"Fair Share"

know1

A tangent in the DNC thread got me thinking.

Why are people worried about other people paying their "fair share".

Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?

I generally tune out anytime someone mentions the word fair in any context because I think one of the earliest lessons we learned in life is that it isn't fair and wasn't meant to be, but it just seems like this knee jerk reaction where it's a good thing for other people to drop more money into the big black hole that is our government. And it's a bad thing when they somehow give the government less.

Shouldn't we worry more about how much the government is taking in and what it's doing with that?

If someone can't point to a legitimate need for the government to take in more money, I'll bet we can point to a dozen places it should be able to cut to get there.

josevolution

Yeah no doubt ..

Israel how about we get the $$$$$ we give them everysingle yr ...

BinauralJam

Take some form the defense budget and give it to Nasa/Space Program. One of the prime reasons the U.S.A. is as powerful as it is and has been is because of our scientist and technological superiority. You figure out the military application, after you make the breakthrough, i.e. the Atom Bomb. That's how you stay the most powerful country in the world, not with more guns.

BinauralJam

josevolution wrote:

Yeah no doubt ..

Israel how about we get the $$$$$ we give them everysingle yr ...

This is an excellent start as well!

Jason P

BinauralJam wrote:

josevolution wrote:

Yeah no doubt ..

Israel how about we get the $$$$$ we give them everysingle yr ...

This is an excellent start as well!

Now you guys are on the trolley! The politicians are pitting us against each other while we should all be demanding them to be accountable with their spending.

The biggest problem is that in order to cut the budget by any measurable amount, it will need to be with social security, medicare, and defense ... and politicians are scared crapless to touch any of them as it leads them open to major attacks (just ask Ryan and Obama).

hedonist

Jason P wrote:

Now you guys are on the trolley! The politicians are pitting us against each other while we should all be demanding them to be accountable with their spending.

That's always been one of my sticking points; the other shit only serves to distract (though I do believe in equal taxation; the term "fair" strikes me as too subjective).

There is no way my company would survive if they conducted business the way the government does. Similarly, there's no way my family would survive if living so beyond our means.

I mean, growing up, when I got my first checking/savings account at oh, 10 or 11 years old. Even I got the concept that if I want to stay in the positive, I need to spend less than I take in. No secret financial stash to dig into. No one to print more money for me. No one to say "here, you fucked up way more than once, but let me give you some more money so you can do the same."

A lot of little cutbacks can make a huge difference. A different mindset can do the same as well.

MotoDC

Not to speak for them, but I would bet that most of the more left-leaning folks on this board would say that it has to be combination of the two to make this work. The gov't needs to be held accountable for its spending decisions, but the ultra rich also need to shoulder an additional burden simply because they can.

For my part, I agree with you, know1. Seems to me that the Feds have more than enough money to make their shit work, it's just a question of prioritizing (including the defense budget) and then expecting more out of their employees. The amount of waste in terms of productive man hours-to-salary in the federal gov't is quite a thing.

Prince Of Dorkness

know1 wrote:

Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?

If you want to look at it that way then... sure.

Why should they take less from me than they do from you? Why should they take hardly anything from Mitt Romney?

The end result is the burden of supporting our country's infrastructure is being almost eliminated from the people who can afford it more and shouldered on the people who can't.

We can debate what to cut and what not to, if you'd like. My first vote is "end the war, end the tax exemptions of churches that just use the money to fund politics anyway."

aerial

No government funded sex changes
No jet rides for any White house staff unless it's Government business
No more extravagant Ball's or Parties
Government employees caught miss using funds need to pay back double of what they stole
All Government employees must be held accountable
No double retirement checks from the government
Just a few ways to save a couple billion

MotoDC

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?

If you want to look at it that way then... sure.

Why should they take less from me than they do from you? Why should they take hardly anything from Mitt Romney?

The end result is the burden of supporting our country's infrastructure is being almost eliminated from the people who can afford it more and shouldered on the people who can't.

We can debate what to cut and what not to, if you'd like. My first vote is "end the war, end the tax exemptions of churches that just use the money to fund politics anyway."

Although I agree with part of what you're saying, the words you're using to describe what happens are misleading, whether intentionally or otherwise. You know as well as I do that Romney and other wealthy folks (like you, apparently) contribute a substantially greater portion of national tax revenue than poorer folks. Due to tax loopholes they are sometimes able to pay less in tax as a percentage of their own income than an average middle class family, yes. That part is where we agree there's a problem. But to suggest they don't provide the bulk of the financial support for the country's infrastructure (or any other part of a federally supported program) is untrue.

As for churches and tax incentives, as long as you also don't give tax incentives to any other non-profit out there, then hey, go for it.

Prince Of Dorkness

MotoDC wrote:

Although I agree with part of what you're saying, the words you're using to describe what happens are misleading, whether intentionally or otherwise. You know as well as I do that Romney and other wealthy folks (like you, apparently) contribute a substantially greater portion of national tax revenue than poorer folks.

Yes, I get a lot of tax breaks for various things. The reason that someone like Mitt Romney (who is a HELL of a lot richer than I would ever even WANT to be) pays "more" in taxes is that he's worth more than a stadium full of people. The top 1% earners in America make enough money to feed the rest of the entire world... for 500 YEARS.

While I'm not a "socialist" who would suggest that I don't deserve my income or advocate making me share it with anyone, exactly.. I find it obscene that thanks to all sorts of odd rules and loop holes and silly regulations that are out there, Walmart (that's made more than you'll make in your entire life in the time it's taken me to write this post) uses shady employment practices that keep over half of their employees eligible for food stamps and doesn't pay any health insurance. Which means that you and I foot the bill for their food stamps and should they need emergency care... we pay for that, too.

If you're going to make the argument that the Waltons (who, if you add up all six of them, have more more money than the bottom 40% of the entire population) pay their "fair share," I'm going to disagree with you.

As for churches and tax incentives, as long as you also don't give tax incentives to any other non-profit out there, then hey, go for it.

I figure as long as a charity is actually doing community support and not just taking that money and building castles and shrines to it's "god" and funding politicians...they are just fine with me.

MotoDC

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Yes, I get a lot of tax breaks for various things. The reason that someone like Mitt Romney (who is a HELL of a lot richer than I would ever even WANT to be) pays "more" in taxes is that he's worth more than a stadium full of people. The top 1% earners in America make enough money to feed the rest of the entire world... for 500 YEARS.

Since we're picking nits and trying to be accurate, Romney pays zero taxes because he's worth a lot. He pays taxes because his wealth earns income (whether he works or not, the very definition of financial wealth, though that's kinda another topic). The distinction I was trying to make clear is that Romney and the rich pay way more into the federal tax revenue pot in absolute terms than most everybody else combined. That they often pay less as a percentage of their own income than many of us not in the upper crust -- that is the issue here.

The challenge is that it would be really problematic to ensure that people like Romney -- who get so much of their "income" from passive sources -- pay the same % as the rest of us wage-earner types. We could tax capital gains, interest income, property sales tax, rental income, dividend income at higher rates, but really that impacts the middle class quite a bit as well. Perhaps not as much, but there would have to be an adjustment somewhere else if we're really going to be "fair" to the 99%.

PoD wrote:

While I'm not a "socialist" who would suggest that I don't deserve my income or advocate making me share it with anyone, exactly.. I find it obscene that thanks to all sorts of odd rules and loop holes and silly regulations that are out there, Walmart (that's made more than you'll make in your entire life in the time it's taken me to write this post) uses shady employment practices that keep over half of their employees eligible for food stamps and doesn't pay any health insurance. Which means that you and I foot the bill for their food stamps and should they need emergency care... we pay for that, too.

The Walmart piece is way off topic simply because it's a corporation. It's a conversation worth having, but not only is it not what this thread is about, man is it complicated.

PoD wrote:

If you're going to make the argument that the Waltons (who, if you add up all six of them, have more more money than the bottom 40% of the entire population) pay their "fair share," I'm going to disagree with you.

Never said anything about "fair share" because I find it indefinable. You "know" they don't pay their fair share because the difference between their wealth (which is in the top .01%, not the 1%) is so unimaginably incomparable to the bottom 40% that it seems obvious.

By the way, not sure where you got that 40% stat, but I imagine it has a lot to do with the housing crash. It's most of America's #1 asset and #1 liability, so when its value tanks, so do most people's net wealth. Hmm...hold on, google is my friend. Here is perhaps what you were referring to. Interestingly, there's a quote from Forbes at the bottom -- "He added: 'If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25 percent of Americans.' " I.e., net wealth can be a very misleading statistic.

PoD wrote:

I figure as long as a charity is actually doing community support and not just taking that money and building castles and shrines to it's "god" and funding politicians...they are just fine with me.

Then you're kinda coming from a position of religious oppression. You're penalizing a non-profit purely for being founded or based in religion. How would you define whether a non-profit was religious or not? Additionally, you aren't really suggesting that non-religious non-profits don't fund politicians, are you? Cause that would be kinda silly.

Prince Of Dorkness

MotoDC wrote:

Then you're kinda coming from a position of religious oppression.

Don't be silly.

MotoDC wrote:

You're penalizing a non-profit purely for being founded or based in religion. How would you define whether a non-profit was religious or not?

It's just fine if a non-profit is "religious," but just the act of being a church shouldn't come with automatic tax exemptions. If you want to get your followers to donate their own money so you can build a big castle to worship in, be my guest. But it shouldn't be tax-exempt.

MotoDC wrote:

Additionally, you aren't really suggesting that non-religious non-profits don't fund politicians, are you? Cause that would be kinda silly.

Of course not. But those aren't charities and shouldn't be tax exempt.

DS1119

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Why should they take hardly anything from Mitt Romney?

otter

Obama tax plan:

---

NOW

---

OBAMA PROPOSAL
Top Income tax rate

---

35%

---

39.6%
Income/Payroll

---

37%

---

52%
Capital Gains

---

15%

---

28%
Dividends

---

15%

---

39.6%
Estate Tax

---

0

---

55%

Source: Wall Street Journal

Remember that people including Romney first paid the top income tax rate (we have a progressive tax rate)
then the with the money "the government let's him keep" he invests. When his investments make money he pays tax on that. Then there are so many other taxes we all pay like sales tax...

More than half Americans pay no income tax at all.

This fair share nonsense isn't truly fair by any definition of the word fair.

Does anyone remember when Brokaw used to do "the fleecing of America" segments on the NBC news?

Big government just creates big waste and produces a class of people that is inherently unAmerican.

People run from governments that take the money and live like royalty; they used to run here. Obama is taking away the last place to run to. It is a crying shame that future generations will never imagine what it was like to be free from "in your face" government.

If the govt has control of our health.......this is the end

know1

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?

If you want to look at it that way then... sure.

Why should they take less from me than they do from you? Why should they take hardly anything from Mitt Romney?

The end result is the burden of supporting our country's infrastructure is being almost eliminated from the people who can afford it more and shouldered on the people who can't.

We can debate what to cut and what not to, if you'd like. My first vote is "end the war, end the tax exemptions of churches that just use the money to fund politics anyway."

I'm talking about the government's share as a whole, not from individuals. You're turning it right back into the argument that I said makes no sense. I'm trying to look at it from the government's fair share perspective. I think they already have their fair share (more actually), so why make others pay even more?

I agree with you about the war. End it now.

I don't agree about removing tax exemptions, because again that's just giving more money to the government.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?

If you want to look at it that way then... sure.

Why should they take less from me than they do from you? Why should they take hardly anything from Mitt Romney?

The end result is the burden of supporting our country's infrastructure is being almost eliminated from the people who can afford it more and shouldered on the people who can't.

We can debate what to cut and what not to, if you'd like. My first vote is "end the war, end the tax exemptions of churches that just use the money to fund politics anyway."

I have a question for you. How can you have a legitimate discussion about taxes and use hyperbole?

almost eliminated? hardly anything? the top 1% pay ~30% depending on the year...
The top fifth (20%) of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
(from CNN MONEY, 2009)

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/IncomeDistributionMaster1-650x436.png

less from me than they do from you? they will never take less money from you than they do from me if you are in the 1%...that is how it works. the rate may be different based on a multitude of reasons. Unearned income vs earned income is one of them. But total value...99.9% of the time you will pay more...

Capital gains are a focus of most of that. What I don't understand is that the people complain about the tax structure in this country have rarely, if ever, said "I think I should pay more than you are requiring from me, so I AM GOING TO PAY MORE...not force everyone to pay more, I am simply going to pay more". People who take deferred compensation and use capital gains as their main income steam have no right to criticize others for the taxes they pay or don't pay. They could just as easily take a salary, or simply pay more. But you see it has to be fair :roll: fair is where you go to sell a pig...

if you really want it to be fair you take the same amount from every dollar earned in the country...and do away with the unearned income distinction. That is fair.
Now if you want to talk progressive tax structure that is fine. but no where in that is the distribution "fair"...progressive tax systems are not about being fair. So using the term Fair share to describe one's participation in it is a misnomer at best

inlet13

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

know1 wrote:

Shouldn't we really worry more about the government taking its "fair share" from us?

If you want to look at it that way then... sure.

Why should they take less from me than they do from you? Why should they take hardly anything from Mitt Romney?

The end result is the burden of supporting our country's infrastructure is being almost eliminated from the people who can afford it more and shouldered on the people who can't.

We can debate what to cut and what not to, if you'd like. My first vote is "end the war, end the tax exemptions of churches that just use the money to fund politics anyway."

I have a question for you. How can you have a legitimate discussion about taxes and use hyperbole?

almost eliminated? hardly anything? the top 1% pay ~30% depending on the year...
The top fifth (20%) of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
(from CNN MONEY, 2009)

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/IncomeDistributionMaster1-650x436.png

less from me than they do from you? they will never take less money from you than they do from me if you are in the 1%...that is how it works. the rate may be different based on a multitude of reasons. Unearned income vs earned income is one of them. But total value...99.9% of the time you will pay more...

Capital gains are a focus of most of that. What I don't understand is that the people complain about the tax structure in this country have rarely, if ever, said "I think I should pay more than you are requiring from me, so I AM GOING TO PAY MORE...not force everyone to pay more, I am simply going to pay more". People who take deferred compensation and use capital gains as their main income steam have no right to criticize others for the taxes they pay or don't pay. They could just as easily take a salary, or simply pay more. But you see it has to be fair :roll: fair is where you go to sell a pig...

if you really want it to be fair you take the same amount from every dollar earned in the country...and do away with the unearned income distinction. That is fair.
Now if you want to talk progressive tax structure that is fine. but no where in that is the distribution "fair"...progressive tax systems are not about being fair. So using the term Fair share to describe one's participation in it is a misnomer at best

Yep.

MotoDC

otter wrote:

Obama tax plan:

---

NOW

---

OBAMA PROPOSAL
Top Income tax rate

---

35%

---

39.6%
Income/Payroll

---

37%

---

52%
Capital Gains

---

15%

---

28%
Dividends

---

15%

---

39.6%
Estate Tax

---

0

---

55%

Source: Wall Street Journal

:shock: Wow I hadn't seen those numbers lined up like that. Honestly, why even invest your capital with a structure like that? All that's going to do is force folks like me (and especially those with much more wealth than I) to put their money in alternative investments like multifamily housing units, REITs, bonds (bond income is 1099-INT, right? So it wouldn't be taxed at the new 39.6% dividend level?), etc. Oh, and to make sure I gift all my wealth to my kids and family before I die. There is something about the estate tax that is especially abhorrent to me.

MotoDC

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Then you're kinda coming from a position of religious oppression.

Don't be silly.

I wasn't. You were originally making an exception purely based on a non-profit being religious in nature.

Prince wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

You're penalizing a non-profit purely for being founded or based in religion. How would you define whether a non-profit was religious or not?

It's just fine if a non-profit is "religious," but just the act of being a church shouldn't come with automatic tax exemptions. If you want to get your followers to donate their own money so you can build a big castle to worship in, be my guest. But it shouldn't be tax-exempt.

This is a more acceptable compromise than what I understood your original point to be. You can't really blame my interpretation, considering the anti-Christian fervor you've been known to throw around here.

MotoDC wrote:

Additionally, you aren't really suggesting that non-religious non-profits don't fund politicians, are you? Cause that would be kinda silly.

Of course not. But those aren't charities and shouldn't be tax exempt.

Again, a more acceptable compromise than what I understood your original point to be.

But this is a tiny little subtopic of the point of the OP. What about the rest of my post?

mikepegg44

MotoDC wrote:

otter wrote:

Obama tax plan:

---

NOW

---

OBAMA PROPOSAL
Top Income tax rate

---

35%

---

39.6%
Income/Payroll

---

37%

---

52%
Capital Gains

---

15%

---

28%
Dividends

---

15%

---

39.6%
Estate Tax

---

0

---

55%

Source: Wall Street Journal

:shock: Wow I hadn't seen those numbers lined up like that. Honestly, why even invest your capital with a structure like that? All that's going to do is force folks like me (and especially those with much more wealth than I) to put their money in alternative investments like multifamily housing units, REITs, bonds (bond income is 1099-INT, right? So it wouldn't be taxed at the new 39.6% dividend level?), etc. Oh, and to make sure I gift all my wealth to my kids and family before I die. There is something about the estate tax that is especially abhorrent to me.

I have never understood the estate tax. How the fuck is taxing money that has already been taxed simply because someone died "paying your fair share" that is fucking disgusting