They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

[McDad]

I agree. I think he doesn’t fully understand. You either have to openly lie about what wealth is or falsely believe they’re the same. That’s the only reason to make the claims that they don’t pay their fair share, is if you see wealth as income

You're about to go on a winding path with no end point.

 

[volinbham]

You're about to go on a winding path with no end point.

from baiting to batin'

 

[luthervol]

Are you ever going to address why wealth should be taxed by the federal government? What good is wealth without income?

Let's start here.
Where did I say wealth should be taxed?
You show me where I said it, and I'll gladly answer.
My point is and has been that the wealthiest should shoulder more of the burden.

 

[Vol8188]

Let's start here.
Where did I say wealth should be taxed?
You show me where I said it, and I'll gladly answer.
My point is and has been that the wealthiest should shoulder more of the burden.

So your problem is thay earning 20% of the income and paying 40% of the taxes is not enough? That sounds like a lot.

What do you base that on (if not wealth)?

 

[GordonC]

You're about to go on a winding path with no end point.

so the continuum is circular, right?

 

[Vol8188]

so the continuum is circular, right?

Seems to be. Since we are now back to step one with him

 

[McDad]

so the continuum is circular, right?

The continuum is akin to a range of numbers. Finite ends but infinite in between.

 

[volinbham]

Let's start here.
Where did I say wealth should be taxed?
You show me where I said it, and I'll gladly answer.
My point is and has been that the wealthiest should shoulder more of the burden.

if not taxation how are the wealthiest to shoulder "more" of the burden?

 

[McDad]

Seems to be. Since we are now back to step one with him

I tried to warn you.

 

[85SugarVol]

Let's start here.
Where did I say wealth should be taxed?
You show me where I said it, and I'll gladly answer.
My point is and has been that the wealthiest should shoulder more of the burden.

I tried to get an honest question in earlier (I know it’s tough to keep track when dueling with 8188)

You’ve not said wealth should be taxed.

If the 1% currently pays 40%of the federal income tax, what would be a more appropriate % of the burden?

 

[McDad]

I tried to get an honest question in earlier (I know it’s tough to keep track when dueling with 8188)

You’ve not said wealth should be taxed.

If the 1% currently pays 40%of the federal income tax, what would be a more appropriate % of the burden?

I like this question. What percent of the 1M ave income (the 1%) is deemed appropriate?

 

[luthervol]

So your problem is thay earning 20% of the income and paying 40% of the taxes is not enough? That sounds like a lot.

What do you base that on (if not wealth)?

Yea, the top rate should be above 40% IMO.

 

[luthervol]

if not taxation how are the wealthiest to shoulder "more" of the burden?

The top rate should be higher.

 

[luthervol]

I tried to get an honest question in earlier (I know it’s tough to keep track when dueling with 8188)

You’ve not said wealth should be taxed.

If the 1% currently pays 40%of the federal income tax, what would be a more appropriate % of the burden?

I don't have a specific number.

 

[Vol8188]

Yea, the top rate should be above 40% IMO.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding what I’m saying?

They pay 40% of all income taxes. Not that their rate is 40%. But the people who get 20% of the income pay 40% of the taxes.

How is that still not enough? It seems like they’re paying double their fair share

 

[Vol8188]

I don't have a specific number.

But you know it’s not enough now, based on what?

 

[volinbham]

The top rate should be higher.

there is no rate on wealth

now if you are talking income tax then instead of saying the wealthiest you should be saying those with the highest incomes

McDad was correct - you are intentionally conflating the two for some stupid reason you have. Not worth the discussion

 

[McDad]

Are you intentionally misunderstanding what I’m saying?

They pay 40% of all income taxes. Not that their rate is 40%. But the people who get 20% of the income pay 40% of the taxes.

How is that still not enough? It seems like they’re paying double their fair share

From USA Today:
Nationwide, it takes an annual income of $538,926 to be among the top 1%. Among the approximately 1.4 million taxpayers who meet this threshold, the average annual income is about $1.7 million – about 20 times the average income of $82,535 among all taxpayers.

Mcdad adds, based on the 1.4+ M in this category and the Ave income tax paid, on ave each household pays slightly less than 40% rate. Which makes sense bc the top rate was 37% in 2018.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Growing wealth inequality is pretty simple math. When everybody’s wealth goes up 10%, those with wealth of $1,000,000 will have $1,100,000. Those that choose to spend everything they earn and save nothing will have nothing after adding 10%. Those that make sacrifices and invest wisely over decades by doing without should never have anything redistributed to anybody that chooses to not live within their means.

 

[luthervol]

Are you intentionally misunderstanding what I’m saying?

They pay 40% of all income taxes. Not that their rate is 40%. But the people who get 20% of the income pay 40% of the taxes.

How is that still not enough? It seems like they’re paying double their fair share

Only if you defined fair share as the same % of income.

I define it as an equitable sharing of the burden, which requires a graduated scale.
But I would agree that everyone should pay the same percentage on the first 50k, the same percentage on 51-100k, the same percentage on 101-160k, the same percentage on 161-275k etc.....
So in that regard, everyone is paying the same %.

 

[85SugarVol]

I don't have a specific number.

I see. Thanks for the answer.

 

[luthervol]

I see. Thanks for the answer.

How about you?
Do you have a number in mind?
What percent of the burden should the top 1% shoulder?

 

[Vol8188]

Only if you defined fair share as the same % of income.

I define it as an equitable sharing of the burden, which requires a graduated scale.
But I would agree that everyone should pay the same percentage on the first 50k, the same percentage on 51-100k, the same percentage on 101-160k, the same percentage on 161-275k etc.....
So in that regard, everyone is paying the same %.

You’ve still not defined. How is paying double your share of the income not equitable? And when would it become equitable?

 

[volfanhill]

The Treasury doesn't have an income problem. It's an expenditure problem. And all of those wanting to collect more, for any sacred cow, have zero business pretending to care that they are concerned with our debt.

 

[McDad]

The Treasury doesn't have an income problem. It's an expenditure problem. And all of those wanting to collect more, for any sacred cow, have zero business pretending to care that they are concerned with our debt.

There is only about half a dozen of us who see it this way regardless of which party is in control.