What's your fair share?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

What % are you willing to pay?

  • Total voters
    13
maxiep

maxiep

RIP Dr. Jack
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
28,321
Likes
5,919
Points
113
It seems many on this board are more comfortable with our increased government (now 25% of GDP, vs. the historical average of 20%). Furthermore, most seem to be pro-Obamacare, which will increase the share of government to over 30% of GDP. However, all this new government has to be funded.

My question is, what overall tax rate (Federal, State, Local, but not payroll as that money should come back to you) are you willing to pay? What do you think is your fair share? I'll put stratifications, but if you could include your exact figure in the comments, it would be interesting. In the comments, it would also be interesting to see what you think others should be willing to pay. Let's say $30-50K, $50-100K, $100-250K and $250K+.
 
I generally feel like a flat rate, minus tax loopholes is fair. My main concern with eliminating most write offs is the potential effect it could have on charities. Am curious to know how much charitable giving would decline if you eliminated the write off of giving. I know a lot of people give because they want to help. but also because they get something out of it. I feel like it's a solution that could be pushed forward(flat, no writeoffs) that could end up have negative consequences.
 
Hahahahaaaha Maxie, its going to be that " I should not have to pay more, just those rich basterds"

so those who make 20k a year its everyone else, to those who make 250k, its the guys who make more.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
Hahahahaaaha Maxie, its going to be that " I should not have to pay more, just those rich basterds"

so those who make 20k a year its everyone else, to those who make 250k, its the guys who make more.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I think people really do wish to carry their load, to pay their "fair" share. However, that perception is different. I've been producing threads to try to get past this picayune stuff, so we can talk about the big issues. Here's how I see them:

1. What's the proper role of government in our lives? Is it to help you when there's no where else to go? Or should it be the "Life of Julia" vision, where government is your constant companion in life? It's a legitimate question.

2. What should be our role in the world? Should we seek to remain the sole superpower, actively promugating our own interests abroad? Or should we settle to a more traditional role of regional powers, where we're one of four or five equals?

In the first question, the Democrat vision is much more expensive than the Republican one. In the second question, the Republican vision is more expensive than the Democrat one (although the second is relatively less expensive than the first).

I'm not going to pretend I'm neutral on these issues. I've spent a lot of time thinking about these questions, and I've arrived at my own conclusions. However, I'm always open to new data. I would like others to think about these large questions, not just blindly follow their favorite party. Whatever I can do to facilitate consideration of large questions rather than these small "gotchas", I will try to do.
 
I'd like to think somewhere in the middle of both 1 and 2, leaning more towards there to help you out and the regional power sides of each, but not totally to that side. Like, it should be there slightly more than just a safety net, and should play slightly more of a global role than just we're over here, call us when you need something.
 
The extreme of both seem odd to me, where you want to spend a ton to help out your own, but don't care about anyone else, as well as the not wanting to spend much of anything here, but willing to spend a ton globally.
 
We need to blow up the entire government budget and all the programs and just start all over again.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
We need to blow up the entire government budget and all the programs and just start all over again.
Click to expand...

As long as they don't form a committee to investigate the concept, and another one to oversee that first group.
 
RR7 said:
As long as they don't form a committee to investigate the concept, and another one to oversee that first group.
Click to expand...

Is that after the blue ribbon committee reports to the Presidential committee?
 
before, they'll release their findings to the sub-committee, who will then turn them over to the blue ribbon committee.
 
My fair share is about 1/10th of whatever barfo pays, no matter how much he makes.
 
Some interesting info here. Obviously US ranks pretty low in tax percentage. But, Mexico pays even LESS in taxes. Chile pays less too, and I think they have a very advanced and universal health care system.

TaxrevenuespercertageGDPFA1.jpg
 
Some of those countries provide far more social services and some even provide houses.
 
Zybot said:
True, and they don't spend as much on their military. That data was from 2009 in case anyone is wondering.
Click to expand...

They are also different countries.

I am not so certain we're necessarily over taxed in the middle class, but I think we are mistaxed. If we had a more fair system, pretty much everyone would pay less.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
They are also different countries.

I am not so certain we're necessarily over taxed in the middle class, but I think we are mistaxed. If we had a more fair system, pretty much everyone would pay less.
Click to expand...

That would be nice :)

Despite my liberal tendencies, I don't know if I can stomach paying more taxes than I already am. Part of the problem is definitely misuse of the tax dollars we do pay. However, that's kind of what happens when you get a bunch of self-indulgent douchebags in a room and try to get them to agree how to spend a boatload of money. It's ripe for some shadiness and for programs that can be defrauded or misappropriated. Another part of the problem is simply a struggling economy. People who don't earn money, don't pay taxes. It is kind of interesting though that we pay a lot less taxes as a people than most of the world and we are looked at as a wealthy and advanced country.

Edit: Oh No! I just basically described us all as the 1%!!!! :MARIS61:
 
Since govt. spending is at 25% of GDP and the norm has been 20%, we all realize govt. needs to be cut by 1/5th, right?

Get that done, then let's talk about increasing taxes, and what the money would be used for.
 
Zybot said:
That would be nice :)

Despite my liberal tendencies, I don't know if I can stomach paying more taxes than I already am. Part of the problem is definitely misuse of the tax dollars we do pay. However, that's kind of what happens when you get a bunch of self-indulgent douchebags in a room and try to get them to agree how to spend a boatload of money. It's ripe for some shadiness and for programs that can be defrauded or misappropriated. Another part of the problem is simply a struggling economy. People who don't earn money, don't pay taxes. It is kind of interesting though that we pay a lot less taxes as a people than most of the world and we are looked at as a wealthy and advanced country.

Edit: Oh No! I just basically described us all as the 1%!!!! :MARIS61:
Click to expand...

What do you think of this idea...

3% national sales tax with every penny going against the national debt.

7% flat tax for ALL incomes with no deductions.

A graduated income tax for all incomes $250K individual/$350K married/civil unions/living together (in addition to the flat tax).
 
nationwide sales tax, so that drug dealers pay taxes
 
For what it's worth, the LDS church asks for a flat 10% tithe from all it's members regardless of the amount of income they have and it's doing pretty darn well financially speaking. That doesn't include donations made for humanitarian purposes or donations of other kinds. The 10% goes towards building buildings, paying utilities and providing a budget for each congregation to use for activities for the different auxiliary groups like the youth groups and the women's groups. It also goes toward subsidizing tuition at the different BYU schools and several other things. So I'm all for a reasonable flat tax percentage without deductions, but I'm not sure what percentage would yield the amount that's necessary though.
 
D-Rock said:
For what it's worth, the LDS church asks for a flat 10% tithe from all it's members regardless of the amount of income they have and it's doing pretty darn well financially speaking. That doesn't include donations made for humanitarian purposes or donations of other kinds. The 10% goes towards building buildings, paying utilities and providing a budget for each congregation to use for activities for the different auxiliary groups like the youth groups and the women's groups. It also goes toward subsidizing tuition at the different BYU schools and several other things. So I'm all for a reasonable flat tax percentage without deductions, but I'm not sure what percentage would yield the amount that's necessary though.
Click to expand...

Whatever the tax rate is, it won't be enough because our elected officials will want to spend more and expect us to pay for it.
 
Denny Crane said:
Whatever the tax rate is, it won't be enough because our elected officials will want to spend more and expect us to pay for it.
Click to expand...

You are such a Denny Downer.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
Whatever the tax rate is, it won't be enough because our elected officials will want to spend more and expect us to pay for it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this sentiment. I neglected to include in my post that I think government spending is out of control. I don't understand why it's so difficult to have a balanced budget, or at least a nearly balanced budget. I'm even ok if there's a rainy day fund at the end of the fiscal year as long as the funds are returned to the public. Absent some emergency, I fail to see why each organization within the government can't give a reasonable estimate of what their expenses are and are projected to be and adjust accordingly. Companies have to make these kinds of projections all the time. I realize it's not an exact science, but federal spending is completely backwards right now. Instead of determining the funding of programs based on the expected amount of tax collection, the programs say they need to spend "x" amount regardless of what's coming in and just run a deficit or print more money to cover the difference.
 
D-Rock said:
I agree with this sentiment. I neglected to include in my post that I think government spending is out of control. I don't understand why it's so difficult to have a balanced budget, or at least a nearly balanced budget. I'm even ok if there's a rainy day fund at the end of the fiscal year as long as the funds are returned to the public. Absent some emergency, I fail to see why each organization within the government can't give a reasonable estimate of what their expenses are and are projected to be and adjust accordingly. Companies have to make these kinds of projections all the time. I realize it's not an exact science, but federal spending is completely backwards right now. Instead of determining the funding of programs based on the expected amount of tax collection, the programs say they need to spend "x" amount regardless of what's coming in and just run a deficit or print more money to cover the difference.
Click to expand...

It's a combination of 2 things- buying votes with various entitlement programs, and, abuse of power.
 
Interesting that not a single person is willing to pay as high of an overall percentage as they want others to pay (>40%).
 
blazerboy30 said:
Interesting that not a single person is willing to pay as high of an overall percentage as they want others to pay (>40%).
Click to expand...

Fixed.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top