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
Mucky Tundra (58m) : Whoops, I thought Zero was saying it was a surprise the Brewers lost and not Lloyd being hurt
Mucky Tundra (59m) : Not a surprise; inevitable
Zero2Cool (2h) : Brewers streak ends at 14
Zero2Cool (3h) : SURPRISE
Mucky Tundra (5h) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on MarShawn Lloyd: “He’s gonna miss some time.”
Mucky Tundra (16-Aug) : CLIFFORD WITH THE TD WITH UNDER 2 TO GO!!!!!
Zero2Cool (16-Aug) : 90 MINUTES UNTIL FAKE KICKOFF!!
Martha Careful (16-Aug) : I think Ruven is a bot, but regardless should be stricken from the site.
Zero2Cool (14-Aug) : Packers RB Josh Jacobs ranked No. 33 in NFL 'Top 100'
dfosterf (13-Aug) : The LVN Musgrave collision- Andy Herman said Musgrave seemed to be the one most impacted injury-wise
dfosterf (13-Aug) : a lower back injury
dfosterf (13-Aug) : Doubs says he's "fine" after injury scare. Some reported it as z
Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : With LVN that is; need to see what happens in the next practice
Mucky Tundra (13-Aug) : beast, reading about what happened, it sounded like one of those "two guys collide and are moving slow afterwards" type of deals
beast (12-Aug) : I believe Musgrave has been injured every single season since at least a Sophomore in highschool
packerfanoutwest (12-Aug) : Matt LaFleur: “Highly unlikely” Jordan Love plays more this preseason
dfosterf (12-Aug) : Doubs, Savion Williams, LVN, Musgrave all banged up to one degree or another, missing one here I forget
Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : RB Tyrion Davis-Price is signing with the Green Bay Packers.
Zero2Cool (12-Aug) : zero help, dominated. preseason
beast (12-Aug) : QB Jordan Love has surgery
beast (12-Aug) : Martha said Morgan had a lot of help, I didn't watch the OL so I can't say.
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers LT Jordan Morgan did not allow a single pressure across 23 pass-blocking snaps vs. Jets last night, per PFF
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : With buckeye and the reasonable couple, we're currently sitting at 10
buckeyepackfan (10-Aug) : Just posted to re-up on our FFL.
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : If healthy after, then thats all I care. Well, no drops would be nice
wpr (10-Aug) : I made it through the 1st Q.
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Just gotta figure out how.
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Could have been a worse start, so there is that.
beast (10-Aug) : Yeah, someone tell the Packers football season has started, seems like they weren't ready for it
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : Sooooooo many penalties
Mucky Tundra (10-Aug) : It may only be preseason, but this game is a trip to the dentist
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do bad -- FREAK OUT!!!!!!
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Packers do good -- eh only preseason
dfosterf (10-Aug) : Well that half was fun
Zero2Cool (10-Aug) : Great, zayne is down
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : 13 minutes away from kickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkoffff
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Had Celebration of Life for my uncle up north. wicked rain hope it dont come south
Mucky Tundra (9-Aug) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
Zero2Cool (9-Aug) : Woo-hoo
TheKanataThrilla (9-Aug) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
beast (8-Aug) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
beast (8-Aug) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
beast (8-Aug) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
Zero2Cool (8-Aug) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Zero- Did you see what I posted about Voice of Reason and his wife? She posted over at fleaflicker that they are both "In"
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
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19h / Fantasy Sports Talk / GoPack1984

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / beast

15-Aug / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

13-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12-Aug / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

11-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

11-Aug / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

11-Aug / Around The NFL / packerfanoutwest

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