Obama likes to bandy about the phrase "fair share" when it comes to paying taxes. But, he's never explained what a "fair share" is. Can anyone here answer that? Anyone? Republicans dispute Obama's 'fair share' claims, say top earners already pay enough President Obama has elevated one question to a key campaign issue -- what is a "fair share" of taxes? Obama repeatedly invokes tax fairness as a major campaign issue, returning over and over to the phrase "fair share," as he did on June 22 when he talked about a policy "that asks the wealthiest Americans to help pay down our deficit, to do their fair share." At a May 14 campaign stop, he used similar language, saying the idea is to make "sure that everybody is paying their fair share." Republicans, however, question the premise. "You got the top 2 percent paying almost half of all income taxes. Is that fair?" Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. Kyl was referring to official figures showing how much various income levels earn of the nation's total income compared to how much they pay of the nation's total income taxes. IRS figures show the top 1 percent of earners take home 16.9 percent of the nation's total income, but pay 36.7 percent of the nation's income taxes. The top 5 percent take home a little more than 31 percent of total income but pay almost 59 percent of all income taxes. And the top 10 percent earn just over 43 percent of the total income but pay more than 70 percent of all income taxes. "How are you going to make it fairer? If they pay 75 percent?," asks Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute. "If they pay 90 percent? If they pay all of it? Will that finally be fair?" As it now stands, 90 percent of all Americans pay only 30 percent of all income taxes. "If we want an income tax system that is fair according to the Obama administration's own standards, we already have it," Sen. Kyl says. "The argument that top-tier earners are not doing enough just does not hold water." However, advocates of higher rates for the wealthiest Americas typically argue that it is much easier for those top earners to pay more in taxes, as compared to lower-income Americans who have much less discretionary income. The president does not mention another factor in the fairness equation -- close to half of American workers pay no federal income taxes at all. "That's extremely progressive," says Arthur Brooks. "That's more progressive than our European friends, as a matter of fact." And Kyl notes, "people who do not share in the sacrifice of paying taxes have little direct incentive to care whether the government is spending and taxing too much." The administration often points to the ultra wealthy who sometimes pay lower rates because they have a lot of deductions. But the averages for all groups paint a more accurate picture. The top 1 percent, for instance, pay an average tax rate of more than 24 percent. The top 5 percent -- a tax rate of a little more than 20 percent. The top 10 percent -- about 18 percent. For the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, the average rate is 1.85 percent. Though fairness is one of the president's favorite themes, polls suggest voters are not that receptive. A Democratic think tank polled independents in 12 battleground states and found the president's fairness message does not resonate. "They don't see themselves as victims in the system, so about 60 percent of them say our system is basically fair," explains Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of the Democratic think tank Third Way. "When you ask them how to grow an economy, they didn't talk about fairness. They talked about opportunity." "When the president of the United States or any politician basically equates spreading the wealth around with fairness, that's fundamentally at odds with what most Americans think fairness means." Even Democrats who agree the system is progressive, though, still argue taxes on the wealthy may have to go up. "We have a country that's aging. We have deficit problems going forward," says Chuck Marr of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. "And so in the coming years there's going to be pressure to sort of bring these taxes off the bottom where they are now." Nevertheless, few dispute the tax system is progressive, or that the wealthy pay what many see as a fair share. In fact, one recent poll by the newspaper The Hill asked people what the maximum tax rate should be, and 75 percent of them said 30 percent or below. That 30 percent is higher than the 24 percent the top 1 percent is actually paying. But the current top tax bracket carries a 35 percent rate, and the president wants to raise that to almost 40. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/11/obama-camp-focuses-on-answering-what-fair-share-taxes-looks-like/#ixzz20PzE9daz
Yes, easily. Progressive tax - any tax in which the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
Another perspective from Thomas Jefferson: In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..." In this, he was making the same argument that the Framers of Pennsylvania tried to make when writing their constitution in 1776. As Kevin Phillips notes in his masterpiece book "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich," a Sixteenth Article to the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights (that was only "narrowly defeated") declared: "an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property."
But, if the rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases, how is that possibly a "fair share"? If a wealthy person is paying a higher rate, isn't that an "unfair share"?
The problem with that is that most "individuals who become so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government" never become politically involved and, therefore, don't influence government in any way whatsoever. Exceptions to that rule may be the Kennedys, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Sean Penn or Oprah Winfrey for example. Would Jefferson diminish the wealth of people like that? Should he? Besides that, just who is in charge of "deeming who is dangerous to the State"? Well, thank God and the Founding Fathers that was defeated. Can you just imagine such a socialist notion in the Constitution?
You missed the best point from Teddy. He thinks we ought to base our taxing framework based on an amendment to a state constitution that was defeated over 200 years ago.
Cmon Mr Nation, just say it..........From each according too................I know you have this memorized, finish it for me
To have nearly 50% of the people contributing nothing to the financial well-being of our nation is inexcusable.
My tax rate on paper is 25%. My actual tax rate last year? 5%. And you don't get much simpler a situation than mine. Solidly middle class income, married, couple of kids, a 401k, 2 dogs and a house. No estates or trusts or funny investments or offshore accounts or side businesses or anything else. What we say people are paying and what they are paying have zero correlation. Tons of credits, stimulus, loopholes, grants, subsidies, deductions, and everything else under the sun. All made to get a little election advantage here or pay off a group of people there. In a tax system as convoluted, complex and corrupt as ours, any politician talking about 'Fair Shares' without addressing the system as a whole first is blowing smoke up your behind.
How can BO stand up & say anyone should pay more when 50% pay nothing (or get more money back than they pay in)?
Study says Obama tax proposals could cost 700,000 jobs, Boehner pounces Republican House Speaker John Boehner hammered President Barack Obama on Tuesday after accounting firm Ernst and Young released a study showing that his proposed tax hikes on the wealthy could cost the already sputtering economy more than 700,000 jobs. "Our economy is still struggling under President Obama's policies, and his massive tax hike will only make things tougher," Boehner said in a statement. "It's one of the worst possible ideas at one of the worst possible times for families and small businesses." Obama has been campaigning on calls to extend the Bush-era tax cuts on income up to $250,000 but let them expire above that level. He and fellow Democrats have accused Republicans of holding middle-class tax relief hostage to help the very rich (in fact, the wealthy would see the benefits on their first $250,000 of income). Recent polls have suggested that the public broadly supports the president in principle, though Republicans have noted that his proposal does not yet exist as legislation, and Democrats are expected to water down some of the president's recommended changes. The Ernst and Young study looked at the impact of seeing the top marginal tax rates rise — but also studied the effects of a range of other proposals included in the president's budget and broader tax plans: This report examines four sets of provisions that will increase the top tax rates:· The increase in the top two tax rates from 33% to 36% and 35% to 39.6%· The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers (the "Pease" provision).· The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6% and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20%.· The increase in the 2.9% Medicare tax to 3.8% for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains.Here is what the accounting firm concluded would happen: · Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3%, or $200 billion, in today's economy.· Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5% or, roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today's economy.· Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4% and 2.4%, respectively.· Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8%, reflecting a decline in workers' living standards relative to what would have occurred otherwise.Ernst and Young prepared the report on behalf of several pro-business groups, including the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business, the S Corporation Association and the United States Chamber of Commerce. "This report shows the president's small business tax hike threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, and will lead to even less economic growth, less investment, and lower wages for American workers," Boehner said. The speaker underlined that the Republican-led House will vote this month to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts and set the stage for a broader debate on overhauling the tax code. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/study-says-obama-tax-proposals-could-cost-700-145037841.html
