Porforis
11 years ago
While I hate the word "fair" (or rather how some people abuse the term), one thing that Obama's occasional speech about making the rich pay their fair share of taxes does make me think about, is that nobody seems to define WHAT a "Fair Share" is, which brings up a very interesting question to me: In a society such as ours, how much of the fruits of our labors does society as a whole "deserve" for everything from medicare for the poor and retired to transportation and defense?

We obviously all have different ideas for what taxes should be used for, but I'm curious to see what people think is fair. While this question is primarily geared towards the majority of us which live in the states, I'd be very interested to see what those of us that live overseas think as well.

Question number one: For the following income brackets (assume total income, not taxable income), what is a "fair share" for a citizen to pay for ALL taxes (federal, state, and local income, property taxes, sales tax, taxes on gas and other products, etc) besides capital gains, which is a completely different beast? I would not include social security as it in theory will be paid back in part to you upon retirement.

$0 to $8,950:
$8,950 to $36,250:
$36,250 to $87,850:
$87,850 to $183,250:
$183,250 to $398,350:
$398,350 and up:

Question number two: Should taxes on capital gains be a flat rate as they are now, or bracketed? If flat, what should the rate be? If bracketed, what would the brackets look like?

My answers:

Question 1:
$0 to $8,950: 10%
$8,950 to $36,250: 18%
$36,250 to $87,850: 28%
$87,850 to $183,250: 34%
$183,250 to $398,350: 38%
$398,350 and up: 42%

Question 2:
Bracketed, the idea that I had to pay the same rate for my gains when I was making $22,000 as someone making a few billion a year is crazy.
$0 to $30,000: 10%
$30,001 to $60,000: 15%
$60,001 to $120,000: 20%
$121,000 to $250,000: 25%
$250,000 and up: 30%
Rockmolder
11 years ago
It's rather hard to imagine how progressive taxes should be put in without taking social securities for me, as the first and second of our brackets consist of 94% and 74% payments towards social security, respectively. Brackets from there on out are just taxes without any social security payments. It's a system I quite like.

$0 to $8,950: 3% (+24% Social security)
$8,950 to $36,250: 15% (+22% Social security)
$36,250 to $87,850: 35% (+7% Social security)
$87,850 to $183,250: 47% (+3% Social security)
$183,250 to $398,350: 53%
$398,350 and up: 58%

I feel like your lowest bracket is a tad bit low, though. I'd up that to something closer to €15,000.-. Maybe up the 4th bracket to €275,000.- and pull out the fifth bracket all together.

I know that 27% and 37% on the first two brackets seem pretty hefty, but that's more of a redistribution in the form of subsidies and support than making it hard on people with a low income. On the contrary, they'd be better off.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago
Under $14,500 [= full time at minimum wage for 2000 hrs/year]: 0%.

Anything over $14,500, 10% of all income over $14,500, less any contributions to not-for-profit churches or charities.

No deductions for anything else.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Porforis
11 years ago

It's rather hard to imagine how progressive taxes should be put in without taking social securities for me, as the first and second of our brackets consist of 94% and 74% payments towards social security, respectively. Brackets from there on out are just taxes without any social security payments. It's a system I quite like.

$0 to $8,950: 3% (+24% Social security)
$8,950 to $36,250: 15% (+22% Social security)
$36,250 to $87,850: 35% (+7% Social security)
$87,850 to $183,250: 47% (+3% Social security)
$183,250 to $398,350: 53%
$398,350 and up: 58%

I feel like your lowest bracket is a tad bit low, though. I'd up that to something closer to €15,000.-. Maybe up the 4th bracket to €275,000.- and pull out the fifth bracket all together.

I know that 27% and 37% on the first two brackets seem pretty hefty, but that's more of a redistribution in the form of subsidies and support than making it hard on people with a low income. On the contrary, they'd be better off.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



I guess the idea of taxing the very low income earners so much for social security doesn't sit right with me precisely since the very lowest bracket doesn't HAVE disposable income. If you're making $36k a year, you'd be taking home $22,680. If you're making $8000, you're taking home $5,840. For extremely low-end housing in most areas, you'd be paying $4,800 a year ($400/mo) for rent alone. Everyone making $0 to around $25,000 is going to have a very hard time being self-sufficient - the more you tax them for social security (and I get why you would do that), the less income they have for the bare necessities and thus the more likely they will need other forms of public assistance like food stamps, and the more likely they will get into debt which will KEEP them poor.
Pack93z
11 years ago

Under $14,500 [= full time at minimum wage for 2000 hrs/year]: 0%.

Anything over $14,500, 10% of all income over $14,500, less any contributions to not-for-profit churches or charities.

No deductions for anything else.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



This is the approach I would take.. you pay the same percentage regardless of the level of income you earn or the amount spent upon snake oil accountants.

Don't know that I would have the floor set at 14,500 though. Rent/Mortgage, food, health care on $1208 a month for anything over a single person. Not going to work out. So it couldn't be just a flat 14500 a year type statement.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Rockmolder
11 years ago

I guess the idea of taxing the very low income earners so much for social security doesn't sit right with me precisely since the very lowest bracket doesn't HAVE disposable income. If you're making $36k a year, you'd be taking home $22,680. If you're making $8000, you're taking home $5,840. For extremely low-end housing in most areas, you'd be paying $4,800 a year ($400/mo) for rent alone. Everyone making $0 to around $25,000 is going to have a very hard time being self-sufficient - the more you tax them for social security (and I get why you would do that), the less income they have for the bare necessities and thus the more likely they will need other forms of public assistance like food stamps, and the more likely they will get into debt which will KEEP them poor.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



I get your point, but that gives you enough of an income to give out rent-subsidies, affordable healthcare, subsidizing public transportation for the ones that need it (Who are the only ones who use it, anyway), affordable education for everyone, retirement funds etc.

I know that goes against what a lot of you guys here stand for, but I do like it more than just relieving the lower class of all their taxes and have them squander their money away. Humans are horrible in planning ahead for the long term. This way poor children will have the ability to get proper education, retirement won't be a huge burden on children, renting will be more attractive for people who would've bought a house with a mortgage they can't actually afford etc.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago
I use to say 10% flat tax. But that was Fed only. If you add every kind of a tax under the sun then 40% should do it.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago
Right now this is a pretty impossible question to answer. With all the different taxes that are about. Corporate, payroll, income, state, gas and on and on. What really needs to be discovered, is how much tax revenue is needed. Once that is found, determine how much of total income is needed to provide that amount. And tax each person at that rate.

I expect that if the waste and abuse is removed, and the services that could be provided by private sector get removed, we would need to tax at about 12%. And at that point. Every body who earns income should pay 12%.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
DakotaT
11 years ago

Under $14,500 [= full time at minimum wage for 2000 hrs/year]: 0%.

Anything over $14,500, 10% of all income over $14,500, less any contributions to not-for-profit churches or charities.

No deductions for anything else.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Your numbers are too low, thresholds and tax %. The idea of a graduated tax system is to help the impoverished build themselves up. A 10% tax on the wealthy is spitting in the face of people who work with their hands and backs. I don't quite understand your insistence on letting the lucky people off like freeloaders - but that's your thing.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
11 years ago

Your numbers are too low, thresholds and tax %. The idea of a graduated tax system is to help the impoverished build themselves up. A 10% tax on the wealthy is spitting in the face of people who work with their hands and backs. I don't quite understand your insistence on letting the lucky people off like freeloaders - but that's your thing.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I am inclined to agree with you as far as 10% goes, although I'm sure my ideas on what government should be spending greatly differs from what you or Wade thinks. But I really don't think the government could fund any better than vital transportation, the judicial system, and a third-rate military with money like that. What do you think is a more fair % for the income tax brackets listed in the original post? Whether it's for the country we live in or the ideal country in your mind, I guess that's up to you.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (5h) : Love questionable. Morgan is out. Valentine is doubtful
Martha Careful (23h) : Rodgers and Lazard off to a very strong start
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Josh Jacobs. Limited.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Can't find anything on Jacobs :(
wpr (19-Sep) : Do you know if they gave Jacobs an extra day off? I hope so.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : WR Jayden Reed (calf) and G Elgton Jenkins (illness/glute) returned after sitting out Wednesday.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Packers are in pads and so is Jordan Love. Second straight day of practice for QB1.
bboystyle (18-Sep) : If Love comes back, we win in a blow out
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Jordan Love just spoke with reporters and said he’s giving himself the week but hopeful to play Sunday against the Titans.
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Practicing is Jordan Love!
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Packers are signing WR Cornelius Johnson to the Practice Squad per sources. Johnson was a 7th round pick this year.
Zero2Cool (17-Sep) : Packers placed RB MarShawn Lloyd on injured reserve.
Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Rams won’t have Cooper Kupp or Puka Nacua when they host the Packers in Week 5.
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : Or is that the Rusty Red Rifle because of his age?
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : The Red Rifle Returns!
Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Panthers are benching former No. 1 overall pick Bryce Young and starting veteran Andy Dalton beginning this week.
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : bears still have slim chance here
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : and there's another one!
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : oh crap macbob has the Texans K and he keeps hitting these long FGs
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Hope the Texans beat the brakes off the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : LaFleur: “I asked Malik why he didn’t throw it on that third down and he told me Josh threw up on the ball.”
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : i was wondering why it was just you, me, beast and macbob by the end
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Yeah it was weird today for some reason
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Oh my, marvin harrison jr might be as good as he was billed out to be
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : and none of the chats on my phone are showing up on the desktop chat
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : weird, i was on my phone for chat during the game but now on my desktop I look at chat and there's tons of chats i didn't see on my phone
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Oh yeah, for sure. That's just not fair thoguh.
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Zero, what I meant was that surely a tech and IT genius such as yourself would find a way to change the pick
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Well, I mean, I know I did, but might not have waited for it to register and went into Chat. Oh well
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Or so I thought I did. lol
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : I had Colts for few days to throw everyone off. At 11am or so, I changed it to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : You know if you didn't say anything you probably could have changed it and no one would have noticed ;)
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Vikings over the 49ers, Bucs over the Lions
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : lol awesome. my pick for Packers didn't go through. sweet
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Packers defense has 6 Takeaways in two games.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : nah
Martha Careful (15-Sep) : I think I've been booted out of the chat room
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Jordan Love has his left leg wrapped in a sleeve as he stands on the sidelines during National Anthem.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Jaire Alexander, Eric Wilson and Elgton Jenkins are the Packers’ team captains today against the Colts.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Looks like Sean Rhyan will start at right guard, based on the early warm-ups.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : No surprise, Love inactive
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Inactives: 10 QB Jordan Love 27 S Kitan Oladapo 57 DL Brenton Cox Jr. 73 T Andre Dillard 79 T Travis Glover 96 DL Colby Wooden
Martha Careful (14-Sep) : Wisconsin football stinks. OL good, Pauling good. all else MEH
Zero2Cool (14-Sep) : Jordan Love downgraded to doubtful for tomorrow's game
Zero2Cool (14-Sep) : Sean Clifford just got called up. No Love tomorrow. No shock either.
Mucky Tundra (13-Sep) : I know it's probably to mess with the Colts but I'm just huffing copium honestly
Mucky Tundra (13-Sep) : So you're saying there's *a chance*?
Zero2Cool (13-Sep) : Packers officially listed QB Jordan Love (knee) as questionable for Sunday's game vs. the \Colts.
Mucky Tundra (13-Sep) : Confirmed concussion for Tua
Mucky Tundra (13-Sep) : Yikes, possibly another concussion for Tua
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

19-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

18-Sep / Random Babble / wpr

18-Sep / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

18-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

18-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

18-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Sep / GameDay Threads / wpr

16-Sep / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.