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
Zero2Cool (1h) : Well, emailing should work now. After not working for almost a year. Oops.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Brotherly Shove did not get enough votes.
Zero2Cool (22h) : lol our email hasn't worked in months. 7 pages of unverified users
Zero2Cool (20-May) : MySpace Screaming Lord Byron ... Brett Favre.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : Packers have signed first-round pick Matthew Golden, leaving second-round tackle Anthony Belton as their only unsigned draft pick
beast (19-May) : Supposedly he has to take his image, and name off of it... but otherwise could keep selling wine if he wanted to.
Zero2Cool (19-May) : he giving up his win business?
beast (19-May) : Speaking of Woodson, sounds like he'll be a minority owner (0.1%) of the Browns
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Zero, regarding Woodson, that'd why I find the timing with Williams peculiar
dfosterf (15-May) : Ryan Hall y'all does a great job of tracking thesr
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Fear not!! I planned to do 33mi bike ride tomorrow morning, so ... yeah
Zero2Cool (15-May) : We got some dark clouds and nasty winds right bout now.
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Madison they had hail 4pm.
dfosterf (15-May) : Sure looks like these tornadoes are headed towards Green Bay
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Woodson of Charles fame was reluctant and then loved it. that didn't really come out until post career
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : IE "We bought into the Bears and they let us down, we have no choice to seek alternatives"
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Or that Williams and his family are preparing an exit ramp if they don't like how things are going in a few years
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Either Williams thought it would make him look good (reluctant but then embraces the city and franchise)
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : I can only assume that the Williams camp agreed to cooperate with that article tells me 2 things
dfosterf (15-May) : Ya. They are in a great mood
Zero2Cool (15-May) : I should visit again
dfosterf (15-May) : ChiCity Sports entering freakout mode due to Caleb and his dad not wanting him to go there
Zero2Cool (15-May) : "He's looking really good out there," Derrick Ansley said of Kalen King. Adds that he's been playing inside and out.
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Him saying he doesn't have one to give haha
Zero2Cool (15-May) : True, that was awesome. The whole F thing was great actually.
dfosterf (15-May) : I did like the Mark Murphy part, sorta
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Some comments on it saying it was great, amazing... I came away thinking... awkward.
dfosterf (15-May) : Packers schedule release video is "interesting" I guess.
Zero2Cool (15-May) : SOOO glad that tool still works. Saves from manually entering each game
Zero2Cool (15-May) : NFL Pick'em import was done last night.
Mucky Tundra (15-May) : Atlanta with 5 primetime games lol
Zero2Cool (15-May) : Week Five BYE?? NFL is hell.
wpr (14-May) : Vikings schedule leaked. Week 12 in GB. Week 18 in MN.
wpr (14-May) : CBS has GB @ NYG Week 11 Nov 16 and they will face MN in week 18 but don't say where. I think away
Zero2Cool (14-May) : W15: Packers at Broncos
Zero2Cool (14-May) : Ben Sirmans on MarShawn Lloyd: “Everything’s full go for him.”
Zero2Cool (14-May) : Luke Butkus says training camp will allow plenty of time to implement new center Elgton Jenkins
Zero2Cool (14-May) : wk 2 commanders at packers
Zero2Cool (14-May) : Ugh. Packers thanksgiving detroit ...boring
Zero2Cool (14-May) : Panthers at Green Bay in week 9, Nov 2nd
buckeyepackfan (14-May) : Week 1
buckeyepackfan (14-May) : Packers Host Detroit Week 1! ML finally gets a week home opener.
beast (13-May) : I was kind of hoping Douglas might come back to the Pack
beast (13-May) : My question is how much do we trust Jenkins? In bad weather, he seemed to struggle a bit with ball control snapping, though he started at OG
beast (13-May) : Well Jenkins probably knows he's not getting that 2026 salary number without a new contact... so just trying to get the new contact early
Zero2Cool (13-May) : CB Rasul Douglas is visiting the #Seahawks today, per source.
dfosterf (13-May) : He's a switch and baiter. Its the same as a bait and switcher except he agreed to the switch first lol
dfosterf (13-May) : 6.8 mil raise next year. Those are existing contract numbers
dfosterf (13-May) : 12.8 plus 4.8 pro rata signing bonus is 17.6 mil. Top center in the league at 18
Zero2Cool (13-May) : Elgton Jenkins wants to rework contract ahead of position change to center
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
28m / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

15-May / Random Babble / Martha Careful

15-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

13-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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