What % of their Income Should Rich Contribute as "Their Fair Share"?

Well, for a start, I would put the higest number paid by the middle class. There is absolutely NO reason that the rich should pay a lower rate. Notice I said "pay", not "have. Rates mean nothing if you have the means (and the laws) that let you pay less.

Public disclosure laws have alloed us to see that the average middle class person pays over 30%; Federal, FICA, state and local. That does not include sales tax, which pushes the average middle class closer to the 40% mark.

The wealthy pay close to 0,01% FICA, pay a lower rate on capital gains (as opposed to a salary), pay nothing in many staes (Only "income" is taxed in many places), and the ultra wealthy pay only a small tribute in sales tax, as investments are not considered goods to be taxed.

So, someone needs to find out what most of us are paying, and start there. I'm not suggesting we return to the 90% tax of the post depression days. But somwhere between the extremes of half the middle class tax rate, and the 90% tax rate of long ago is a logical place to begin.

 

The primary cause of war is for the collection of tax.

 

I heard it make hair grow on your palms and gives you gonorrhea as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know. How?

 

Since the Govt is only taking about 16.5% in total taxes, that gives them quite a bit of room to maneuver.

 

No two people are exactly the same. Inequality is necessary by product of freedom. Fair and free are opposites.

 

Who here has been arguing for equality?

 

I absolutley disagree.

 

Progressives argure that progress is progress toward equality of outcome. A progressive tax is founded upon such 'progresssive' ideas.

 

Not at all, they are taking 45-55%


Debt Spending + Direct Taxes (All, not just income, but payroll, excises, duties, gas taxes, etc.. ) + Regulatory Compliance Costs that wouldn't otherwise be spent+ Opportunity Costs imposed by government = Total Taxes. I am OK with them at 30%. They landed on the moon with that kind of cash, they built the highways for less, that is plenty. Don't let politicians play games, I know you are smart enough to understand my point is valid. Don't spin, lets agree here. You know damn well the affect of debt spending and regulatory costs, don't discount them. We can argue opportunity costs maybe.

- - - Updated - - -

All of you that complain about income inequality. People such as yourself.

 

When the 1% today get 20% of the nation's income and have about 40% of the nation's wealth, both double from 30 years ago, an argument to reverse that redistribution it towards more equality in incomes.

But that, of course, it completely different than arguing for equality in incomes. I've seen no one here argue that, including me. Maybe our resident communist does, I don't know.

 

Not the federal Govt. The Federal govt took 16.5% last year, which, excluding the Bush tax cut years, is amongst the lowest rates of the past several decades. I doubt state governments are taking 30-35% of GDP in taxes. My state taxes are much lower than the federal taxes I pay.

Regulations aren't taxes. They can involve a cost but there is no revenue going to the Govt. Not to mention there is no accurate way to measure the cost. Debt spending isn't a tax either, but should be paid for by taxes.

Not what I asked.

 

Why money? Why not beauty or athletic ability? There's nothing uncommon about the top 1% of any theoretical category of people dominating their respective strengths in the above porportions. You can stand to be ungly, short and fat. You can stand being without talent or fame, but you just can't stand others have more money. Shallow, transparent and futile. A true chasing after the wind.

 

Hold on now. Lets get back to basics. Maybe I was wrong about you.

What is the difference effectively between taxing dollars and "printing" and spending them? Do they retain the same buying power for the person afterward?

If a regulation says you have to provide health care to your employees, or you are taxed and pay the government and it provides health care what is the effective difference?

Hard to measure for sure, but I have seen estimates from 3-7% pre Obamacare and that is gross expenses. Never mind opportunity cost, (no fracking in NY b/c of a bunch of people unfamiliar with science think its a bad idea etc...) When you think of all the built in costs of what you buy, import search fees, document work, court costs, lawyers etc.. that is fair. The administrative law bar is good for a lot of cash.

 

I keep asking this question of people like you, and you keep refusing to answer it.

If in 1920, the total money in the economy was 4.48 Billion, what was the difference in amount between the wealthiest person and the most poor? What was the highest income?

Now, there is approximately 1.23 TRILLION in circulation. What is the difference in amount between the wealthiest, and the most poor? What is the highest income?

 

We are taxed in four ways:
1. Printing money (quantitative easing)
2. Regulations, prohibitions and mandates
3. Compliance costs
4. Confiscated funds

 

Total. I think forty percent is fair, it is low enough to encourage and attract business but high enough to keep the lefties happy.

 

we have received higher revenue after every cap gains tax cut in the last 50 years, all you have shown is that you cannot read

100% correlation is statistically impossible in your static model, cap gains cut = unlocking effect QED

 

btw showing that you can multiply a realized cap gains by a tax rate to get revenue for two years of equal realized gains proves nothing, all it shows it that somehow have managed to learn how to multiply

quite simply, you are wrong, realized cap gains shows almost perfect inverse correlation with cap gains tax rate no matter what the stock market is doing. In 1997, stock gains leveled off, however cap gains realized soared while there was a large tax rate decrease.

Click here, proof you are wrong, and the expose of the liberal lie:

 

It's an odd thing, but the tweaks we've seen with tax cuts and increases have made little difference in actual federal revenue (as a percent of GDP).



Looking at the chart, drops and surges have more to do with the state of the economy than with tax rates.

 

- - - Updated - - -

please explain how you got the chart to look large, thanks.

Wealthy people will always adjust to tax rates, but the real question is how do tax rates affect the economy

 

as is, here in California when you combine state and federal income tax, our top incomes already pay over 50%.. on top of that we have the highest sales tax in the naiton

overall, Californian's pay more taxes than the Swedes, but without the benefits of universal healthcare or paid vacation.... the way I see it, if the government wants more of its citizens money, they need to start spending it in a way that is in their best interest... instead of feeding our already over inflated military, and maintaining a drug war that is responsible for the largest prison populous in the world.... more money is spent on our prisons than our schools or hospitals

 

I just clicked the image tab in post, unchecked the one option, then posted the link.

 

Someone else already had. I don't need to double down on facts.
Whether or not the posted links convince you are of no interest to me.

Backpedaling to save face... cute.

You haven't the ability.

 

It's uncommon for the 1% to get so much more of the nation's wealth and prosperity as they are now. The last time was before the Great Depression.

 

No. Taxing is a transfer from one person to another without any change in the money supply. Printing increases the base money supply.

The Govt isn't receiving tax revenue. For example, a regulation that says you have to provide a safe working area for employees imposes a cost on business, but it isn't revenue to the government.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Who here has been arguing for equality?