Thread: Fairness

Much of the debate on the Buffet rule, taxes, the budget deficit, etc centers around the argument about fairness.

President Obama has admitted that the Buffet rule has little to do with the deficit or the national debt, but has to do with fairness.

In 2008 the top 10% of earners in the US paid 73% of the total income taxes. Is this a fair number?

If, not, give us a number, Mr. Obama.

Originally Posted by FrankCapua

Much of the debate on the Buffet rule, taxes, the budget deficit, etc centers around the argument about fairness.

President Obama has admitted that the Buffet rule has little to do with the deficit or the national debt, but has to do with fairness.

Where did Obama admit that? Link and quote please.

In 2008 the top 10% of earners in the US paid 73% of the total income taxes. Is this a fair number?

1) That assumes your assertion is accurate. What is your source?
2) Why are you only considering income taxes, which only make up about 43% of all tax revenue?
3) How can you determine the fairness of that number without considering the share of total income that group takes?
3) What difference does it make for fairness purposes to look at the statistics for a group if certain

If, not, give us a number, Mr. Obama.

He did. I think it is 30%. Which is still below the top marginal income tax rate of 35%.

I did make an error, kudos to you. in 2006 the top 20% paid 72.19% while the top 10% paid 58.22%


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/ofarpt/2008OFA-0468.htm

If you google income taxes by decile you will find charts and tables from a variety of sources which indicate that in 2008 the top 10% paid 60.1% of all income taxes while earning 35.7% of total gross income.

I have no problem with raising the rate on incomes over 1 million,which is where Mr. Obama's 30% comes from, although it will be interesting to see the decline in the number of incomes reported over this figure if it is done, and it would not necessarily increase total tax receipts.

Originally Posted by FrankCapua

In 2008 the top 10% of earners in the US paid 73% of the total income taxes. Is this a fair number?

A fairness comparison cannot be made with that figure, even if it was correct. You have to refer to marginal rates

What does fairness have to do with anything anyway ? Since when was life fair to begin with ?
His whole arguement is designed for class warfare, to devide people. It has nothing to do with the finances of the country....which he should be more concerned over. Maybe the Buffet rule should mean you get 10+ years to pay your taxes. Old Warren owes over a billion in taxes that he keeps fighting, yet says he wants to pay more. How about you cough up what you already owe pal.

How about this idea. Since Obama is so worried about the middle class paying more than the upper class as a percentage, how about lowering the taxes for the middle class then, wouldn't that be fair ? Or how about having the 47% who pay nothing have some skin in the game, wouldn't that be fair ?

All a political side show from the worst mistake this country has ever seen. His whole administration is just one clown shy of a circus.

Originally Posted by constructionguy

His whole arguement is designed for class warfare, to devide people.

Class divides are pre-tax policy. See, for example, the lack of social mobility. Given the high poverty (and lack of social opportunity), you are right though that this is more than about equity concerns. Its very much efficiency and individualism linked. Progressive tax is a must for policies that enable mobility and induce individual opportunity

Fairness should not be a goal or even a role of government. People are not equal. Nevertheless the government should treat them as equal, or at least the same in terms of laws and programs. The government has no business pitting one citizen against another or making laws that don't apply the same to everyone. That is defined in the declaration of independence. The government has messed this up along with most of the other things it has done.

Originally Posted by fmw

Fairness should not be a goal or even a role of government. People are not equal.

To ignore equity isn't rational. It often goes hand in hand with efficiency and economic opportunity (e.g. a greater safety net can, due to the consequences of risk, encourage greater entrepreneurial behaviour)

Originally Posted by Reiver

Progressive tax is a must for policies that enable mobility and induce individual opportunity

Yes, and since we already have a progressive tax system, whats the huppla again ?

The concern is not so much the tax system per say, it's the fact that tax breaks can be bought or even handed out to those willing to throw enough lobbying cash at legislators. Once apon a time tax breaks were used to kick start segments of the economy, but then never went away once the good times rolled. Some will go as far as to say thats the benefits of being rich, it affords you certain benefits the middle class simply can't compete with. That may be true to a certain extent, but not at the cost of the public trough.

If you did away with the majority of tax breaks, the tax brackets would take care of themselves in a sense and we wouldn't be argueing over fair shares and equal outcomes.

Originally Posted by constructionguy

Yes, and since we already have a progressive tax system, whats the huppla again ?

You have a tax system with progressive elements. Once we consider equity and efficiency criteria, one can argue that the progressivity should be deeper