piece of it, how can I argue that? If they gave me a farm, different story til I sell it.
 
Nickyjo said:
Don’t understand. As I recall, I was responding to the notion that the wealthy don’t get benefits from the government, unless I missed the point.
Click to expand...

the wealthy pay many dollars for every dollar of government service. The bottom 50% get far more than they pay for
 
I like the AOC tax plan. What was it 70% above 10 million?
 
Winston said:
I like the AOC tax plan. What was it 70% above 10 million?
Click to expand...

why do you think anyone should pay 70 cents on their next dollar?
 
Winston said:
To benefit society
Click to expand...

using that we could argue for

taking everything about say 200K

killing those who are net drags on society

getting rid of many of our freedoms

you see-liberals constantly want SOMEONE else to make the sacrifice for what liberals think is good

how much extra dollars do you donate to the IRS to "benefit society"?
 
TurtleDude said:
using that we could argue for

taking everything about say 200K

killing those who are net drags on society

getting rid of many of our freedoms

you see-liberals constantly want SOMEONE else to make the sacrifice for what liberals think is good

how much extra dollars do you donate to the IRS to "benefit society"?
Click to expand...

Some of those things you listed are not reasonable. 70% over 10 million dollars is reasonable. People who don't make in the upper echelons should not have to pay any more to the IRS than they already do, because they can't even afford groceries. So, I don't really care about protecting the rich from having to help people. They have the ability to help themselves if they need to, some people don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom