A Fair Share

[Trinity alum]

I have never liked the use of the term fair share because fair is in the eyes of the beholder. Taxes, by their very nature are redistributionist and they have been since the country was founded. The tarrifs of the early days allowed manufacturers to charge more for their goods at the expense of consumers. In those early days the manufacturers were in the north with many consumers in the south. The tax revenues, paid in the east were later used for major public works projects in the west (roads, canals etc.) High tarrifs to pay for infrastructure in the west was one of the major tenets of the Republican party at its founding. For me, tax policy should be whatever works. If I could be convinced that economic prosperity would best be served by a 100 percent tax on all income over $250,000, I would support it. Likewise, if I could be convinced that a zero percent tax on income over $250,000 would expand the entire economy, I would support that. Therefore, tax policy should be based on the best interests of the country. In the 1920s, the share of national income earned by the top earners grew to nearly 30 percent. There was a lot of speculative investment as people with more money to invest than there were good investments chased ever more speculative investments. Under Roosevelt and later Presidents, coupled with the rise of union wages, by the late 70s taxes on high incomes were 70 percent and the share earned by the top earners had dropped to about nine percent. Interest rates went to 20 percent as the very high wages earned by the middle class, coupled with too little money for investment lead to inflation. Under President Reagan the top rate dropped to 25 percent, 401k was introduced to encourage more money for investment and the income of the top earners started to rise. By 2007, just prior to the recession, we were back to the top earners taking in nearly 30 percent of the income. We were also seeing investment dollars chasing more exotic investments. After the recession we are seeing investment dollars on the sideline because middle class demand is way too low. Raising the incremental rate on high incomes will not cause a significant drain on the economy. Raising middle class demand by providing middle class jobs is what will bring the economy back. Government stimulus is the short term answer.

[sportsfan41]

The only answer I've ever heard from anyone is more then they are paying now.

 

 

 

:clap:

[woodsrider]

Yeah, chirp, chirp. :lol:

 

To me, doing our "fair share" means doing what we each can do as an individual to not only care for ourselves, but to care for those that are in less fortunate circumstances than ours. Similar to what another poster said in another thread, if we truly were all doing our part (financial and civic), then there would be little need for welfare, because instead of harping about those that abuse the situation, we'd be working to help those that need it.

We know the top 10% pays around 70% of the individual income tax. I wonder how much of the total $'s donated to charity the top 10% contributes?

[True blue (and gold)]

We know the top 10% pays around 70% of the individual income tax. I wonder how much of the total $'s donated to charity the top 10% contributes?

 

I forget, but how much of of the country's wealth does that top 10% possess?

[Keep It Real]

I'll give you another reason nobody wants to discuss this. Because they don't have the balls to call fair share what it really is, wealth redistribution. There is no such thing as a fair share. Yet, it's the catch phrase for this administration.

 

I don't follow. You're saying different tax rates = wealth distribution?

 

In your mind is it only "fair" if everyone pays the same rate?

[mcpapa]

I forget, but how much of of the country's wealth does that top 10% possess?

 

In 2007, it was...drum roll...

 

 

 

 

 

73.1%

 

 

 

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[mcpapa]

I forget, but how much of of the country's wealth does that top 10% possess?

 

Some light reading.

 

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

[spindoc]

And how much of the country's tax does that percentile pay?

[Michael Corleone]

I don't follow. You're saying different tax rates = wealth distribution?

 

In your mind is it only "fair" if everyone pays the same rate?

 

My point is there is no such thing as a fair share, there is only wealth redistribution. The president knows it but doesn't have the stones to say it.

[Michael Corleone]

I forget, but how much of of the country's wealth does that top 10% possess?

 

In 2007, it was...drum roll...

 

 

 

 

 

73.1%

 

 

 

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

73.1% of the wealth and pay over 70% of the taxes.

 

So they have most of the wealth and pay most of the taxes. Looks like a fair share, doesn't it? Or does Obama really just want their fair share or does he want more than their fair share?

[Michael Corleone]

And how much of the country's tax does that percentile pay?

 

Over 70% but that's not enough. It's not fair.

[spindoc]

He's Robin Hood.

[True blue (and gold)]

73.1% of the wealth and pay over 70% of the taxes.

 

So they have most of the wealth and pay most of the taxes. Looks like a fair share, doesn't it? Or does Obama really just want their fair share or does he want more than their fair share?

 

Doesn't Obama fit into that top 10%? If so, isn't he part of "their" and "them"?

[Michael Corleone]

Doesn't Obama fit into that top 10%? If so, isn't he part of "their" and "them"?

 

I have no idea where he fits in. Probably not since I'm sure he gives most of his money to the homeless and if he hasn't why not. But I see what your asking and when I say their I mean the rich. He want's their money to redistribute.

 

Let me pose this question. Let's say you find a lamp, you rub it, and a genie pops out and grants you one wish. You tell him you wish for your fair share. What is he/she going to give you?

[True blue (and gold)]

I have no idea where he fits in. Probably not since I'm sure he gives most of his money to the homeless and if he hasn't why not. But I see what your asking and when I say their I mean the rich. He want's their money to redistribute.

 

Let me pose this question. Let's say you find a lamp, you rub it, and a genie pops out and grants you one wish. You tell him you wish for your fair share. What is he/she going to give you?

 

I guess that the difference is that when I think of "fair share" I don't think about what I will get, but what I will give.