"Fair share"

• O-Trap

  

  What is it? How do we determine it? How does a person defend it using hard data?
  
  I see it thrown around a LOT, but I've never heard someone articulate what the "fair share" actually is, and how we can know what is "fair" about it.
  
  What makes this fair?
  
  [video=youtube;DnEe4oaSC88][/video]
• jmog

  Consumption tax, but no tax on anything that is required to live (mortgage/rent, food, water, etc).
  
  Get rid of income tax and go to a VAT style consumption tax. Rich still pay more since they are buying more crap than poor, and the poor only pay taxes on wants rather than needs.
  
  The loophole I see with my 10 second plan is that the rich would just buy more real estate, so it would have to be only "no tax" on primary residence. Similar to the rules for pulling money out of a 401k.
• O-Trap

  

  jmog;1835064 wrote:Consumption tax, but no tax on anything that is required to live (mortgage/rent, food, water, etc).
  
  Get rid of income tax and go to a VAT style consumption tax. Rich still pay more since they are buying more crap than poor, and the poor only pay taxes on wants rather than needs.
  
  The loophole I see with my 10 second plan is that the rich would just buy more real estate, so it would have to be only "no tax" on primary residence. Similar to the rules for pulling money out of a 401k.

  I also like the idea of a consumption tax. However, a glaring issue I see with it is that it decentivizes spending and putting money earned back into the economy. I don't know that I've heard a reasonable rebuttal to that objection to date. Otherwise, I like the idea.
• jmog

  O-Trap;1835065 wrote:I also like the idea of a consumption tax. However, a glaring issue I see with it is that it decentivizes spending and putting money earned back into the economy. I don't know that I've heard a reasonable rebuttal to that objection to date. Otherwise, I like the idea.

  I agree, which is part of the reason that Europe has been in dire straights lately, that coupled with their insane social spending.
  
  The opposing argument would be that if it completely replaces income tax you should have more disposable income and therefore would spend more?
  
  That would especially be true if they move the consumption tax like the VAT in Europe where you don't "see" it as a consumer as all taxes are already in the price. People wouldn't even realize how much they are paying in taxes at that point.
  
  People already know how much they pay in taxes by looking at their pay checks but imagine the outrage if instead everyone had to send a check at the end of the year for all of your owed taxes? The government moved to take it right out of your check decades ago so it wasn't "painful" to people and they wouldn't complain as much.
  
  Move it all into sales tax but hide it in the price tag and almost no one will have a clue how much they are paying in taxes.
• sleeper

  

  Fair share is simple. Anything over $1M a year in any form of compensation should be taxed at 80%.
  
  $500k- $1M bracket = 50%
  $250k - 500k = 35%
  $100k - $250k = 25%
  $50k - $100k = 10%
  <$50k = 2.5%
• like_that

  

  sleeper;1835073 wrote:Fair share is simple. Anything over $1M a year in any form of compensation should be taxed at 80%.
  
  $500k- $1M bracket = 50%
  $250k - 500k = 35%
  $100k - $250k = 25%
  $50k - $100k = 10%
  <$50k = 2.5%

  LOL
• QuakerOats

  "Fair share" is liberal speak. I will not partake.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1835073 wrote:Fair share is simple. Anything over $1M a year in any form of compensation should be taxed at 80%.
  
  $500k- $1M bracket = 50%
  $250k - 500k = 35%
  $100k - $250k = 25%
  $50k - $100k = 10%
  <$50k = 2.5%

  Okay. What is the reasoning? Why 80%? Why not 90% or 70%? Why 80%?
  
  What is it that makes 80% fair? Hell, what is it that makes any non-uniform percentage fair?
• like_that

  

  O-Trap;1835126 wrote:Okay. What is the reasoning? Why 80%? Why not 90% or 70%? Why 80%?
  
  What is it that makes 80% fair? Hell, what is it that makes any non-uniform percentage fair?

  Do you want his real answer or troll answer?
• Spock

  

  good video
• FatHobbit

  

  sleeper;1835073 wrote:Fair share is simple. Anything over $1M a year in any form of compensation should be taxed at 80%.
  
  $500k- $1M bracket = 50%
  $250k - 500k = 35%
  $100k - $250k = 25%
  $50k - $100k = 10%
  <$50k = 2.5%

  That's the fascist answer. Nobody deserves more than 50k a year. Everything over that should be taxed at 100% and then given to the poor.
• queencitybuckeye

  What's a fair amount of coercion? Zero, with the understanding that it's not achievable if one wants a somewhat stable society.
• Belly35

  

  sleeper;1835073 wrote:Fair share is simple. Anything over $1M a year in any form of compensation should be taxed at 80%.
  
  $500k- $1M bracket = 50%
  $250k - 500k = 35%
  $100k - $250k = 25%
  $50k - $100k = 10%
  <$50k = 2.5%

  you've claimed to achieved 1 million in liquid asset (so/so achievement) should you be taxed at 80%? At a rate of 80% per year unless you earned income increased + 80% your 1 million dollar asset will be tapped into pay your taxes.... To make this simple for you, your financial achievement will create negative punishment tax burden at 80%.
  I was taught to reach for that goal of wealth and financial prosperity but people like you want to take what is not yours to reward a poorly operational spending government, support proven failure federal programs, reward those that have harmed our social structure....
  I have ideas about taxes but those are my theories... Everyone should pay flat taxes on yearly gross income earned only.
  the tax rate on interest of liquid asset should be on a flat rate also with a sliding scale paying less per year until those asset reach a 30 year holding to a tax rate of 5 % on the earning interest
• like_that

  

  You all know sleeper isn't serious, right?
• jmog

  like_that;1835190 wrote:You all know sleeper isn't serious, right?

  I am fairly certain that there is no one on this forum that takes sleeper serious, or his alter ego isadore.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1835126 wrote:Okay. What is the reasoning? Why 80%? Why not 90% or 70%? Why 80%?
  
  What is it that makes 80% fair? Hell, what is it that makes any non-uniform percentage fair?

  Simple. The more money you have, the greater share of the nation's benefits you receive. Want to enjoy the freedom, defense, and economic security that your US citizenship brings? Pay up. Simple.
• sleeper

  

  FatHobbit;1835168 wrote:That's the fascist answer. Nobody deserves more than 50k a year. Everything over that should be taxed at 100% and then given to the poor.

  Hail Trump!
• sleeper

  

  Belly35;1835173 wrote:you've claimed to achieved 1 million in liquid asset (so/so achievement) should you be taxed at 80%? At a rate of 80% per year unless you earned income increased + 80% your 1 million dollar asset will be tapped into pay your taxes.... To make this simple for you, your financial achievement will create negative punishment tax burden at 80%.
  I was taught to reach for that goal of wealth and financial prosperity but people like you want to take what is not yours to reward a poorly operational spending government, support proven failure federal programs, reward those that have harmed our social structure....
  I have ideas about taxes but those are my theories... Everyone should pay flat taxes on yearly gross income earned only.
  the tax rate on interest of liquid asset should be on a flat rate also with a sliding scale paying less per year until those asset reach a 30 year holding to a tax rate of 5 % on the earning interest

  You are confusing income and assets.
  
  My current income would be taxed at 25% at the highest bracket. I think I can afford that; sorry you can't. I guess we just need the poor who can barely feed their kids or take them to the doctor pay their "fair share". How Christian of you.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1835197 wrote:I am fairly certain that there is no one on this forum that takes sleeper serious, or his alter ego isadore.

  I'm not isadore. IPs were confirmed ages ago.
• Heretic

  

  jmog;1835197 wrote:I am fairly certain that there is no one on this forum that takes sleeper serious, or his alter ego isadore.

  Well, that doesn't exactly explain why some people have been arguing with his rants and trying to actually make points against him over the past few weeks, ie: Belly's post on this thread.
• O-Trap

  

  like_that;1835127 wrote:Do you want his real answer or troll answer?

  I'd like a real answer. Either his or someone else's, I don't care. I just see the term thrown around often enough that I want to know if they believe their reference to a fair share is an objective one.
  

  sleeper;1835201 wrote:Simple. The more money you have, the greater share of the nation's benefits you receive. Want to enjoy the freedom, defense, and economic security that your US citizenship brings? Pay up. Simple.

  You really didn't answer the question. Why 80%? Why not 90% or 70%? Have you worked out something by which the top tier you've referenced earn 80% of their income from the national benefits they receive? Do you have statistics? I mean, I know you're probably talking out your ass, but I'd like to see how far you can go with this to gauge whether or not a serious human being could come up with it.
  

  Heretic;1835211 wrote:Well, that doesn't exactly explain why some people have been arguing with his rants and trying to actually make points against him over the past few weeks, ie: Belly's post on this thread.

  I can't help it. It's a compulsion. I am a self-identified troll's wet dream.
• sleeper

  

  You really didn't answer the question. Why 80%? Why not 90% or 70%? Have you worked out something by which the top tier you've referenced earn 80% of their income from the national benefits they receive? Do you have statistics? I mean, I know you're probably talking out your ass, but I'd like to see how far you can go with this to gauge whether or not a serious human being could come up with it.

  They control 80% of the money therefore they should pay 80% of the taxes. They also control the government, so they should pay the vast majority of the taxes used to support the government. Simple.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1835261 wrote:They control 80% of the money therefore they should pay 80% of the taxes. They also control the government, so they should pay the vast majority of the taxes used to support the government. Simple.

  Taxes themselves aren't even based on the amount of money controlled. They're based on the amount of money earned.
  
  Top 10% (all people who earn over $150K) earn 43% of the income and pay 71% of the total taxes.
  
  So whatever "money" they control as it pertains to taxable income is under 43% (since you're talking about, essentially, a fraction of the top 1% as opposed to the top 10%), and they already pay a disproportional percentage of the total tax revenue.
  
  This is, of course, assuming you can demonstrate even the claim you did make (which wasn't related to my point) that they "control 80% of the money," anyway.
• like_that

  

  How do you all feel about a flat tax? The pros outweigh the cons imo and it incentives people to work harder to make more money.
• jmog

  sleeper;1835261 wrote:They control 80% of the money therefore they should pay 80% of the taxes. They also control the government, so they should pay the vast majority of the taxes used to support the government. Simple.

  Those making over 1M do not make 80% of the income, so therefore they do not "control" 80% either.
  
  Hope this helps.