What's a "fair share"?

Just trying to help you out without embarrassing you.....we are taxed on wealth (or at least the income that wealth produces).

 

My point was that you are not taxed on your wealth, just your income that could be from wealth if you have it invested and are drawing dividends or interest income but your wealth is money you alreay have. If I put a million dollars in the bank and I do not have it in an interest bearing account and I don't put it in a CD, I do not pay taxes on that money.

 

Actually, there are (at least) 2 notable exceptions to that on the federal level - the estate tax and the gift tax. There are many more from the state taxes. Ever hear of property taxes?

 

But those ARE income. If the estate was not yours and you inherited it or someone gave you a gift, that is a net gain therefore it is income. Property taxes have nothing to do with income taxes. You pay property taxes to the state to pay for schools, city services, parks, etc. Different topic completely.

 

Real question:
Do you think income from dividends or interest should be taxed at the same level as income? What about inheritance?
In most cases the money has already been taxed.

 

Interesting, but YOU don' pay either tax. The person giving the money pays both and neither is income to him.

Yep, but this is the post I (and you) were talking about.

Since when is a property tax a tax on "your income that could be from wealth"?

 

Fair share ---> When you buy a ticket to go on a carnival ride.

...What?

Fine... go back into what constitutes income and what doesn't.

How about this though, from one of my previous posts?:

I suggested a 50% rate at 20 times the poverty line, but after giving it more thought I think that rate is a bit high for that income level by maybe 10% or so. Maybe at 50 times the poverty level the rate could be a bit higher at 45%... and at maybe 100 times the poverty level the rate top-out at 50%. Still a rough suggestion, but better than the first I think.

 

Okay, I am new here, and have been reading a lot of the posts, so now I will put my two cents in. First, arguing helps no one. Fair share, there isn't one. Should the rich pay more than the average person no, but they should also not be able to pay less. If I make $1 million a year and pay $100,000 in taxes, now this is only an example, but use the right tax breaks and loopholes, I will not pay any of this tax money because I have enough money to pay a smart person to figure out a way to get around paying these taxes. So in reality I have not paid any taxes, but hey I can showed I paid $100,000 in taxes. Now lets take the person that makes $10,000 and they pay $1,000 in taxes. There are not any tax loops holes they know of, and they don't ahve the money to pay someone to figure them out, so they just pay their $1,000 and let it go to the government. Now who do you think paid the most taxes?

 

HUH? The loopholes and breaks keep you from paying the tax in the first place. You cannot pay $100,000, but not pay any.

 

?????

Heck Moen I don't know what caused the attack either especially since I have no friggin' clue what David is talking about here.

If for some reason you think I attacked you Moen please let me know and I'll apoligize.

If you think it's just something that David cooked up in his head I'll understand that as well.

 

I guess you don't understand what I was trying to say and I thought we were talking about fare share. If I can show I paid $100,000 in taxes, but actually did not because of the loopholes, then you are exactly right, I did not pay any taxes. That was exactly the point. I will make my apologies if you did not pick up on that explanation.

So I will put it this way. If I am suppose to pay $100,000 in taxes, but find ways around not paying that $100,000, then I am not really paying what the person that makes $10,000 and paying $1,000 in taxes, now am I? So tell me is the richer person paying their fair share? No.

However, if a person that is suppose to pay $100,000 in taxes and pays that in taxes, then they did pay their fair share. Now didn't they?

The tax code favors the rich. I actually believe that everyone that makes a salary should pay the same percentage of taxes, whatever that amount is. If I make $5,000 a year I should pay, say, $500, but if I make $500,000 a year, then I should pay the same percentage, $50,000. Now is that fair share. I believe it is. But if I don't then I am not paying my fair share, no matter how much I make, whether it be the $5,000 or $500,000.

Does that more sense to you?

 

By the way, you can pay $100,000 in taxes, but not give any money to the government. Trust me I know from experience. It is all in the tax code.

 

I have no clue what he was talking about and just ignored the comment.

 

That's something I think most people can agree with, that the tax-code is too complicated and is in need of simplification... an overhaul. Loop-hole, exclusions, tax-breaks, etc. all make for far too much frustration and mistakes while filing... and even those with professional experience (my gf has 35+ years as a tax preparer, and is one of the most knowledgeable, sought-after preparers in our area) find it increasingly frustrating.

 

It has to get simplier to make it fair. Others are paying too much, while others are paying too little. If congress would just revamp the tax code, I believe we could lower corporate taxes, the higher taxes on the rich and still bring in more revenue to the government for the programs that are really required by this country. But hey, that is just me, the keep it simple stupid guy.

 

Obviously, "fair share" doesn't include GM after the Obama bailout:

Why a millionaire wants autoworkers to take a pay cut

The former head of the Obama administration's auto task force says he should have pushed the United Auto Workers for steeper sacrifices in the General Motors bailout, including wage cuts. The people earning $9 a hour in a suburban Detroit GM plant would disagree.

Former auto czar and wealthy Wall Street financier Steven Rattner told a luncheon in Detroit on Thursday that while the $50 billion GM bailout was successful, "we should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay." He also said that "friends on Wall Street" were concerned by GM's earnings and communications with the market, pushing the stock down to a level that would lose the goverment $14 billion if it sold its shares today.

Meanwhile, at General Motors' Orion Township, Mich., plant about 45 minutes away from where Rattner spoke, there are three tiers of hourly workers. Roughly 900 workers at the top tier, the most senior UAW workers, make $29 an hour, a rate unchanged since 2008. Another 500 or so UAW workers are paid about $16 an hour — a rate, adjusted for inflation, equal to the famed $5 a day Henry Ford started paying his workers in 1914.

And at the bottom scale are 200-odd workers technically employed by an outside supplier but who work in the plant moving parts to the assembly line, jobs once done by GM workers paid $29 an hour. The contractors' pay: $9 an hour with no health care, a rate which over a year's work would leave them below the poverty level for a family of four.
GM's contract with the UAW that convinced the company to move small-car production to Orion from South Korea allows it to shift such work to the outside supplier. That supplier has resisted UAW bargaining, and the tensions have grown high enough that UAW workers at the plant picketed earlier this month and sought approval from the union for a strike. (They delayed one planned picket so that President Obama could tour the plant with South Korea's president).

GM's North American arm posted operating profits of $5.7 billion in the past nine months, on which it will pay little to no federal income tax thanks to a law passed during the bailout preserving tax credits from the years when it bled money. The estimated savings to GM of its tiered wages at Orion: $112 per vehicle, on Chevy Sonics and Buick Veranos that start at $14,500, and can sell for $29,000. By GM's own stats, $29,000 is also the average annual wage of all GM hourly and salaried workers at Orion.

The UAW wants to move tier two workers up in the coming years, while all three Detroit automakers expect to expand the number of workers being paid the lower wage. Rattner's friends on Wall Street may want GM to cut deeper and answer their whims, but I don't see many of them embracing a life of poverty just to keep their jobs -- despite their far larger bailout.


http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/why-millionaire-wants-autoworkers-pay-cut-160603932.html

 

So, you agree with the 99%ers? That big business sucks? That the government is corrupt?

 

Just that Obama's bailout of GM is no different than the things he rails against.

 

I'd agree with that... up to a point. Obama may have a surprise or two left in him though, especially if he believes he's a one-term President. I know I'd have my ducks lined-up by now, ready for the final few months... just in case lol

 

OK, well, that sounds ominous. Lets hope he doesn't really spring any surprises on us. The American people have already been through enough hell.