Porforis
11 years ago
While I hate the word "fair" (or rather how some people abuse the term), one thing that Obama's occasional speech about making the rich pay their fair share of taxes does make me think about, is that nobody seems to define WHAT a "Fair Share" is, which brings up a very interesting question to me: In a society such as ours, how much of the fruits of our labors does society as a whole "deserve" for everything from medicare for the poor and retired to transportation and defense?

We obviously all have different ideas for what taxes should be used for, but I'm curious to see what people think is fair. While this question is primarily geared towards the majority of us which live in the states, I'd be very interested to see what those of us that live overseas think as well.

Question number one: For the following income brackets (assume total income, not taxable income), what is a "fair share" for a citizen to pay for ALL taxes (federal, state, and local income, property taxes, sales tax, taxes on gas and other products, etc) besides capital gains, which is a completely different beast? I would not include social security as it in theory will be paid back in part to you upon retirement.

$0 to $8,950:
$8,950 to $36,250:
$36,250 to $87,850:
$87,850 to $183,250:
$183,250 to $398,350:
$398,350 and up:

Question number two: Should taxes on capital gains be a flat rate as they are now, or bracketed? If flat, what should the rate be? If bracketed, what would the brackets look like?

My answers:

Question 1:
$0 to $8,950: 10%
$8,950 to $36,250: 18%
$36,250 to $87,850: 28%
$87,850 to $183,250: 34%
$183,250 to $398,350: 38%
$398,350 and up: 42%

Question 2:
Bracketed, the idea that I had to pay the same rate for my gains when I was making $22,000 as someone making a few billion a year is crazy.
$0 to $30,000: 10%
$30,001 to $60,000: 15%
$60,001 to $120,000: 20%
$121,000 to $250,000: 25%
$250,000 and up: 30%
Rockmolder
11 years ago
It's rather hard to imagine how progressive taxes should be put in without taking social securities for me, as the first and second of our brackets consist of 94% and 74% payments towards social security, respectively. Brackets from there on out are just taxes without any social security payments. It's a system I quite like.

$0 to $8,950: 3% (+24% Social security)
$8,950 to $36,250: 15% (+22% Social security)
$36,250 to $87,850: 35% (+7% Social security)
$87,850 to $183,250: 47% (+3% Social security)
$183,250 to $398,350: 53%
$398,350 and up: 58%

I feel like your lowest bracket is a tad bit low, though. I'd up that to something closer to €15,000.-. Maybe up the 4th bracket to €275,000.- and pull out the fifth bracket all together.

I know that 27% and 37% on the first two brackets seem pretty hefty, but that's more of a redistribution in the form of subsidies and support than making it hard on people with a low income. On the contrary, they'd be better off.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
Under $14,500 [= full time at minimum wage for 2000 hrs/year]: 0%.

Anything over $14,500, 10% of all income over $14,500, less any contributions to not-for-profit churches or charities.

No deductions for anything else.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Porforis
11 years ago

It's rather hard to imagine how progressive taxes should be put in without taking social securities for me, as the first and second of our brackets consist of 94% and 74% payments towards social security, respectively. Brackets from there on out are just taxes without any social security payments. It's a system I quite like.

$0 to $8,950: 3% (+24% Social security)
$8,950 to $36,250: 15% (+22% Social security)
$36,250 to $87,850: 35% (+7% Social security)
$87,850 to $183,250: 47% (+3% Social security)
$183,250 to $398,350: 53%
$398,350 and up: 58%

I feel like your lowest bracket is a tad bit low, though. I'd up that to something closer to €15,000.-. Maybe up the 4th bracket to €275,000.- and pull out the fifth bracket all together.

I know that 27% and 37% on the first two brackets seem pretty hefty, but that's more of a redistribution in the form of subsidies and support than making it hard on people with a low income. On the contrary, they'd be better off.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



I guess the idea of taxing the very low income earners so much for social security doesn't sit right with me precisely since the very lowest bracket doesn't HAVE disposable income. If you're making $36k a year, you'd be taking home $22,680. If you're making $8000, you're taking home $5,840. For extremely low-end housing in most areas, you'd be paying $4,800 a year ($400/mo) for rent alone. Everyone making $0 to around $25,000 is going to have a very hard time being self-sufficient - the more you tax them for social security (and I get why you would do that), the less income they have for the bare necessities and thus the more likely they will need other forms of public assistance like food stamps, and the more likely they will get into debt which will KEEP them poor.
Pack93z
11 years ago

Under $14,500 [= full time at minimum wage for 2000 hrs/year]: 0%.

Anything over $14,500, 10% of all income over $14,500, less any contributions to not-for-profit churches or charities.

No deductions for anything else.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



This is the approach I would take.. you pay the same percentage regardless of the level of income you earn or the amount spent upon snake oil accountants.

Don't know that I would have the floor set at 14,500 though. Rent/Mortgage, food, health care on $1208 a month for anything over a single person. Not going to work out. So it couldn't be just a flat 14500 a year type statement.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Rockmolder
11 years ago

I guess the idea of taxing the very low income earners so much for social security doesn't sit right with me precisely since the very lowest bracket doesn't HAVE disposable income. If you're making $36k a year, you'd be taking home $22,680. If you're making $8000, you're taking home $5,840. For extremely low-end housing in most areas, you'd be paying $4,800 a year ($400/mo) for rent alone. Everyone making $0 to around $25,000 is going to have a very hard time being self-sufficient - the more you tax them for social security (and I get why you would do that), the less income they have for the bare necessities and thus the more likely they will need other forms of public assistance like food stamps, and the more likely they will get into debt which will KEEP them poor.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



I get your point, but that gives you enough of an income to give out rent-subsidies, affordable healthcare, subsidizing public transportation for the ones that need it (Who are the only ones who use it, anyway), affordable education for everyone, retirement funds etc.

I know that goes against what a lot of you guys here stand for, but I do like it more than just relieving the lower class of all their taxes and have them squander their money away. Humans are horrible in planning ahead for the long term. This way poor children will have the ability to get proper education, retirement won't be a huge burden on children, renting will be more attractive for people who would've bought a house with a mortgage they can't actually afford etc.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago
I use to say 10% flat tax. But that was Fed only. If you add every kind of a tax under the sun then 40% should do it.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago
Right now this is a pretty impossible question to answer. With all the different taxes that are about. Corporate, payroll, income, state, gas and on and on. What really needs to be discovered, is how much tax revenue is needed. Once that is found, determine how much of total income is needed to provide that amount. And tax each person at that rate.

I expect that if the waste and abuse is removed, and the services that could be provided by private sector get removed, we would need to tax at about 12%. And at that point. Every body who earns income should pay 12%.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
DakotaT
11 years ago

Under $14,500 [= full time at minimum wage for 2000 hrs/year]: 0%.

Anything over $14,500, 10% of all income over $14,500, less any contributions to not-for-profit churches or charities.

No deductions for anything else.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Your numbers are too low, thresholds and tax %. The idea of a graduated tax system is to help the impoverished build themselves up. A 10% tax on the wealthy is spitting in the face of people who work with their hands and backs. I don't quite understand your insistence on letting the lucky people off like freeloaders - but that's your thing.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
11 years ago

Your numbers are too low, thresholds and tax %. The idea of a graduated tax system is to help the impoverished build themselves up. A 10% tax on the wealthy is spitting in the face of people who work with their hands and backs. I don't quite understand your insistence on letting the lucky people off like freeloaders - but that's your thing.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I am inclined to agree with you as far as 10% goes, although I'm sure my ideas on what government should be spending greatly differs from what you or Wade thinks. But I really don't think the government could fund any better than vital transportation, the judicial system, and a third-rate military with money like that. What do you think is a more fair % for the income tax brackets listed in the original post? Whether it's for the country we live in or the ideal country in your mind, I guess that's up to you.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (6h) : Chase Young to sign $13M contract with Saints
Zero2Cool (7h) : Yosh to Panthers what noooo. Wait he didn't do crap
wpr (18-Mar) : I say that he is technically HER BIL as he married her sister. I checked it out, he's considered my BIL as well. Sad.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : wpr, I assume its your BIL via marriage to your wife? If so, I can figure out where the smarts in the family went ;)
wpr (18-Mar) : Mucky my B-I-L is Bare Stupid. I could write a book.
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : As a teenager in Rockford IL I would get heckled by adults in public for wearing GB gear
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : if you think the online ones are bad, try *living amongst* them
Mucky Tundra (18-Mar) : Never doubt wprs loyalty. Poor guy is surrounded by Bears fans in Northern IL
wpr (17-Mar) : pass Martha. Thanks for the invite though.
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : blog * as the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Baer
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : WPR, perhaps you should be joining the Bears fans blog has the same ugly Illinois colors were adopted by the Bears
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : Ah a fellow U of Illinois hater. I can respect that though I imagine it's for different reasons
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : BTW. I didn't catch the game. I just hate Illinois.
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : They're your Big Ten Chumps and you will like it!
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not for the record. Referee's handled that BS. Orange team was trash ass
Mucky Tundra (17-Mar) : *Your* Big Ten Chumps for the record
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : No, not Big Ten Champs. IL is big ten CHUMPS
wpr (17-Mar) : Big Ten Champs
wpr (17-Mar) : !!!
wpr (17-Mar) : INI
wpr (17-Mar) : ILL
Martha Careful (17-Mar) : Wisconsin with an outstanding on in the men’s Big Ten basketball tournament. Let’s hope it continues in the NCAAs
Zero2Cool (17-Mar) : Almost like taking QB in 2020 even if you don't need one is good move.
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : 2021 QB Draft class looking like a real clunker
Mucky Tundra (16-Mar) : A conditional 6th rounder? I remember Bears fans arguing they'd get a day 2 pick at worst lol
dfosterf (16-Mar) : So I got the no extension part right and the have to wait on the CW physical wrong
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Bears are trading Justin Fields for a 2025 6th-round pick that goes to a 4th-round pick based on playtime, per sources.
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Former Packer Jarrett Bush opens Wisconsin’s first blow dry bar in Green Bay
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are not doing a deal with Washington, they also cannot trade Fields until Williams physical with them. All hail Caleb Williams!
dfosterf (16-Mar) : The talent is undeniable, but the (advertised) haul is obscene.
dfosterf (16-Mar) : If the Bears are cutting a deal with the Commanders, in either scenario, cannot happen until williams passes a Commanders physical
dfosterf (16-Mar) : My guess is no to the Fields extension, but yes to the trade back with the Commanders.
dhazer (15-Mar) : I think the Bears do a Love extension and they will trade out of the 1st pick and take the haul
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : that might make sense
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Justin Fields to Steelers?
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Kenny Pickett. Eagles. Done.
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : They can claim best two WR tandem.
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : Aaron Donald retiring
dhazer (15-Mar) : Campbell signing with 49ers
dhazer (15-Mar) : I love how the Bear Fans are now claiming they have the best skill players in the NFC North lol
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Vikings made a move to get a 2nd first round pick
Mucky Tundra (15-Mar) : That's a not a bad deal for the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Mar) : Bears have traded for WR Keenan Allen sending Chargers a fourth rounder.
Martha Careful (15-Mar) : *signs
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : MLB Devon White science with the Eagles
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : But that was before FA started
Mucky Tundra (14-Mar) : Dhaze, I thought Kurls would be their #1 target when I read that he was an Amos comp (jack of all trades guy)
dhazer (14-Mar) : I would like to see the Packers target 2 more FA still available Kamren Curl Safety and Chase Young edge
Martha Careful (14-Mar) : wow...didn't see that coming
Zero2Cool (14-Mar) : AJ Dillon re-signing with Packers.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Mar / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

16-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

16-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

14-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.