What is the Rich's Fair Share?

[gipperv]

A constant discussion item I have with my left-leaning friends is that the rich are not paying their fair share (U.S.). They argue the rich need to pay a higher percentage of their income to help out those less fortunate. I would like to get a view from folks - (1) define what a fair share should be, in real percentage terms of income that should be paid by the 'rich' and (2) what is the income level that would be viewed as 'rich'? I am attempting to have a clear discussion based on facts and figures and not just the emotional discussion of 'soak the rich' - how much of a rich person's income should be paid in taxes?

 

[trouble13]

A constant discussion item I have with my left-leaning friends is that the rich are not paying their fair share (U.S.). They argue the rich need to pay a higher percentage of their income to help out those less fortunate. I would like to get a view from folks - (1) define what a fair share should be, in real percentage terms of income that should be paid by the 'rich' and (2) what is the income level that would be viewed as 'rich'? I am attempting to have a clear discussion based on facts and figures and not just the emotional discussion of 'soak the rich' - how much of a rich person's income should be paid in taxes?

Best i can tell is the message from the left is give us more. It does not matter what your talking about or what you concede to them, its never enough. They want more. So to answer your question there is no magic number that will satisify them. They never fix anything they claim they can fix and they claim its because they need more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[APB212]

The rich's fair share is $0.00, same as that of the poor. No government should ever tax its citizens, as taxes are legalized theft and most of the money is spent on the bureaucracy that collects them. If a government can't manage a state-owned enterprise(s) well enough to fund the nation's infrastructure, then they have no business running the country in the first place.

 

[TurtleDude]

A constant discussion item I have with my left-leaning friends is that the rich are not paying their fair share (U.S.). They argue the rich need to pay a higher percentage of their income to help out those less fortunate. I would like to get a view from folks - (1) define what a fair share should be, in real percentage terms of income that should be paid by the 'rich' and (2) what is the income level that would be viewed as 'rich'? I am attempting to have a clear discussion based on facts and figures and not just the emotional discussion of 'soak the rich' - how much of a rich person's income should be paid in taxes?

its between two objective numbers

1) their percentage of the population and

2) their share of the income

 

[ttwtt78640]

A constant discussion item I have with my left-leaning friends is that the rich are not paying their fair share (U.S.). They argue the rich need to pay a higher percentage of their income to help out those less fortunate. I would like to get a view from folks - (1) define what a fair share should be, in real percentage terms of income that should be paid by the 'rich' and (2) what is the income level that would be viewed as 'rich'? I am attempting to have a clear discussion based on facts and figures and not just the emotional discussion of 'soak the rich' - how much of a rich person's income should be paid in taxes?

What needs to be decided first is how much federal spending is required/desired. Then how much of that needs to be covered by taxation instead of being borrowed, printed or covered by "user fees". You now have a desired end result for the total federal income tax yield for your budget needs.

I would like to see a federal income tax code with only two numbers: a truly standard deduction amount (of say $30K) and a single tax rate (of say 20%) on any and all income above that amount. That keeps congress critters from playing the bracket rate games that your post seems to favor and the campaign contributions (bribes?) used to secure all manner of deductions, credits and exclusions used to favor "special" interests.

It then becomes a matter of adjusting those two numbers to make make the federal income tax yield the target amount of federal revenue. But, since changing those two federal income tax numbers helps or hurts everyone (to some extent), it is harder to play the Bernie Sanders game of soak the rich without also catching nearly everyone else in the tax man's net.

 

[jimbo]

Best i can tell is the message from the left is give us more. It does not matter what your talking about or what you concede to them, its never enough. They want more. So to answer your question there is no magic number that will satisify them. They never fix anything they claim they can fix and they claim its because they need more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The best answer. The left believes 100% of all income and assets should accrue to the government to be redistributed as they see fit to others they perceive as more needy.

 

[Nap]

The best answer. The left believes 100% of all income and assets should accrue to the government to be redistributed as they see fit to others they perceive as more needy.

Oddly enough some already see that as the case, which is why they view tax cuts to the rich is some how taking from the poor.

 

[Deuce]

A constant discussion item I have with my left-leaning friends is that the rich are not paying their fair share (U.S.). They argue the rich need to pay a higher percentage of their income to help out those less fortunate. I would like to get a view from folks - (1) define what a fair share should be, in real percentage terms of income that should be paid by the 'rich' and (2) what is the income level that would be viewed as 'rich'? I am attempting to have a clear discussion based on facts and figures and not just the emotional discussion of 'soak the rich' - how much of a rich person's income should be paid in taxes?

How would you define it?

 

[Deuce]

Best i can tell is the message from the left is give us more. It does not matter what your talking about or what you concede to them, its never enough. They want more. So to answer your question there is no magic number that will satisify them. They never fix anything they claim they can fix and they claim its because they need more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The wealthy elite gave us infinity war, the least they could do is pay for it.

 

[trouble13]

The best answer. The left believes 100% of all income and assets should accrue to the government to be redistributed as they see fit to others they perceive as more needy.

Im oretty sure they would still find a way to demand more

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[radcen]

The rich's fair share is $0.00, same as that of the poor. No government should ever tax its citizens, as taxes are legalized theft and most of the money is spent on the bureaucracy that collects them. If a government can't manage a state-owned enterprise(s) well enough to fund the nation's infrastructure, then they have no business running the country in the first place.

 

[trouble13]

The wealthy elite gave us infinity war, the least they could do is pay for it.

Who should pay for medicare and medicade?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[radcen]

A constant discussion item I have with my left-leaning friends is that the rich are not paying their fair share (U.S.). They argue the rich need to pay a higher percentage of their income to help out those less fortunate. I would like to get a view from folks - (1) define what a fair share should be, in real percentage terms of income that should be paid by the 'rich' and (2) what is the income level that would be viewed as 'rich'? I am attempting to have a clear discussion based on facts and figures and not just the emotional discussion of 'soak the rich' - how much of a rich person's income should be paid in taxes?

I'm a true flat tax advocate. That means the same percentage for all. If a middle income person pays X%, a rich person pays the same X%. Period. No deductions, no credits. That's as fair as it gets. The rich person will pay proportionally much more in raw dollars as a result, without being punished.

 

[APB212]

View attachment 67223075

Unicorn farts are not a counter-argument.

 

[radcen]

Unicorn farts are not a counter-argument.

Your's was a fantasy argument to begin with. Just as real as unicorns.

 

[TobyOne]

Tell your liberal friends to stop concerning themselves with OPM (other people's money).

Best i can tell is the message from the left is give us more. It does not matter what your talking about or what you concede to them, its never enough. They want more. So to answer your question there is no magic number that will satisify them. They never fix anything they claim they can fix and they claim its because they need more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm a true flat tax advocate. That means the same percentage for all. If a middle income person pays X%, a rich person pays the same X%. Period. No deductions, no credits. That's as fair as it gets. The rich person will pay proportionally much more in raw dollars as a result, without being punished.

So long as you add a truly standard deduction amount (of say $30K) then the taxation, even with a single flat rate, of any and all income above that amount is still progressive when viewed against gross income.

 

[apdst]

I'm a true flat tax advocate. That means the same percentage for all. If a middle income person pays X%, a rich person pays the same X%. Period. No deductions, no credits. That's as fair as it gets. The rich person will pay proportionally much more in raw dollars as a result, without being punished.

5%?....

 

[apdst]

Best i can tell is the message from the left is give us more. It does not matter what your talking about or what you concede to them, its never enough. They want more. So to answer your question there is no magic number that will satisify them. They never fix anything they claim they can fix and they claim its because they need more.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The Left wants it all.

 

[radcen]

So long as you add a truly standard deduction amount (of say $30K) then the taxation, even with a single flat rate, of any and all income above that amount is still progressive when viewed against gross income.

I would prefer no deduction at all, as I believe that "skin in the game" is more of an important factor to a healthy society than most people realize, but I would be willing to compromise and say that the first $30K (or whatever, as long as it's applied equally) is non-taxable.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Unicorn farts are not a counter-argument.

Neither is a nation without taxation but you suggested it none the less.

 

[DaveFagan]

A constant discussion item I have with my left-leaning friends is that the rich are not paying their fair share (U.S.). They argue the rich need to pay a higher percentage of their income to help out those less fortunate. I would like to get a view from folks - (1) define what a fair share should be, in real percentage terms of income that should be paid by the 'rich' and (2) what is the income level that would be viewed as 'rich'? I am attempting to have a clear discussion based on facts and figures and not just the emotional discussion of 'soak the rich' - how much of a rich person's income should be paid in taxes?

I don't know about the taxation, but I would like for big Corporate not to be taking a piece of the action on everything. LOCAL should be local. Let those bastards have Wall Street and the cutthroat banks. No LOCAL banks. No local businesses. Tax them to defray the future cost of their extraction Industries. Tax them for impeding the development of Renewable Energy at the LOCAL levels. Tax them to mitigate Nuclear Waste. The list goes on. Tax them the real costs of environmental restoration.
/

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would prefer no deduction at all, as I believe that "skin in the game" is more of an important factor to a healthy society than most people realize, but I would be willing to compromise and say that the first $30K (or whatever, as long as it's applied equally) is non-taxable.

You still need folks with meat on their bones, clothes on their backs and a hut over their heads to be able to spare some of that skin so forgiving a decent allowance before any federal income taxation begins is not such a bad idea.

 

[radcen]

I don't know about the taxation, but I would like for big Corporate not to be taking a piece of the action on everything. LOCAL should be local. Let those bastards have Wall Street and the cutthroat banks. No LOCAL banks. No local businesses. Tax them to defray the future cost of their extraction Industries. Tax them for impeding the development of Renewable Energy at the LOCAL levels. Tax them to mitigate Nuclear Waste. The list goes on. Tax them the real costs of environmental restoration.
/

I would be willing to exchange zero corporate taxes for zero corporate influence and zero corporate grants and incentives for expansion and development.

 

[radcen]

You still need folks with meat on their bones, clothes on their backs and a hut over their heads to be able to spare some of that skin so forgiving a decent allowance before any federal income taxation begins is not such a bad idea.

There would be an adjustment period for things to shake out, for sure, but I think no more than a couple years, and I believe the long-term overall psychological benefit would outweigh the short-term gain. But, like I said, a compromise would be fine.