What is the "Fair Share" that democrats talk about? (1 Viewer)

[Fledermaus]

Typical dumb right wing comment, not even original. This is nothing more than a dumb deflection because you don't want to actually discuss the merits of the real argument because you have nothing.

1% of the population having 90% of the wealth, is that fair share?

A middle class person paying 29% of their salary in taxes and struggling vs a milliionaire or billionaire that gets all these write-offs and tax breaks and pay either none or very little percentage of their income. You can even go back to the pre-Reagan days. They have all the wealthy, they have all the power, they own the politicians, they benefit from tax funding more than the average person, so they need to pay more.

More money in the hands of the rich, doesn't do anything to add wealth to the country. more money to the middle class, they will spend that, and we have a consumer economy.

Fair share of earnings..... If you can fairly make 100,000,000 that is your fair share of earning.

 

[Cardinal]

credible proof required that

America was great-in the view of Trump-when taxes were higher on the rich (they were much higher on the middle class then too)

OR

that tax rates had any relevance to his discussion

Then that leaves the one aspect of America that was "great" that neither Trump nor his follower will speak out loud, except in the vaguest of notions with no clear parameters.

 

[Vadinho]

that sort of attitude is why the tax code is a complete mess and congress has far too much power from the tax code

Very true which is why a flat tax never got anywhere, too many policy goals and social engineering tasks prevented anyone from touching it. The tax code is a mess because of so many different outcomes are desired and created by tax policy. I think many of us would agree that each of them should be considered and judged so that we can whittle away some of the more egregious giveaways and keep ones that support some moral code or fabric we all share.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then that leaves the one aspect of America that was "great" that neither Trump nor his follower will speak out loud, except in the vaguest of notions with no clear parameters.

there is no evidence that the confiscatory socialist tax schemes made america great

 

[Cardinal]

there is no evidence that the confiscatory socialist tax schemes made america great

So what did make America great, then? And no vague bumper sticker slogans, please. Be specific.

 

[TurtleDude]

So what did make America great, then? And no vague bumper sticker slogans, please. Be specific.

Lets see

expansive land that allowed ambitious people to create homesteads

Lots of opportunities for those who were ambitious and creative

a government that was not too intrusive

a rich and varied gene pool that brought all sorts of talents into the USA

being geographically isolated so as to prevent invasions

vast natural resources.

our Constitution

 

[Cardinal]

Lets see

expansive land that allowed ambitious people to create homesteads

Lots of opportunities for those who were ambitious and creative

a government that was not too intrusive

a rich and varied gene pool that brought all sorts of talents into the USA

being geographically isolated so as to prevent invasions

vast natural resources.

our Constitution

So nothing but bumper sticker slogans, then. Shocker.

 

[Vadinho]

'Fair' is relative, isnt it? Fair should mean equal...so we should all be taxed at an equal rate...say...14%. No exceptions...no exemptions. Do away with the IRS. Life is good.

But idiot leftists dont mean fair. They mean "WAHHH!!!Its not FAIR that they are successful and I suck. I want THEIR money cuz its not FAIR that they have more."

They are actually stupid enough to claim the rich get rich by stealing their pennies. Notice I say stupid enough to CLAIM it because even they arent stupid enough to BELIEVE it. Its like tax breaks. Idiot leftists will CLAIM that when the government lets you ('lets' you...isnt THAT a kick in the balls?) keep more of what you have earned then the government is GIVING you something. Because to the typical idiot leftist, if they dont get to benefit from YOUR wealth then someone is STEALING from them and thats not FAIR.

Thats the only 'fair' idiot leftists understand.

Other then typical right wing blather, how exactly do you plan on funding the government if you want to lower taxes yet again? Tax policy serves various policy functions along with reflecting the policy outcomes of government. One use of tax policy is to cool down or heat up an economy. That is not left wing garbage, it is straight out of standard macro economics. Another goal is to further certain types of behavior such as buying a home, education credits, investment credits, depreciation allowances, long term versus short term gains and so on. If you tax it, it will discourage behavior. If you do not tax it, it will encourage behavior. Your simplistic reasoning is straight from some talk show, why not use your time here to say something intelligent?

 

[TurtleDude]

So nothing but bumper sticker slogans, then. Shocker.

You must have strange ideas about Bumper stickers.

 

[VanceMack]

Other then typical right wing blather, how exactly do you plan on funding the government if you want to lower taxes yet again? Tax policy serves various policy functions along with reflecting the policy outcomes of government. One use of tax policy is to cool down or heat up an economy. That is not left wing garbage, it is straight out of standard macro economics. Another goal is to further certain types of behavior such as buying a home, education credits, investment credits, depreciation allowances, long term versus short term gains and so on. If you tax it, it will discourage behavior. If you do not tax it, it will encourage behavior. Your simplistic reasoning is straight from some talk show, why not use your time here to say something intelligent?

Flat rate taxes on EVERYONE with no exceptions or exemptions doesnt lower taxes...it just makes it 'fair'.

You WANT fair....


right?

 

[Cardinal]

You must have strange ideas about Bumper stickers.

"Expansive land that allowed ambitious people to create homesteads" certainly needs some workshopping, but it's just as vague and insubstantive as bumper stickers usually go.

 

[Vadinho]

Lets see

expansive land that allowed ambitious people to create homesteads

Lots of opportunities for those who were ambitious and creative

a government that was not too intrusive

a rich and varied gene pool that brought all sorts of talents into the USA

being geographically isolated so as to prevent invasions

vast natural resources.

our Constitution

All good reasons for why we expanded so quickly but we did pay a price for some of those items. We annihilated the incumbents to take their lands. We ended up with massive poverty as wealth concentrated in the hands of the few up until the early 1900s. We had such a weak federal government we actually went to war over it. The gene pool was not that dissimilar up until we imported Chinese and Japanese with the exception of our slaves the entire nation was filled with northern and southern Europeans. Not much gene diversity in that group is there? We were geographically very lucky and still are and yes, we have vast natural resources. I would argue that the constitution was a benefit but only for some.

 

[TurtleDude]

"Expansive land that allowed ambitious people to create homesteads" certainly needs some workshopping, but it's just as vague and insubstantive as bumper stickers usually go.

You should study Europe and get back to me

 

[Cardinal]

You should study Europe and get back to me

You should study volcanoes and get back to me.

 

[Vadinho]

Flat rate taxes on EVERYONE with no exceptions or exemptions doesnt lower taxes...it just makes it 'fair'.

You WANT fair....


right?

I don't believe it is fair for my child to pay the same rate as Warren Buffet at all.

 

[Conaeolos]

1% of the population having 90% of the wealth, is that fair share?

Are you ever curious why people use "wealth" not real world asset comparisons?

On the one hand we have a 99%er like dan in Ohio, he mostly owns a home who people would pay him about $225,300 outright or $1,480 a month to rent.

On the other a 0.01% like Jeff he owns 17% of a non-tangible non dividend paying stock in this company called amazon which people would pay hundreds billions to get(that 40000x the value).

Dan's asset gives his family a place to live and the security to spend their very reasonable $62,000 salary. This luxury pays about $3,107 in property taxes.

Jeff asset is 17% of a company that employees 647,500 people(all who pay taxes), brought in 232.8 billion last year and posted a 11.2 billion profit(all reinvested). They also reported paying $1.2 billion in direct taxes. So if Jeff ownership is ~17%, he paid just for the luxury of owning his asset 204 million in taxes in 2018. Thats 65658x dan. Now I am sure the governments cost for supporting amazon are lot more than dan house, but that incalculable.

So just to be clear on the pricniple of the argument here, Jeff is bad and he should be more like dan? Seems to me both are quite happy and if anything dan should act more like jeff....I mean do you think jeff paid 100s of billions for that stock? He didn't. That is its current value.

A middle class person paying 29% of their salary in taxes and struggling vs a milliionaire or billionaire that gets all these write-offs and tax breaks and pay either none or very little percentage of their income. You can even go back to the pre-Reagan days. They have all the wealthy, they have all the power, they own the politicians, they benefit from tax funding more than the average person, so they need to pay more.

But let's go back to Jeff shall we, he made what an $86,000 salary. Amazon didn't pay dividends. The majority of his added wealth is just perceived value that people are now willing to pay him for his shares based on amazons performance. I am pretty sure he did sell a billion worth of stock as he typically does, but again he reinvested most of that in other investments as working capital assets. And the profits amazon posted were not distributed as dividends so it still just on the balance sheet on his asset. In otherwords by the methodology we use for dan, that is gross income verse gross taxes paid…Jeff paid over 100%. Of course that is not what we use as that is not the best reflection of his situation.

What are you going to do agressively tax nonlinear assets like stocks which can make you many factors of return more than real world assets?

Cause taxing income is just hurting people who make their wealth by income, specially high income. Jeff is so wealthy exactly because he skipped that income tax part of the equation by not making his money with income....starting to see the problem?

 

[American]

Republicans want to make America great again, so let's return to 1960 when the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

Unless, that is, there's something entirely different about that time period Republicans want to return to.

Is that the only part of the tax law that's changed since then?

 

[American]

Democrats talk about the Fair Share that the wealthy should pay. Since the politicians seem never to define the "Fair Share" amount, how much should the fair share be"

_ 90%

_80%

_70%

_60%

_50%

_40%

_30%

_less than 30%

Where's the poll?

 

[TurtleDude]

Where's the poll?

The OP couldn't afford the tax on creating one?

 

[VanceMack]

I don't believe it is fair for my child to pay the same rate as Warren Buffet at all.

Your childs mite will still be childs play compared to Buffets millions....but thanks for at least being honest. You dont care at all about fair. You just dont want to have to pay YOURS.

 

[Vadinho]

Your childs mite will still be childs play compared to Buffets millions....but thanks for at least being honest. You dont care at all about fair. You just dont want to have to pay YOURS.

My child does not own a mite nor has mites but that is besides the point. I pay upwards of at least 60-80 grand a year in taxes year in and year out. I do care about fairness which is why I support a progressive tax system. I await your next bowel movement, proceed.

 

[Vadinho]

Are you ever curious why people use "wealth" not real world asset comparisons?

On the one hand we have a 99%er like dan in Ohio, he mostly owns a home who people would pay him about $225,300 outright or $1,480 a month to rent.

On the other a 0.01% like Jeff he owns 17% of a non-tangible non dividend paying stock in this company called amazon which people would pay hundreds billions to get(that 40000x the value).

Dan's asset gives his family a place to live and the security to spend their very reasonable $62,000 salary. This luxury pays about $3,107 in property taxes.

Jeff asset is 17% of a company that employees 647,500 people(all who pay taxes), brought in 232.8 billion last year and posted a 11.2 billion profit(all reinvested). They also reported paying $1.2 billion in direct taxes. So if Jeff ownership is ~17%, he paid just for the luxury of owning his asset 204 million in taxes in 2018. Thats 65658x dan. Now I am sure the governments cost for supporting amazon are lot more than dan house, but that incalculable.

So just to be clear on the pricniple of the argument here, Jeff is bad and he should be more like dan? Seems to me both are quite happy and if anything dan should act more like jeff....I mean do you think jeff paid 100s of billions for that stock? He didn't. That is its current value.


But let's go back to Jeff shall we, he made what an $86,000 salary. Amazon didn't pay dividends. The majority of his added wealth is just perceived value that people are now willing to pay him for his shares based on amazons performance. I am pretty sure he did sell a billion worth of stock as he typically does, but again he reinvested most of that in other investments as working capital assets. And the profits amazon posted were not distributed as dividends so it still just on the balance sheet on his asset. In otherwords by the methodology we use for dan, that is gross income verse gross taxes paid…Jeff paid over 100%. Of course that is not what we use as that is not the best reflection of his situation.

What are you going to do agressively tax nonlinear assets like stocks which can make you many factors of return more than real world assets?

Cause taxing income is just hurting people who make their wealth by income, specially high income. Jeff is so wealthy exactly because he skipped that income tax part of the equation by not making his money with income....starting to see the problem?

You make some compelling arguments that reveal how difficult it is to tax wealth under the current tax system. Most of us normal people are taxed on our wealth though every year in the form of property taxes. What is the difference between taxing your property based upon the value of it every year and taxing your portfolio?

 

[tecoyah]

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


I would say we start with not letting the richest and corporation pay 0% then make them pay 20% more than I do.

 

[VanceMack]

My child does not own a mite nor has mites but that is besides the point. I pay upwards of at least 60-80 grand a year in taxes year in and year out. I do care about fairness which is why I support a progressive tax system. I await your next bowel movement, proceed.

:lamo

SUUUUUUUUUUUURE ya do.

:lamo

You support a leftist agenda which targets the rich. There is literally nothing that justifies your zeal to steal from the rich to pay for your share. Nothing in your tax theft scheme has anything to do with 'fair'. A flat tax rate is fair and equitable. And you want no part of that.

 

[SMTA]

No one paid 91%. The 76,000 pages of the tax code gave every possible exception to the super rich and that is when such as the "depreciation allowance" racket began allowing people to deduct money they didn't spend or lost claiming lost value. For this, they played musical chairs with commercial property and equipment - selling it back and forth between each other - each on claiming the "depreciation" until that clocked out - then sold it to someone they were buying property from - both again claiming the same depreciation on the same property. The 91% claim was so people in lower brackets didn't complain as much.

The super rich don't pay taxes and NO ONE in either political parties ever proposes any legislation to close the special tax loopholes for the super rich. Any time the Democrats start ranting "tax the rich" they don't really mean the rich. They mean successful mom and pop businesses they built up over a lifetime of working 80 hours a week and probably going broke a couple times along the way. The super rich don't pay taxes. The government pays them.

Another ignorant post devoid of accuracy and common sense.
Depreciation of asset value allocates the cost of the tangible assets over their useful, productive life.
The current IRS asset depreciation form is #4562.
Get your facts straight before posting inaccurate and untrue garbage.

There were 26,300 pages of tax code in 1985.
There are about 74,608 pages of tax code today.
Your claim of 76,000 pages in 1960 is obviously extremely wrong.
Educate yourself, again, before posting such inaccuracies.