"Fair Share"?

From an editorial

"But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings."

The editorial goes on to ask: just what SHOULD be their "fair share"?

First of all, not all government expenditures benefit all people. The SEC might never be worth a single cent to someone who has nothing to invest and little to gain or lose if he is a day laborer whose income goes from hand to mouth.

Likewise, a handicapped person who is chronically unemployed or underemployed might not always derive anything from having the benefit being protected by a strong military or police force.

A sightless person who seldom travels and has little income might not experience personal benefit from an interstate highway system other than its ability to transport the goods he consumes.

The depth of the editorial does not fathom the question far enough to ponder that the pie chart can be cut into many slices but not all people eat a significant amount of the pie. In addition a pie chart has no way to communicate cost of the paper on which it is drawn even though it (or a monitor) is necessary as the platform for the chart to be shown.

The earth is a single planet but it relies ever so slightly on the unseen gravitational forces of other bodies around it and not just the Sun to function in the manner it functions.

In other words, there is far more to examining the equation than simply computing the percentage of return to either the smallest or the largest taxpayer.

First of all, not all government expenditures benefit all people. The SEC might never be worth a single cent to someone who has nothing to invest and little to gain or lose if he is a day laborer whose income goes from hand to mouth.

Likewise, a handicapped person who is chronically unemployed or underemployed might not always derive anything from having the benefit being protected by a strong military or police force.

A sightless person who seldom travels and has little income might not experience personal benefit from an interstate highway system other than its ability to transport the goods he consumes.

The depth of the editorial does not fathom the question far enough to ponder that the pie chart can be cut into many slices but not all people eat a significant amount of the pie. In addition a pie chart has no way to communicate cost of the paper on which it is drawn even though it (or a monitor) is necessary as the platform for the chart to be shown.

The earth is a single planet but it relies ever so slightly on the unseen gravitational forces of other bodies around it and not just the Sun to function in the manner it functions.

In other words, there is far more to examining the equation than simply computing the percentage of return to either the smallest or the largest taxpayer. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

And yet, despite all this alleged complexity, the left always somehow knows that people with large incomes must pay more.

First of all, not all government expenditures benefit all people. The SEC might never be worth a single cent to someone who has nothing to invest and little to gain or lose if he is a day laborer whose income goes from hand to mouth.

Likewise, a handicapped person who is chronically unemployed or underemployed might not always derive anything from having the benefit being protected by a strong military or police force.

A sightless person who seldom travels and has little income might not experience personal benefit from an interstate highway system other than its ability to transport the goods he consumes. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

What exactly is the connection between who takes from the public treasury and who pays into it?

Even if we assume what you wrote about the day laborer, the blind guy, and the cripple (that they don't benefit as much from government spending) is true, won't it still be true if the top 5% pay 35% or 45% of taxes, instead of 40%?

And, for what it is worth, I don't think your examples hold water. The blind guy and the cripple will receive far more government support than the average healthy person. And the day laborer. like all low-income people, will receive far more in Social Security benefits and Medicare/Medicaid benefits that he will ever pay into the system.

And why exactly would a crippled person who is unemployed or underemployed not get the benefit of a police force or the military? Can he or she not still be raped, robbed, or murdered? The overwhelming majority of the violent felons in this country are themselves unemployed or underemployed people who victimized people in their own socioeconomic group. Ghetto thugs and trailer park bums don't normally beat and stab people from Turtle Creek. They attack folks right in their own neighborhood.

The earth is a single planet but it relies ever so slightly on the unseen gravitational forces of other bodies around it and not just the Sun to function in the manner it functions. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Wow, man. That is like TOTALLY deep. Can I get a hit off that, man?

So in your opinion, what's the number that IS their fair share Stevie?
At what number does it become fair? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of those rich folks incomes?
Should capital gains income be taxed at the exact sames rates as earned income is? Its all income after-all right?

If one 1% of all the people in the US are paying 22% of all the money coming into the treasury, how much more do they need to pay in, to be fair...their fair share?

And if 5% of all people in the US are paying 40% of all the money coming into the treasury, how much more do they need to pay in, as their fair share?

That leaves 95% of all the other folks in the country to pay the remaining 60% of all the rest of the money coming in. So if the rich folks have to pay more, then the 60% of the rest of us can pay less, right? How much less? Or should the Congress simply increase their federal spending to make up for the windfall from the rich folks?

Fuck the SEC! The Aggies walked in there and punked them for 10 wins. and they're fucking AGGIES!

Hold on ...

You're not talking about THE SEC?

NEVER MIND! !

Ever thought about lowering spending to closer to historical norms?

Fuck the SEC! The Aggies walked in there and punked them for 10 wins. and they're fucking AGGIES!

Hold on ...

You're not talking about THE SEC?

NEVER MIND! ! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

PUNKED my ass ... 10 asswhippins ... roll the schedule back, bring out LSU and Florida, and, Notre Dumb would be 13

birds fly over Oklahoma upside down because it aint worth shittin on

LMAO!

Little Stevie, I must be really slow tonight, but I cannot see how what you posted has the slightest inkling of connection to what I posted.

Could you explain it, please?

Ever thought about lowering spending to closer to historical norms? Originally Posted by oden

Great plan! Just be sure to raise tax rates to their historical norm as well.

Don't look at income, look at wealth. What percent of assets do the top 1%, etc. have? That's the relevant question. Plus, taxes SHOULD be progressive.

birds fly over Oklahoma upside down because it aint worth shittin on Originally Posted by CJ7

That was funny!

Don't look at income, look at wealth. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Why?

"We" gonna start filing "Inventories" with the IRS?

And yet, despite all this alleged complexity, the left always somehow knows that people with large incomes must pay more. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I know simple math.

There are Three big Federal government expenses. SS, Medicare, Defense

SS and Medicare are in a surplus.

So either raise taxes or cut Defense.
Quit using SS and Medicare's surplus to pay for Defense.You then should adjust SS and Medicare to take into account that people are living longer. But you should not do what was done in 1986, which was adjust SS and Medicare and then just spend that huge surplus on Defense. If you want to police the world (rich people) do not take from SS and Medicare (poor people's saving).