Honestly, do you think the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

To be fair you might consider going beyond one single example (which didn't provide a lot of detail anyway) and a blanket guess about how many people making more than $100k are paying less than 17% and the unsupported claim that "the people making 20 million pay an even lower percentage" and do a little more research.

Here's a place that might be helpful. And this report could be a start:


To be fair myself, the above statement addresses a different statistic than you have raised (the percentage of income that is paid in taxes). However, I'm sure you can find that data for all income groups to make your case. Furthermore the concept of "fair share" will need to be defined for any rational and objective debate to occur. Otherwise it's just "the rich aren't paying what I think they should" and "the poor and middle class are paying more than I think they should."

NOTE: Here's another way to look at "fair":



Before throwing out what "lies" are it might be best to present objective facts beyond a single example and a couple of hand wavy assertions. And until you define "fair" for us, the entire conversation will simply be opinion floating around facts.



Presents some facts to support your claim and then you might have some ground to stand on.

About 20-25%. I don't have the actual number at hand and it has varied (but not all that much) between 20 and 25%.

NOTE: Found it. That took like 30 seconds.




I believe that site has that data. You can probably get the data from the IRS site too.



I guess if that's how you wish to see it, that's you business.

As I see, I suggested a site where you could do more complete and comprehensive research and present more facts than one single case and a couple of hand-wavy claims measured against a subjective and undefined concept ("fair"). But whatever.

You started out wanting to talk about "fair share." To make this discussion anything but opinion, you will first need to define "fair." Then we can start collecting and presenting facts to go up against that definition.

I'm interested in what made you settle on $100k?

A couple more points, you note charitable contributions are deductible from taxable income. You complain about the taxation rate, but seem to fail to likewise question how many people in said income brackets donate almost 18% of their income to charity?

Together those two figures amount to almost a third of income going to government or charity. How many people at said income level engage in those actions?

Likewise a third of all income is going to help others. Why isn't that enough? Is the problem with it going to charity rather than government?

In the U.S. currently, most folks below say... $75k or so for a married couple pay no income tax. Depending upon the number of deductions and dependents, they often get back credits even if they paid no income tax at all. As a landlord and just a regular guy who chats with his fellow parents at weekend kid sport events, I know several families who have 3-4 kids and get $7-8k a year back in child credits along with EITC credits.

So sure, she has a third of her income helping others. Plenty below her have no income helping others and in fact have 10-20+% of their entire yearly income given to them by the government.

My biggest criticism of Bush and currently of all Republicans is that no one should be off the tax rolls. One of the founding concepts of this country was taxation without representation. Well now we have representation without taxation. No one should be able to vote themselves something for free. If we all want it and all go in on it then it is common contributions for the common good. We can argue about whether it need be progressive, regressive or flat but no one should be excused from their duty of providing for that common cause.

Very good question!



He shoots! He scores!

Everywhere? For everyone?



Translation: They don't give to what you think they should give.






Interestingly, these are actually things that, constitutionally-speaking, the government is supposed to be doing.

In a fair and equal nation, one in which Dr. Martin Luther King suggested that all are equal, those who are ambitious should pay the same percentage of taxes as those that are lazy since taxes pay for local, state, and federal services! For far too long, the wealthy have paid a greater percentage of taxes in this nation while the poor often do not pay any at all, yet both use government services.

Our tax code is broken when the ambitious are penalized and forced to pay a larger percentage of the tax burden while the non-ambitious often pay none at all. Such a broken system encourages laziness and stifles ambition.

I would be in favor of a flat tax where everyone paid a fair share. The current tax code is discriminative and unfair. Equality needs to be applied to taxes and those that pay them.


Not true if you choose to live in an affluent area; matter of fact, this amount wouldn't allow you to pay the minimums in may areas if you had children in schools. Moreover, who are you to determine - if I might be so bold - what people choose to earn and ambition in work they express? $100K might be rich in the Ninth Ward of Louisiana but dirt poor in Rockville Maryland! It is a matter of perspective and the freedom that America offers is that ambition is not stifled by those dictating socialistic pay scales.

This is your assertion and as such is up to you to prove for your opening post. I have seen more facts from MJ then you have been willing to admit and your argument is seeming to fall apart. For example. People who earn 100,000 can live comfortably anywhere is bogus. You know it so you alter the guideline and say, if they can't they need to move to where they can. Your whole premise is based on the fact that they don't pay what you think they should to where you think they should pay it for the reasons you want them to pay. Hard hitting.

We have a brainiacist dude.

First this is your assumption for which you have not provided any evidence or facts. Second, this still boils down to your opinion about what needs to be funded through donations.

Where is the definition of "fair share?"

* crickets *

Along with this, you will have to define "the rich" reasonably objectively.

Look it up yourself. I'm not your research bitch.



I don't know. What I do know is that you have referred to an aggregate group ("the rich") which you have not defined and used a single example and run this up against an undefined standard ("fair share").

You are the one making the claims that a) "the rich" (however you have defined that group) is , b) not paying a "fair share" (however you have defined that), and that c) the example you gave proves both of these claims.

Not to be rude but your opening post actually only contains one question and it is a personal one. Do you want the thread confined to those who earn $100k or more or not? The rest of it is statements, not questions. You answer my questions because I asked questions.


Why thank you. I was kind enough to ask them. You are kind enough to answer them.


This simply isn't true around any coastal area. The cost of living goes up very quickly and I'm not talking single family home versus multiunit dwelling. I'm talking just living.


So then is the problem the percents or the places? It sounds like you prefer government over private charities. You should then be advocating the removal of the deduction. Shouldn't the thread then be, should charities be tax deductable?

I'm sure plenty of folks would disagree with you though. Those causes de jour are pretty powerful for a reason. People gave to Katrina because it was important at that time for example. You would honestly prefer the government be the single source for all assistance?


The reason people take issue though is the claim of conservatives hating all taxes and all government is just a caricature. The Constitution outlines very clear areas where the common interest demands we come together and taxes and so forth be spent for those purposes. Controlling borders, national security, maintaining an army, those are legitimate areas as defined by the Constitution. I'm not being a rhetorical ass here and just disqualifying your view. Clearly areas like health care are not outlined in the Constitution and most would argue that most redistribution programs are not constitutional as well. They create conflict when parties are bid against each other in a vote buying scheme whereby very few people end up controlling trillions in spending.


I would suggest you visit San Francisco or most of Northern California and most coastal areas in Southern California. You would find this simply isn't true and you would also find that much of it is due to environmental concerns and limitations, not markets.


So who could perfectly determine this for everyone, everywhere, real time forever?

So "fair" (in your opinion) means "the rich" paying a net tax rate that is the same percentage (or higher) as that paid by those in the "middle class?"

Now we're getting somewhere. I don't necessarily agree, and this is your opinion. But we're getting to some clearer definitions. Now...who are "the rich" and who are "the middle class?"

That's right, you qualified it in way that fit your claim. More to the point, you have disconnected your claim from reality in order to make it work.

Well I did not add "anywhere." I asked for clarification of your claim which you provided with further qualification:


In this statement you've acknowledged that where someone lives will affect the required amount to income to live "comfortably." This is an acknowledgment of reality, which is good. You are right, to a degree that people have choices where to live. And what it costs to live in San Diego vs. National City might be substantially different without being a substantially different geographic location. I don't have the data to verify this claim.

But your arbitrary amount ($100k) is just that...arbitrary. BTW, you have also failed to define "live comfortably" but I'm sure it will be defined only from your point of view without any regard for the individual values and desires and opinions of the other people who might have that level of income.

Thanks for being so honest about your affinity for centralized planning. As well as your affinity for outlining caricatures of people who don't do the things you think they should do. As well as your affinity for making claims (No one gives to the "drug abusers support network".) that you have not supported with any facts.

Sometimes we believe things that aren't true. Here is an example.


Waaaahhhh.



Duck and run. Later.



How do you know that?



Actually this is probably quite true compared to me. She has donated more money (but roughly the same %*) as me. She has probably been involved with creating more jobs than I can claim credit for.


*I went back and calculated and she gives a higher % of her income than I do.

Are you advocating that the government would do a better job than charities? You don't think politicians will use that money to help increase their voting base and to further their political power and influence? I don't think more bureaucracy and money for politicians to squabble over is the answer. The recent buyout of GM shows exactly the sorts of problems that come from government helping out.

Don't you see that if you keep putting the thumbscrews to high income earners that they will work harder and harder to find loopholes, or just move money out of the country altogether?

Which problems are you refering to? The fact that they're repaying back their loan early and are starting to do business again?

Some of the problems he might be referring to is that a) they're allegedly paying back the loans with other bailout or stimulus money, or b) the way that the entire bailout was very politically engineered to benefit a specific, politically well-connected group (the UAW) at the expense of less politically well-connected people (the bondholders). That's probably just a start though.

AAAAAAAAAAAHHJHHHHHHH! Ignore!

Someone just doesn't get it.

As someone else aptly suggested to you once before. Just ignore. No need to tell everyone you're ignoring. It just looks silly.

No, I was referring to the buying of UAW votes by giving them a larger stake in the new GM than the private bondholders. However it was the private Bondholders that were owed more money than the UAW.

(Amazing how GM can turn a near 4 billion dollar loss in the previous quarter to having an extra 6 billion to pay off loans. Oh wait, they didn't use money they made from selling cars, they just used more TARP money. rofl)