Analysis: 'Fair share' in taxes? Not by the number!

[Rockntractor]

Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

Get your fill!

Emo's are calling, they want their troll back!

[Arroyo_Doble]

Emo's are calling, they want their troll back!

Uh-oh. I disagreed with the Collective. Must be troll.

[fettpett]

Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

Get your fill!

hey asshat, we're talking about one aspect, which is the vast majority of income to the federal government, not the other excise taxes and payroll deductions. Those are separate issues.

[fettpett]

Uh-oh. I disagreed with the Collective. Must be troll.

you're a troll because you aren't adding anything to the discussion and constantly trying to derail it.

[Starbuck]

And I think confining it to a specific tax when asking, "what's a "fair share" to give the federal government in taxes?" is disingenuous (at best).

So what would your position be on a consumption tax, which would replace all other taxes?

[Odysseus]

Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

Get your fill!

This shrill, angry pretense that you won't discuss this because it's not worthy of your reasoned input is pathetic, even for you. The fact is that you refuse to have a discussion, because you cannot win it, so you heap abuse on those who are trying to get an answer out of you. If you can't answer a simple question, just admit it and move on, but don't pretend that your refusal to answer is some sort of morally superior stance. We can tell the difference between moral high ground and a bunker.

I'll ask again: What constitutes a fair share of income to be taken out in taxes? Give me a number.

[Lager]

"Taxes that fall more on the working poor and middle class" "Lower wage earners pay a disproportionate share of payroll taxes" These statements infest every left leaning discussion about tax rates, and they're effective only if one doesn't put much thought into them. But they're actually irrelevant. Yes, if a worker making $10,000 dollars a year pays $1,000 dollars in payroll taxes, that represents 10 percent of their income, but only 1 percent to someone who makes $100,000. Does that make it unfair? If so, then we should lower the price of food, gas, and housing for lower wage earners, because their percentage of income that goes to those expenses are going to be higher as well. Does a lower wage earner receive less value for the payroll taxes he pays, versus a higher wage earner? That would be the question to determine if the system was biased or not.

[Novaheart]

Look at what you have done, though. You have constructed a perfect straw man and then skewered your own creation with your razor sharp sword.
WHAT?, 10 dollar an hour worker pays property tax? That doesn't happen. $10/hour workers don't buy houses. They rent, and they don't even rent from me because they don't qualify for my properties. And how on earth would you know what portion of my income MY property taxes are? Go to New Jersey. They pay $10,000 in property taxes. You just haven't thought it out.


If true, SO? Poor people benefit from cheap US gas the same as I do. Go to Europe; pay more.

There are quite a lot of people who make $10 per hour who have mortgages and those who rent are paying the property tax through the rent.

[Arroyo_Doble]

So what would your position be on a consumption tax, which would replace all other taxes?

That would definitely shift the burden down.

What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.

[Novaheart]

That would definitely shift the burden down.

What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.

If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.