I want the rich to pay their fair share, too

September 20th, 2011

Of course, cialis canada search that’s going to mean giving them a very big tax cut.

Entry Filed under: Observations

16 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Fred  |  September 20th, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Where’s the “like” button?

  • 2. Debunked  |  September 20th, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    If you think a tax cut is what it takes for them to pay their fair share, then please define fair share. And keep in mind total percentage of taxes they pay versus total percentage of annual income they control plus total percentage of wealth they control.

  • 3. TerryN  |  September 20th, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Obama’s the one who’s using the term repeatedly, he should define it. And wile he’s at it Hope and Change has been sorely lacking clarity for over three years now.

    And keep in mind the total percentage of wealth he controls.

  • 4. Billiam  |  September 20th, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Debunked, there is a plan out there to close loopholes and then lower the marginal tax rate some. You cut the rate, but actually increase revenues due to the closure of the loopholes. I don’t know if that is what Elliot is alluding to or not. Nor do I know if such a plan would get a vote in the Senate, were the House even to pass it. The election season is upon us, and anything remotely resembling honesty is further out the window than it normally is.

  • 5. Debunked  |  September 21st, 2011 at 9:20 am

    I do not believe that is what Elliot is, overall, referring to. But I agree, he might support a measure like that.

    And Terry, I’m fairly sure Obama has defined it. He wants to raise taxes to a certain percentage. Obviously, that’s his definition of the “fair share.”

    I’m still waiting for Elliot’s definition, however.

  • 6. John Foust  |  September 21st, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Of course, if we were running government like a business, then we’d call raising taxes “increasing shareholder value.”

  • 7. TerryN  |  September 21st, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    So then why is he saying he’s going to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires but taxes are going up for starting at $200K per year. is he lying again?

    Fair share is a political lie with irrefutable evidence as the IRS tracks tax revenue by income.

    And if we were going to run government like a business we’d call raising taxes a monopoly and break them up.

  • 8. Debunked  |  September 21st, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Okay then, Terry. Please, show me this “irrefutable evidence” that portrays “fair share” as a political lie by which you mean, I’m guessing, that the rich already pay more than their fair share since the words “fair share” themselves can not be a political lie.

    I want a link that shows income distribution plus controlled wealth versus tax burden.

    Of course, “irrefutable evidence” in this context is still a ridiculously claim as everybody has their own opinion on what the percentage break-downs of “fair share” actually mean.

  • 9. TerryN  |  September 21st, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html

    Start here.

  • 10. TerryN  |  September 21st, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Could someone in the Democratic party tell me when Uncle Sam became Big Daddy?

    I’m thinking the seeds were planted in 1964, and if you look at every urban area since then you will see what has grown from that initial redistribution of wealth. Funny that the official poverty rate has not changed by more than four percentage points in over fifty years.

    Extra points for claiming a political success for the DNC.

  • 11. John Foust  |  September 22nd, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Big Daddy, as in Daddy Warbucks?

  • 12. Debunked  |  September 23rd, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Yeah, a link to the IRS website. Terry, that’s not exactly irrefutable evidence, as I said before. That’s simply a link to a large amount of statistics that anybody can make say anything you want.

    Further, the poverty rate, hasn’t changed by more than 4 percentage points in over fifty years? Let’s see…

    Poverty rate from 1959 to 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

    Looks like in 1959 it started at 23% and dropped to 12% in the 60s where it held fairly steady until the 80s. Increased with a temporary dip until ’92 to 15%. Then dropped again in the 90s back to 12%, then slowly increased back to 15% by 2009.

    Hmm.. Interesting, Terry, that pesky line tends to keep going up under Republican presidents, isn’t it? As I said above, you can make enough statistics mean whatever you want.

  • 13. TerryN  |  September 24th, 2011 at 9:07 am

    So you’re saying that the multi-trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty since 1964 has been effective in changing the poverty rate since the rate, “held steady” into the 1980’s then dropped a whopping three points?

    The IRS collects taxes and compiles the income levels for those who pay them. They say ~47% of Americans pay nothing in federal income tax and many even get money back under the EIC program. Now the, “millionaires and billionaires” that Obama calls those who make more than $200K/year already pay ~70%.

    Elliott’s post is spot-on.

  • 14. Debunked  |  September 25th, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    And we’ve gone full circle without you giving me any of the data I actually asked for. How much of the total income does the 47% of Americans who, as you claim, pay nothing in federal income taxes, actually control per year? I’m willing to bet that 47% of Americans controls less than 2% of all income in the entire country.

    Conversely, how much of the total annual income do the people who make more than $200k/year earn?

    Here is a link that makes a brief mention of this data I seek:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States

    The top 20 percent of Americans now holds 84 percent of U.S. wealth.[2], the 2nd 20 % holds 11%, the third 20 % 4 %. The following figure shows the actual distribution of wealth in the US. The 4th 20% (0.2%) and the Bottom 20% (0.1%) are not visible:

    Now, to toss another variable into the mix. How much of the total wealth in the country does that bottom 47% control? How much does those who make over $200k/year control?

    In other words, if 1% of the entire population controls 30% of the income, then it is absolutely and unequivocally fair for that 1% of the population to pay at least 30% of all income taxes.

    If the top 10% of all income earners control 70% of all income, then, again, it is absolutely and unequivocally fair for that 10% to pay at least 70% of all income taxes.

    Conversely, if 47% of all Americans earn less than, say, 2% of all income, then it is absolutely and unequivocally fair for that 47% to pay at most 2% of all income taxes.

    Further, it can then be debated with such a large disparity in income controlled between the top 10% and the bottom 90% if income earners, that it is then absolutely and unequivocally fair for the top 10% to pay some amount more of the total tax revenue than they control in the total income earned. And we haven’t even tossed in that pesky total wealth variable.

  • 15. TerryN  |  September 26th, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    How is controlling wealth Germaine to people earning over $200K/year, you know, “millionaires and billionaires” of which por President so eloquently denigrates as regularly as he tee’s off.

    Per the Chicago Tribune.

    “This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

    Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

    Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

    I still think Elliott’s post is spot on.

  • 16. Debunked  |  September 27th, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    You’re not giving the statistical breakdown on how much income the households making more than $1 million control as a group versus how much of the total share of all income taxes they pay.

    That is what should be looked at. It doesn’t matter what percentage they pay as a share of their total income. What matters is that their share of all income taxes is at least as much as the percentage of all available income they earn.

    If the group of people who earn $1 million annually control 90% of all income in the United States, then they should pay 90% of all income taxes collected in the United States.

    A normal curve would say the incomes which fall in the group that makes exactly 50% of all available income should have a joint contribution of exactly 50% of all taxes. People who fall below that should then have a lower percentage of tax share versus income share. But again, 50% is simply the “break even” point on a normal curve. It should probably be configured to be lower than 50% (eg. People who fall into the income bracket that controls only 10% of all income should pay at most 10% of all taxes). This point is fully adjustable and that is the only debate that should take place.

    The total amount of income taxes collected is irrelevant. It’s simply a ratio of income gained share to income tax paid out share. This is the very definition of a truly “fair” system.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta