The President will be speaking about the "fair share"

[spartan]

I hear Kennedy talking about "doing for your country" and the "freedom of man" But he didn't mention government at all and he sure didn't mention taxes. Good clip of Kennedy but it has not a thing to do w/ this thread.

He didn't mention Peace Corps either. But since most of you haven't served your country in any manner, paying taxes is pretty much your only opportunity to support your country (infrastructure, assisting your fellow American who may be poor, homeless,  your military, medical research, etc etc.). Pay your share...pull your weight. It had to be spelled out for you, unfortunately.

So what is my fair share?

[Morgan]

That would depend on several things.

[Durango 95]

Well, if in the future I have any doubt about what my country needs i will be sure to check w/ you first.

[spartan]

That would depend on several things.

Like what? How can I tell if I am paying my fair share or not?

[dark uncle]

Yeah, pretty subjective really.  On one hand, fair share means that everyone pays the same amount to support the government. On the other hand you could make it a flat percentage across the board and eliminate all the deductions. What I don't see as "fair" is going after the top 1% to take more money from them.  At some point, the wealth redistribution needs to stop.

[mjs020294]

. What I don't see as "fair" is going after the top 1% to take more money from them.  At some point, the wealth redistribution needs to stop.

In case you missed it we have had a wealth redistribution in favor of the 1% going on for over around a decade.  The average working American saw their standard of living decline eight straight years under GW Bush, in the thirty years prior to GW that only happened two years.

The 1% have done very well in the last decade.  Super Yachts have been sold at crazy rates and most billionaires pay tax at a very low rate.  Heck even a lot of the super wealthy actually question the current tax rates and they want to pay more.

[Durango 95]

The only way to eliminate wealth redistribution via taxation is to implement a 0% federal tax rate across the board. Anything short of that will leave us forever chasing our tails on tax rates vis a' vis income level. As MJS said tax rates have recently favored the 1%. As a result the middle class in this country is hurting. That is highly alarming. So either eliminate the Fed. income tax or create a tax rate that's equitable. Yes, that is easier said than done, but It's past time for the pendulum to swing back the other way. At this point it has be done.

[spartan]

. What I don't see as "fair" is going after the top 1% to take more money from them.  At some point, the wealth redistribution needs to stop.

In case you missed it we have had a wealth redistribution in favor of the 1% going on for over around a decade.  The average working American saw their standard of living decline eight straight years under GW Bush, in the thirty years prior to GW that only happened two years.

The 1% have done very well in the last decade.  Super Yachts have been sold at crazy rates and most billionaires pay tax at a very low rate.  Heck even a lot of the super wealthy actually question the current tax rates and they want to pay more.

There are some that regardless of how much you raise the tax rates will be impervious to consequences. These persons have a tendency to support 'social justice' because they know the end result will be to reduce and eliminate the competition and anyone who would pose a threat to their lifestyle. Those who think the likes of George Soros or Warren Buffet actually give a crap about the 'poor' are sadly mistaken IMO. Look deep into the 'social programs' and 'share the wealth' policies that they support and it has more to do with reducing the threat to them, than it is some charitable purpose. Think I'm wrong? Ask yourself why these supposed magnanimous billionaires don't do the easy thing and just give their money away? Political policies aimed at the "1%" don't effect those who are already in the 1%, but prevent those who are trying to get INTO the 1%.

Most of those in the "1%" earned their way into it. In the process, how many people did they drag into it, or close to ti?  Is that such a bad thing?

[Durango 95]

. What I don't see as "fair" is going after the top 1% to take more money from them.  At some point, the wealth redistribution needs to stop.

In case you missed it we have had a wealth redistribution in favor of the 1% going on for over around a decade.  The average working American saw their standard of living decline eight straight years under GW Bush, in the thirty years prior to GW that only happened two years.

The 1% have done very well in the last decade.  Super Yachts have been sold at crazy rates and most billionaires pay tax at a very low rate.  Heck even a lot of the super wealthy actually question the current tax rates and they want to pay more.

.

Most of those in the "1%" earned their way into it.

Excerpted for posterity and comedic value.

[dalbuc]

In case you missed it we have had a wealth redistribution in favor of the 1% going on for over around a decade.  The average working American saw their standard of living decline eight straight years under GW Bush, in the thirty years prior to GW that only happened two years.

The 1% have done very well in the last decade.  Super Yachts have been sold at crazy rates and most billionaires pay tax at a very low rate.  Heck even a lot of the super wealthy actually question the current tax rates and they want to pay more.

This is actually not true. What changed was that money was reported as "income". Small business owners shifted from paying business taxes to taking their profits as income. That shows up as a gain for the top 1% even though nothing changed. Same thing with big CEO's who stopped getting stock options and got slaary. They didn't make more money, they just reported more of it as income. Lower tax rates had the effect of changing the way income was classified. The 1% also haven't done all that well the last decade since they lost more wealth in the last 3 years than the other 99% combined.

What irks me about this is the simple fact that there is no logic to even caring about the 1% or the 5% or whatever. What they make doesn't effect you. Other than stupid jealously their income is as irrelevant to you as mine. The economic pie isn't one size and my bigger slice leaves less for you. It doesn't work that way.

[spartan]

. What I don't see as "fair" is going after the top 1% to take more money from them.  At some point, the wealth redistribution needs to stop.

In case you missed it we have had a wealth redistribution in favor of the 1% going on for over around a decade.  The average working American saw their standard of living decline eight straight years under GW Bush, in the thirty years prior to GW that only happened two years.

The 1% have done very well in the last decade.  Super Yachts have been sold at crazy rates and most billionaires pay tax at a very low rate.  Heck even a lot of the super wealthy actually question the current tax rates and they want to pay more.

.

Most of those in the "1%" earned their way into it.

Excerpted for posterity and comedic value.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/?mod=WSJBlog

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

Capitalist need a watch dog due to the overwhelming greed or you theoritically end up having slaves for the master of the plantation...Sorry but there has to be some equallity for the middleclass. If there isn't you will then pander always to "two classes" for the middleclass will cease to exist. Therory is nice in the classroom but there has to be principle and application applied in the middle of theoritical explaination...JMVHO...OBD

[candidlyvic]

Fair share is everyone in the country paying the same exact thing. The guy who makes 500k per year doesn't cost the government anymore than the guy making 50k per year. You shouldn't pay taxes based upon what you make, you should pay taxes based upon what you cost and consume. If the guy making 500k per year wants to spend 90k on a Mercedes, fine, make him pay the price in sales and luxury tax. I'm not a 500k per year guy, but I'm also not a 50k per year guy. I find it crazy that I should have to pay my accountant several thousand per year (I own a business, and therefore am penalized for it), and then the government a sick amount on top of that, while almost 50% of Americans don't even pay taxes. At the end of 2010 I had to write almost 30k in checks to the IRS to catch up on back payroll taxes. That amount of money would have allowed me to hire someone to assist in sales, which would have eventually allowed me to hire a few more production people. Over the course of 2011 that 30k may have created 2-5 jobs. Aren't jobs what our country needs right now? Instead it paid for part for a myriad of stupid government crap, like a small part (perhaps a plane ticket) of Barack's Christmas vacation.

[dbucfan]

You make the assumption the 'inequity' or 'unfairness' comes from the economic system.  I would differ - I believe it comes from the government under the guise of creating 'equity' and 'fairness'.  Check out the tax code to see this in action, then review the court system.  Right now the federal tax code is so convoluted few if any trust it to be fair or equitable - let alone effective.  Then watching as Washington is bought - because it is for sale - by those seeking advantage for folks they represent - be that business or other countries - and the issues get even murkier.

And then there is that part about borrowing money to increase spending...

None of the above is a feature of a capitalism - but if you were to look at the bastardization of a representative government you would be closing in upon the problem imvho

[Durango 95]

. What I don't see as "fair" is going after the top 1% to take more money from them.  At some point, the wealth redistribution needs to stop.

In case you missed it we have had a wealth redistribution in favor of the 1% going on for over around a decade.  The average working American saw their standard of living decline eight straight years under GW Bush, in the thirty years prior to GW that only happened two years.

The 1% have done very well in the last decade.  Super Yachts have been sold at crazy rates and most billionaires pay tax at a very low rate.  Heck even a lot of the super wealthy actually question the current tax rates and they want to pay more.

.

Most of those in the "1%" earned their way into it.

Excerpted for posterity and comedic value.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/?mod=WSJBlog

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

Wow I have to say l have learned something new today. After looking up information on the top 1% I was shocked....That to qualify for the top 1% of earners in this country that one need "only" make 380k annually.  I "assumed" it was much more than that. .......Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit.