Porforis
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
dfosterf (6h) : *analysis* gettin' old
dfosterf (6h) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
dfosterf (6h) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
packerfanoutwest (10-Jul) : Us Padres fans love it....But it'll be a Dodgers/Yankees World Series
Zero2Cool (9-Jul) : Brewers sweep Dodgers. Awesome
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : And James Flanigan is the grandson of Packers Super Bowl winner Jim Flanigan Sr.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : Jerome Bettis and Jim Flanigans sons as well!
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Thomas Davis Jr is OLB, not WR. Oops.
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Larry Fitzgeral and Thomas Davis sons too. WR's as well.
Mucky Tundra (5-Jul) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Community Welcome! / lijog

10-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-Jul / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

6-Jul / Random Babble / Martha Careful

4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.