Economy section...is this where taxation questions go?
 

Seems it's always been in the background to some level, but I seem to be hearing more about the well-to-do/wealthy/rich needing to pay their fair share of taxes, yet I don't recall anyone sticking their neck out with an opinion about just what is "their fair share".

I admit it, I have no idea what a fair share is in this regard.

What are y'alls thoughts on what constitutes a fair share?

(Maybe this is a dead horse topic. I guess if so then it won't be a very long thread.)

Bill O'Reilly said that he would be OK paying 40% (granted with all sorts of caveats and limitations). 40% is less than half of the top rate during the Eisenhower presidency. IIRC, it is less than the top rate after St. Ronnie passed his first massive tax cuts.

Not sure where the 40% rate should kick in. It seems like the top 1% starts somewhere a little over $300,000. From a purely political standpoint, there is a particularly populist appeal to pick the million dollar point for the top rate.

Regards,

D-Ray

I was paying 35% before the cuts and I am no billionaire,or millionaire so 40% is not painful, even 45%. And please remember that the top rate doesn't apply to all yout taxable income.

Some beleive that the more you make in income, the more you "should" be taxed. Under such a system, typically referred to as a progressive tax strategy, your tax rate increases incrementally as your income rises. For example, the first $120000 in income gets taxes at 20%. Any income that you made between $120001 and $200000 gets taxed at 30%. Then, any income above $200001 gets taxed at 40%. The supporters of this strategy tend to liberal, and beleive that the rates should increase because its only "fair" that thsoe who make more should have to pay more in tax. From that point, the subjective arguments abound over what is fair, endless tweaks to the tax code ensue as a product of lobbying and politicians either taking care of special interests or trying to use the tax code to influence individual or corproate behavior or engage in social engineering via the tax code.

Others believe that any income should be taxed at the same rate. They believe that there is a concept of equal treatment under the law that also applies to tax law. They believe that a single rate supports a revenue system that is far less arbitrary, far more predictable and would encourage economic activity be encouraging capital creation and utilization. They believe that a single tax rate would therefore be stimulative, where a tered system that changes with the political winds puts a damper on economic activity.

So, the concept of what is a fair shar depends on your perspective. As you might guess, I subscribe to the single rate philosophy, as it does a better job of removing subjectivity and arbitrary decision-making from the equation.

Shocking, just shocking. I had you figured for wanting to go back to Ike's rates. ;)

Seriously, however, do you see any point in which the income stratification that we are seeing is detrimental to future growth? I just haven't seen the "job creators" doing all that much job creation. It is particularly difficult to buy into protecting the "job creators" when a significant number of the highest income earners operate in a field that is a leach on true productive activity - the hedge fund operators and other speculators.

Regards,

D-Ray

Now... going to the other end of the scale...those who receive HEAP (Heating Energy Assistance Program) are required to submit ALL monthly income.

If income increases you are cut from the program. So it seems fair that tax rates increase for the wealthy as their income increases.
As it is now...more income scrutiny is directed to the middle class and elderly.

It's amazing the creative ways folks can connect the dots in this forum. ;)

When you're in an economic environment that makes growth difficult or raises the level of risk to an unacceptable level, the wise bet is sometimes to take the "bird in the hand". A shrinking dollar and a tax policy that makes capital conversion inefficient and expensive is going to put the brakes on growth.


It's not significant to me what someone else makes. In the right economic environment, the size of the pie (GDP) expands, and there's enough opportunity and income for most everyone.

Sounds like a follower of that libertarian professor they had on Newshour last night, talk about delusionary, the man was a total whack job.

The left doesn't have an answer, but ultimately they'd probably like everyone to have equal amounts of income and wealth. Of course, their utopian ideal will never exists, but that doesn't halt their redistribution schemes. Personally, I'd like to see government at all levels operate on a budget of ten percent of GDP.