If The Rich Would Pay Their Fair Share

This guy could get a new binky.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...urn-complaint/

The rich actually pay the most in taxes.....

If it was truly fair everyone would pay taxes.

Yes and only 53% actually pay taxes in the U.S.

Another misleading statistic. Everyone pays taxes - whether it's sales tax, property taxes, fuel taxes, state income taxes, city taxes, and the list goes on. What you failed to mention in your 53% paying taxes is that the remaining 47% are either too poor to pay federal taxes or are well off people that take advantage of every loop hole in the system to avoid paying federal taxes. With a U.S. median income of $43,000, I can assure you the majority of the 47% are just too poor to pay federal taxes. Should they pay something? Sure, but not the 18% Herman Cain wants out of them on top of the rest of the taxes they already pay. The problem with a "fair" tax is that the definition of fair will vary depending on where you sit, so we'll never reach an agreement on what a fair tax should be.

fair

1   /fɛər/ Show Spelled [fair] Show IPA adjective, fair·er, fair·est,adverb, fair·er, fair·est,noun, verb
adjective 1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.

4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health.

5. marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to succeed.

Another misleading statistic. Everyone pays taxes - whether it's sales tax, property taxes, fuel taxes, state income taxes, city taxes, and the list goes on. What you failed to mention in your 53% paying taxes is that the remaining 47% are either too poor to pay federal taxes or are well off people that take advantage of every loop hole in the system to avoid paying federal taxes. With a U.S. median income of $43,000, I can assure you the majority of the 47% are just too poor to pay federal taxes. Should they pay something? Sure, but not the 18% Herman Cain wants out of them on top of the rest of the taxes they already pay. The problem with a "fair" tax is that the definition of fair will vary depending on where you sit, so we'll never reach an agreement on what a fair tax should be. Originally Posted by thehobbydude

Let's look closer at this 18% your talking about.

Taking $100 of income, 9% will be taxed.

$100 x .91 = $91 (This is the disposable income remaining)

Now, assuming this person spends each and every cent of the $91 on new item(s), they would pay a 9% sales tax on the $91 dollars of disposable income.

$91 x .91 = $82.81 (The price of the new item purchased in order to spend all of their income. Again, this assumes they spend everything on a new item and nothing on a tax free item (for instance a used car).

Under Cain's plan, the payroll taxes of about 15% currently be withheld would no longer exist. To compare the difference in disposable income consider the following.

$100 x .85 (15% payroll tax) = $85 (Before one cent is spent, Cain's plan adds $6 of disposable income for each $100 earned)

Difference in disposable income before and after Cain's plan.

$91 - $85 = $6 of additional disposable income under Cain's plan.

The corporate tax rate would also be decreased from 35% to 9%. This lowers the overhead costs to produce an item. Price competition would then lower the price of products we buy as these prices have the 35% tax rate built into them which under Cain's plan would reduce to 9%. This means your buying power with the $91 of disposable income would be greater than it currently is.

Furthermore, you would no longer be taxed a second time should part of the $91 be invested in the market or on other assets which would result in a capital gain once the assets are sold.

What Cain's tax plan does is not increase taxes on the middle class as stated. It only makes the taxes we pay more visible. In addition, Cain's plan broadens the tax base by getting rid of tax loopholes created by politicians who are influenced by lobbyist. Yes, even GE will be required to start paying taxes.

It also gets rid of the tax penalty on income earned overseas which opens the door for those dollars to come home and be invested into our economy. Businesses would want to invest here because under Cain's plan the consumer will have more disposable income and corporate tax rates would also be lower.

In addition, Cain's plan broadens the tax base by getting rid of tax loopholes created by politicians who are influenced by lobbyist. Yes, even GE will be required to start paying taxes. Originally Posted by aroundaustin

I quoted the important part. Lobbyist .... Anything that fucks with them will never happen. And that's the #1 problem in Washington

A wealthy friend recently explained to me that the difference between millionaires and billionaires is that for the most part, millionaires pay their taxes. It's the billionaires who get around paying their fair share and that's why they're billionaires. Those are my friend's words and not mine but I see some truth in it.

You left out two important details. First, most corporations currently only pay between 5% and 15%, while many pay nothing at all. What kind of price competition do you think is going to be created by those currently paying 0% up to 9%? None, that's called inflation.

Second, with your imaginary tax rate of 35% we are already $1.4 trillion in the hole each year, with another $14.3 trillion + interest needing to be paid back. How exactly is going from your imaginary 35% tax rate down to 9% going to generate enough revenue to even pay a small portion of our yearly budget? It isn't! Fact is you'd need 23% across the board just to break even, much less begin to pay back the $14.3 trillion + interest we already owe.

Lastly, you make no mention of the fact that the top 5% in this country who hold 80% of all the wealth don't pay income tax on it. Their income is derived mostly from capital gains on investments that Cain wants to abolish completely.

Cain's plan is a farce, and it's not even close to being realistic.

"...opens the door for those dollars to come home and be invested into our economy." Don't make me laugh! If you believe that, you probably voted for Reagan thinking the wealth would "trickle down" too.

BTW, you left out state sales tax. You'll be paying 18% on average for everything you purchase, not 9%.

Let's look closer at this 18% your talking about.

Taking $100 of income, 9% will be taxed.

$100 x .91 = $91 (This is the disposable income remaining)

Now, assuming this person spends each and every cent of the $91 on new item(s), they would pay a 9% sales tax on the $91 dollars of disposable income.

$91 x .91 = $82.81 (The price of the new item purchased in order to spend all of their income. Again, this assumes they spend everything on a new item and nothing on a tax free item (for instance a used car).

Under Cain's plan, the payroll taxes of about 15% currently be withheld would no longer exist. To compare the difference in disposable income consider the following.

$100 x .85 (15% payroll tax) = $85 (Before one cent is spent, Cain's plan adds $6 of disposable income for each $100 earned)

Difference in disposable income before and after Cain's plan.

$91 - $85 = $6 of additional disposable income under Cain's plan.

The corporate tax rate would also be decreased from 35% to 9%. This lowers the overhead costs to produce an item. Price competition would then lower the price of products we buy as these prices have the 35% tax rate built into them which under Cain's plan would reduce to 9%. This means your buying power with the $91 of disposable income would be greater than it currently is.

Furthermore, you would no longer be taxed a second time should part of the $91 be invested in the market or on other assets which would result in a capital gain once the assets are sold.

What Cain's tax plan does is not increase taxes on the middle class as stated. It only makes the taxes we pay more visible. In addition, Cain's plan broadens the tax base by getting rid of tax loopholes created by politicians who are influenced by lobbyist. Yes, even GE will be required to start paying taxes.

It also gets rid of the tax penalty on income earned overseas which opens the door for those dollars to come home and be invested into our economy. Businesses would want to invest here because under Cain's plan the consumer will have more disposable income and corporate tax rates would also be lower. Originally Posted by aroundaustin

My question is this. Based on our current debt, it's obvious that lowering taxes is not the answer. When the issue of raising taxes across the board is brought up, people say it will hurt small business, lead to job cuts, hurt the middle class etc. So how DO we start tackling this monster deficit without doing more harm to the economy? I understand that spending cuts are needed but obviously that is no longer enough. Should we raise taxes on the middle class and how much of a tax raise will address our deficit without driving people into the poor house?

The marginal tax rate under Clinton was 39%. During that period we experienced record growth and job creation. Under Nixon, the marginal tax rate was 70%, and it remained above 50% until Reagan took office.

This should stand as proof that marginal tax rates have little impact on the Republican myth that higher taxes = less jobs. Our real problems right now is the global economy, NAFTA, and good old fashioned greed. You could lower the tax rate to zero, and we'll still sit at 9% unemployment. Why? Because it's still cheaper to pay a worker in a third world country 1/2 or 1/3 of what American's make and not pay them benefits than it is to pay taxes and insurance on that labor here. GE is a perfect example. They've not paid on penny in taxes here for the last three years, and still sending jobs to China.

If they're already not paying any taxes, how exactly is cutting marginal tax rates supposed to provide incentive for companies like GE to bring jobs back?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...611823972.html

Better get used to this new economy because we are in a race to the bottom.

My question is this. Based on our current debt, it's obvious that lowering taxes is not the answer. When the issue of raising taxes across the board is brought up, people say it will hurt small business, lead to job cuts, hurt the middle class etc. So how DO we start tackling this monster deficit without doing more harm to the economy? I understand that spending cuts are needed but obviously that is no longer enough. Should we raise taxes on the middle class and how much of a tax raise will address our deficit without driving people into the poor house? Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Those fucking Rich bastards should just give all their money to the Government. The Government is so great at spending our money.

Rather, voters who casted votes for politicians favoring two Middle East wars, and the Bush tax cuts love spending our money. It's these two items that almost exclusively make up our current debt and deficit. Time to pay the piper pal, and perhaps you'll give this a little consideration next time you head to the ballot box.

"In every democracy, the people get the government they deserve."

Those fucking Rich bastards should just give all their money to the Government. The Government is so great at spending our money. Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Wyldeman30, no one said that the rich should give all their money to the government and no one said the government is great at spending our money. $14T in debt should tell you something, by the way about 50% of the $14T was created under the GOP, which is why I don't trust any of the GOP candidates that they will tackle the deficit and our debt. There has to be a balanced approach to this mess, minimizing the impact on the working class without causing a massive exodus of capital from our economy. The problem is neither the Democrats nor the GOP are willing to compromise just for the sake of making each other look like the bad guy, when in reality they're just fucking each one of us even more.