How much is a "Fair share?"

[Skull and Bones]

Everyone's fair share should be nothing.  No federal income tax.  Not only does the federal govt. Have no right to impose one it shouldn't be necessary to fund the federal govt. Envisioned by the founders of our constitution.  In fact this country was able to do just fine with no income tax or very few paying one for the first 170 years or so of its existence.  It wasn't until WWII that the average Joe started paying an income tax.  And constitutionally they are doing so on a voluntary basis.  Also, revenue from income taxes only accounts for about a 1/3rd of the federal revenue.

[tripblood]

Middle class needs lower taxes. Period..

In this world(and especially this country), it takes money to make money. .

[Skull and Bones]

Here is an interesting read:  http://freeyourmindonline.net/truthabouttax/

[CBWx2]

Refusing to answer the question. Not unexpected as it is the usual response.

LOL, I usually refuse to answer questions? Really? How many other liberals post regularly in the Cove?

Okay fine. Let's pretend that this is going to somehow be a fair and balanced discussion between the one liberal poster and the dozen or so conservative posters on this MB who either support regressive taxation or don't believe in taxation at all....

I would advocate a mixture of the best aspects of the Kennedy/Clinton/Bush tax rates. It would look something like this.

Bracket 1:
Married: $0 – $18,000   
Single: $0 – $9000
Rate: 10%

Bracket 2:
Married: $18,001 – $71,000
Single: $9,001 – $35,500
Rate: 25%

Bracket 3:
Married: $71,001 – $165,000
Single: $35,501 – $82,500
Rate: 30%

Bracket 4:
Married: $165,001 – $250,000
Single: $82,501 – $175,000
Rate: 35%
 
Bracket   5:
Married: $250,001 – $400,000   
Single: $175,001 – $400,000
Rate: 40%

Bracket   6:
Married: $400,001 and over
Single: Over $400,001 and over
Rate: 60%

[tatmanfish]

Fair: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

How is your scale fair? or logical.

60% of $500,000 is $300,000 or $200,000 after taxes.
50% of $400,000 is $200,000 or $200,000 after taxes.

So someone who makes $100,000 more year makes the same amount after taxes. How is that fair?

By definition of the word fair, flat tax is the only thing that fits.

please explain(this will be funny and lacking any logic) how a sliding scale favors the rich when they pay more in taxes? Please explain how everyone paying the same rate isnt fair(dont use the "they make more" argument)?

Now go off on some tangent about how the rich benefit from more from the taxes paid which is completely irrelevant to the idea of fair taxation.

Dont forget to consider this is America and anyone can make $200,000 a year if they have the drive, conviction, and heart to make it happen. Also, Im guessing that youre in one of the lowest tax brackets, have a crappy job, and possibly benefit from government aid. Going out on a limb here, but I see no other reason any hard working person would want to give up more of their money than the next person. After all, this country was founded on the idea of equality and the the pursuit of happiness. I guess you think it should mean that those that work hard to make more money should support those that dont so they can be happy? Its just the pursuit, not the happiness that guaranteed.

[spartan]

Your first 2 tax brackets, is that with or without stuff like refundable tax credits and deductions? I give you big kudos if your are insuring everybody has skin in the game, but if it is a nod and a wink, might as well just make them 0.

I won't go into the economics of this but will point out that taxation at these levels will not cover the current deficit. That was the point behind the question believe it or not. Oh, and you're not the only progressive.

[tatmanfish]

I guess CBW hates capitalism as well?

[CBWx2]

Fair: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

Is that how you characterize your position? Oh boy. Here we go...

How is your scale fair? or logical.

60% of $500,000 is $300,000 or $200,000 after taxes.
50% of $400,000 is $200,000 or $200,000 after taxes.

So someone who makes $100,000 more year makes the same amount after taxes. How is that fair?

Don't have the time or patience to break it down for you, but your math is wrong.

By definition of the word fair, flat tax is the only thing that fits.

please explain(this will be funny and lacking any logic) how a sliding scale favors the rich when they pay more in taxes? Please explain how everyone paying the same rate isnt fair(dont use the "they make more" argument)?

A sliding scale doesn't favor the rich. That's kind of the point. A flat tax is regressive because it's much harder to live off of 75% of $9,000 than it is to live off of 75% of $400,000 dollars. While the percentage is the same, the hardship it creates on lower brackets is significantly higher than it is for upper brackets, and there are far more people in lower brackets than there are in upper brackets. Basically, you are advocating a tax scale that disadvantages 90% of the American population in favor of making it "fair" for the top 10%. Apparently, for some, this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Dont forget to consider this is America and anyone can make $200,000 a year if they have the drive, conviction, and heart to make it happen. Also, Im guessing that youre in one of the lowest tax brackets, have a crappy job, and possibly benefit from government aid. Going out on a limb here, but I see no other reason any hard working person would want to give up more of their money than the next person. After all, this country was founded on the idea of equality and the the pursuit of happiness. I guess you think it should mean that those that work hard to make more money should support those that dont so they can be happy? Its just the pursuit, not the happiness that guaranteed.

Not even worth it...

[tatmanfish]

soooooo dumb. so freaking dumb.

yes, I characterize the position of fair by the definition of the word fair.

my math is not wrong. Use a calculator genius.

you said it favors the rich, but now it doesnt. you also fail to realize that the 90% you refer to isnt 90%, and already pay 10%+ If you averaged the top 90% they already pay around most systems 17 or so percent.

and last but not least, i knew I had you pegged as some crap job holder in a lower income tax bracket who gets government aid. No shame in it, just need to find a way to make more instead of mooching of everyone else.

How about capitalism by the way? Sure sounds like you hate that concept.

[CBWx2]

Your first 2 tax brackets, is that with or without stuff like refundable tax credits and deductions? I give you big kudos if your are insuring everybody has skin in the game, but if it is a nod and a wink, might as well just make them 0.

As you might imagine, I am a proponent of the nod and wink for lower brackets. My belief is that the credits and deductions aimed at the lower brackets have far more economic benefit than what eliminating them would have. Poor people live paycheck to paycheck. They spend their money. Those tax credit dollars eventually end up getting recirculated into the economy and generate more revenue than they would if the government just kept them.

I won't go into the economics of this but will point out that taxation at these levels will not cover the current deficit. That was the point behind the question believe it or not. Oh, and you're not the only progressive.

Probably not, but the current deficit is the result of 30+ years of fiscal policy. It's going to likely take more than that to close it. This isn't a solution, more of a step in the right direction, IMO. Also, another big factor of the current deficit is that we are in the middle of a recession, and current revenues reflect that. Using current revenues as a starting point doesn't give an accurate trajectory, as it is difficult to gauge how much those revenues will increase as the economy rebounds.

[CBWx2]

my math is not wrong. Use a calculator genius.

Minus any credits or deductions, gross income of $400,000 using my tax scale has a take-home income of $256,000 after taxes, not $200,000.

Minus any credits or deductions, gross income of $500,000 using my tax scale has a take-home income of $296,000 after taxes, not $200,000.

Got that by using a calculator, genius.

and last but not least, i knew I had you pegged as some crap job holder in a lower income tax bracket who gets government aid. No shame in it, just need to find a way to make more instead of mooching of everyone else.

My personal income status is of no business of yours, but I happen to live quite comfortably, own a great deal of property, and receive no government aid whatsoever. I know you find it completely foreign for anyone to have values that surpass looking out for their own self-interests, but believe it or not, people like that do exist.

How about capitalism by the way? Sure sounds like you hate that concept.

I love capitalism when it's used as an economic system and not as a moral code. Your comment suggests that you know far less about it than I do. Perhaps you should read more, and pontificate less.

[dbucfan]

You and I could get a tax deal done in an hour CBW. 

[tatmanfish]

my math is not wrong. Use a calculator genius.

Minus any credits or deductions, gross income of $400,000 using my tax scale has a take-home income of $256,000 after taxes, not $200,000.

Minus any credits or deductions, gross income of $500,000 using my tax scale has a take-home income of $296,000 after taxes, not $200,000.

Got that by using a calculator, genius.

and last but not least, i knew I had you pegged as some crap job holder in a lower income tax bracket who gets government aid. No shame in it, just need to find a way to make more instead of mooching of everyone else.

My personal income status is of no business of yours, but I happen to live quite comfortably, own a great deal of property, and receive no government aid whatsoever. I know you find it completely foreign for anyone to have values that surpass looking out for their own self-interests, but believe it or not, people like that do exist.

How about capitalism by the way? Sure sounds like you hate that concept.

I love capitalism when it's used as an economic system and not as a moral code. Your comment suggests that you know far less about it than I do. Perhaps you should read more, and pontificate less.

50% of 400,000 is 200,000.

60% of 500,000 is 300,000.

Tell me how Im wrong again?

lol, how did I know you would live comfortably and have money? Its the internet, of course you do. Of course you like giving the money you earned to less fortunate. To people who abuse the welfare system and refuse to work. It just seems fair.

[spartan]

Tatman, you would only pay 60% on income above 400K.

You would pay  10% on your income up to 9k, 25% on 9 - 35k , 35% on 35-82k etc. I'm not going to do the math, but it's not a straight 60% on your 400K.

[tatmanfish]

Tatman, you would only pay 60% on income above 400K.

You would pay  10% on your income up to 9k, 25% on 9 - 35k , 35% on 35-82k etc. I'm not going to do the math, but it's not a straight 60% on your 400K.

well that makes sense but the info provided does break it down to that extent. the net money vs the growth isnt what Id call fair by any means though. The reward of making another 100k(between the used 400k and 500k) is only 40,000 dollars. thats a substantial chunk.

I dont value the idea of those that make should pay more if youre really going to be fair. the whole basis has long been geared towards giving the lower income brackets benefits and money they didnt earn or put back into the collective pot. Consider many of them actually pay little to no money in taxes(deductions, etc.) it further puts the burden on the higher income brackets. The ones effected by this the most are the ones in the middle. They are the ones that generally drive the economy. Its essentially punishing those middle to higher income brackets for having a better job, working harder, or investing their money into their own business.

Those people paying the most are the ones providing jobs, and the amount lost in taxes are a maor reason my many of the business outsource to different countries thus taking away jobs. These businesses need an incentive to keep the jobs here and lower tax rates are it IMO. Because.....wait for it.....they are moving factories and outsourcing to other countries to get away from the excessive taxing.