The Top 10% Pay 75% Of Income Taxes. That's not a "fair share?" If you don't have rich people, who is going to pay them and who will help the poor?

[RingOfFire]

If 70% plus of the weight is already carried by rich people, and that isn't a "fair share" ...

THEN WHAT IS A FAIR SHARE?

Should 10% of the people have to carry 90% of the load while the other 90% of people only carry a total of 10% of the load? Exactly how is THAT "fair?"

The fact is that 99% of people WANT TO be rich. You will NEVER achieve it if the government takes the fruit of all your effort through a confiscatory tax system.

The only equality that socialism achieves is that it leaves everyone equally poor. We need LESS TAXES not more.

Updates

+1 y

I've never had a poor person give me a job, have you?

[OlderAndWiser]

You have hit upon one of the fallacies of the left's four year rhetoric cycle. Before every presidential election, we hear that the "rich" are not paying their "fair share" of the taxes, but the left never mentions how much the "rich" are already paying and what a "fair share" would be.

[RingOfFire]

In my view a "fair" tax is a head tax. Each citizen is responsible for an equal share of the total budget. So if the budget is $100 and there are 10 citizens, they each owe $10 in taxes. THAT is what sounds fair to me.

And if they can't pay their share, they owe it for life and have to pay back a certain percentage of it each year that they are able. And they will be considered welfare recipients, because that's what they are. They are not ABLE to pay their fair share so others have to pay if for them.

That's the system I see as fair. Every citizen gets the same package of government benefits, so they should each pay the same amount for it. Why should some pay more than others? When you are online at a McDonald's, they don't make you fill out a form to show your income to decide what you must pay for your Big Mac. Everyone gets the same Big Mac so they should pay the same price for it. No one think's THAT's unfair because it's NOT.

[OlderAndWiser]

I understand your thoughts on this, but there are some problems. First, how do you deal with disabled people who have no income?

[RingOfFire]

They will receive welfare/disability payments just like they do now. That's part of the budget side of the equation. It's understood that they will never be able to pay their fair share. That doesn't make them bad people, it just states it in an honest way.

[OlderAndWiser]

And what do you do with people of limited abilities who work but earn a very meager income?

[RingOfFire]

They will be required to pay a certain amount, and incur a debt for the rest. Other people will have to make up the difference for them.

Every citizen gets a bill each year. "You owe $10." If you can only pay $5, then the other 9 people will have to pay 5/9ths of a dollar (56 cents) extra to make up the share of the person who could not pay their fair share.

[RingOfFire]

Picture you go to lunch with a table full of people and they split the bill. Sometimes someone is short a few dollars. So others have to make up the difference and he might say "I'll owe you." Same principle.

[RingOfFire]

The main point is that whether they can pay it or not, we need to change the definition of "fair share." It is no more fair to make one person have to pay more for the same basket of government services than it is for them to have to pay more for a Big Mac.

[RingOfFire]

Oh and guess what? What we will find out is THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS SPENDING TOO MUCH.

They should not be allowed to spend more than citizens can afford for a fair share of the taxes!

[RingOfFire]

Right now half of the citizens in the US PAY NO INCOME TAX AT ALL... HALF!!!

That's no good. EVERY citizen needs to have some skin in the game or else they just keep voting for the candidates who promise the most "free" stuff at someone else's expense. How is that fair? How is it Democratic? How is it in the American tradition?

If we have to rely on a few rich people to pay everyone else's way, that's not only dangerous, it means the government is spending TOO MUCH. The founders and the Constitution want LIMITED GOVERNMENT, that is one of the most important bedrocks of what makes America unique and free.

As Ronald Reagan said "The problem isn't that people are taxed too little, the problem is that the government spends too MUCH!"

Not arguing with you my friend, just sharing my thoughts. Thank you for your comments. 🙂

[OlderAndWiser]

I concur with Reagan's assessment!

[goaded]

Quick correction, about your "half the citizens" comment: that's federal income taxes, not taxes in general.

There are a lot of children, stay-at-home parents, and retirees, not to mention people who just don't earn enough to pay federal income tax. I doubt many of them don't pay any taxes at all, at the state level, for example.

[RingOfFire]

@goaded

That's not a correction.

What I wrote was "Right now half of the citizens in the US PAY NO *INCOME* TAX AT ALL... HALF!!!"

[RingOfFire]

You can't have a functioning country where a tiny group of people pay all the bills and everyone else gets to vote for candidates who promise ever more taxes on that tiny group to give them more magically "free" stuff. This model doesn't have a single country in history that demonstrates how it can be a successful. But there are plenty examples of how it fails.

[goaded]

"State income tax is allowed as a deduction in computing federal income tax, subject to limitations for individuals." Therefore state income tax will result in people not paying federal income tax, if their income falls within a certain range, depending on the state.

[RingOfFire]

And?

[goaded]

People who don't pay *federal* income tax often pay state *income* tax, and sales and other taxes. It's not like they don't have any tax burden, unless, perhaps, they're retired after decades of paying taxes. It's misleading, that's all.

You know what would increase the number of people paying federal income tax? A $15 minimum wage.

[RingOfFire]

Name the states in which it is possible to have a state income tax liability without having a federal income tax liability. I don't believe there are any.

The minimum wage comment is too stupid to address.

[goaded]

All but nine, as far as I can see. If your state income tax is deductable from the federal income tax, then of course some people pay the former without the latter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax

[RingOfFire]

No, not of course. Your reasoning is flawed.

Give me a specific example that would show that. You can't because no one pays state income tax unless they also pay federal income tax. The states designed their tax systems so that is always the case.

It's not possible to owe state income tax if you owe no federal income tax.

My original statement, that only half of the people pay income tax is correct.

If you are trying to sell the ridiculous case that that isn't true because it doesn't count people who pay state income tax and not federal income tax the burden of proof is on you. Let's see your citations.

[goaded]

If you can deduct your state income tax from your federal income tax, there must be some people who pay state income tax but not federal income tax, it's simple logic.

[RingOfFire]

Simple but wrong. I am a tax expert. I have never heard of any individual taxpayer paying state income tax but not federal income tax. It's not possible in my state and I'm pretty sure that is also true in all 50 states.

And even if it was possible (which it isn't) the number of people who did it would not change that fact that my statement is correct. I won't waste any more time on this unless you can show me a credible citation backing your point. I don't debate against fantasies.

[OlderAndWiser]

@goaded Why does it matter if they pay some state tax? They still pay no federal income tax and complain that "rich people" aren't paying their fair share!

[goaded]

OK, I'll accept you're an expert, but do you represent people who don't earn enough to pay state income tax? How can it be, that you can deduct state income tax, but still have to pay federal income tax? There must be a range where you pay state income tax, and that makes you ineligable for federal income tax.

[goaded]

Sorry for hijacking your opinion. The misinformation I'm objecting to is that they pay NO tax. Simple as that.

[OlderAndWiser]

@goaded And the misinformation to which others object is that "the rich" do not pay their fair share when they actually pay far more than lower income wage earners.

[RingOfFire]

@goaded

You are objecting to misinformation that no one gave.

And the same 10% of taxpayers who pay 70+% of the income tax also pay a disproportionately large share of all of the other taxes too from payroll tax to sales tax. As a matter of fact I would bet that they pay at least 70+% of that as well.

So even if you want to count other taxes it likely does not change the fact that the the wealthiest people pay at least three quarters of all the tax. Or the fact that they are ALREADY carrying an unfairly big part of the weight for everyone else.

[RingOfFire]

"So even if you want to count other taxes it likely does not change the fact that the the wealthiest people pay at least *70%* of all the tax"

[goaded]

I refer you to my comment, that the top 10% also possess "77% of the wealth, 84% of the stock market, and 82% of the non-home real-estate (half by the top 1%)."

[goaded]

What proportion of the wealth of the country do they possess? What proportion of the stock market? The land?

77% of the wealth. 84% of the stock market. 82% of the non-home real-estate (half by the top 1%).
WealthStocksLand

[goaded]

Your update: I've never had an individual give me a job, it's always been somebody working for a company. I think that's probably true of most people.

[Adam1978]

They have nothing to whine about they earn that money on other people's work. If they actually gave the people working the money they earned, they wouldn't need to pay so high taxes and society would be richer as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Wealthiest citizens of California are leaving in droves. California will continue to hemorrhage tax dollars as it tries to give away even more money to immigrants

I'm Loving It