Hillary and the "fairshare" canard

A fair share is $12,000 per person. Those paying more than $12,000, are paying more than their fair share. It is not possible to relieve someone of a tax burden, if their burden is zero.

We need to increase taxes on those with higher incomes. It is not fair. It is necessary.

There is no fair way to collect enough money to keep the lights on in this country. We spend too much.




​

 

The problem with Hillary is that she will say *ANYTHING* to get elected. For Hillary, the issues are nothing more than potholes to be avoided.
I want to believe that Hillary is more than a power grubbing candidate without an agenda. Every time I have stopped to listen to her I realize
that she spends all of her time ducking issues, trying not to say anything of substance or saying whatever the pollsters want her to say.

That's why Trump is so refreshing because, at least, he tells us what he is thinking.

Hillary tells you what she thinks you need to hear to get her elected.

 

Increase tax revenue from them or increase tax rates on them? They are not the same. Which is your goal.

So can I assume you do not support Hillary?

- - - Updated - - -

Trump tells you what he thinks you want him to say just as Hillary does. They both pander. He will only continue to put his foot in his mouth.

 

My goal is to pay our bills. To do that, we need to bring in more money than we are now or spend less than we do now. Since the latter isn't likely to happen, I think we're going to have to ask those who can pay higher taxes (provide more revenue) to do so. To bring in that additional revenue we will likely have to increase rates. No, it's not fair.

I'm not supporting any candidate at this point. I will listen to what any of them have to suggest.





​

 

I couldn't care less about Clinton but as a general question I think the error here is the assumption that the value of each dollar is equal. If someone has an annual income of $5,000, every dollar would count for them to cover the basics - food, rent, clothes etc. - and a 20% tax would be a massive hit in practical terms. Someone earning $5 million dollars could pay the same 20% without noticing much practical difference. Extreme ends of the spectrum of course (though both will exist) but it demonstrates the reality of taxation. Just because the wealthier are paying a greater cash amount, even if they're paying a greater percentage of their income, the practical value to them could (and often will be) less.

Finding the right balance is almost impossible (especially once different income sources, avoidance, evasion and clever accountants come in to play) but just looking at these raw percentages across such large and diverse populations don't tell the whole story, if any story at all.

 

Yay lets eliminate the incentive to invest into our countries economy, but rather move those investment accounts and business over seas. Great Idea Hillary.

 

Or just increase tax revenues faster than we increase spending as we did with Kasich and Gingrich balanced the budget.

No we don't and in fact that will most likely have the opposite effect especially as Hillary wants to do it, through capital gains tax rate increases.

BTW you might look here and then tell me if we should raise tax rates to increase tax revenues

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Well if balancing the budget is your concern, Kasich just announced he is official in the race, so surely he is at the top of your list, along with Walker and Perry perhaps, one has turned his state budget woes around and the other has balanced budges for over decade in his state.





​

[/QUOTE]

 

Where does the additional revenue come from if the rates don't increase?




​

 

This is why a flat tax rate of 10-15% of every dollar for everyone is the only way to actually make it fair.

 

If the bottom, the working poor are not paying taxes, then you cannot relieve them. And since she knows this, as you were able to figure it out, you must have misunderstood what she was talking about.

Indeed the top dogs are paying far too little in income taxes, and it is time to tax them again, above a reasonable point in income. And they have too many ways, loopholes, that they bought, that lets them offshore their profits so they can get out of paying what they are supposed to pay.

You have to tax the money where it goes. And most of it, including any growth in GDP is going to them, which is a problem. They have taken 60 percent of the income and wealth of the middle since the GOP gave us neoliberalism again and gutted FDR's economic model that allowed working people to prosper by their work So of course the top dogs are gonna be paying more of the tax bills. For that is where most of the income goes these days.

The poor, the bottom 25 percent of course still pay taxes. For all things that can be taxed, are taxed. I wonder if she is talking about a way to reduce those taxes on the people that can least afford it, and make the big dogs pick up that bill? I doubt it, for she was surely talking about income taxes.

The only way you could give the poor some relief, but not tax relief, would be in increasing EITC. Tax the rich a higher rates above say half a mil and then redistribute that to the folks who had there jobs sent to communists so the corporations could get richer. We need to find a way to force these MNCs to stop avoiding their US taxes, perhaps making it a felony not to bring those profits back?

Given the mess the rich have created with their offshoring, their hiring of legal and illegal immigrants so they max out their own income, we need to address our problems with the poor they created and our crumbling infrastructure by taxing them at 90 percent again, until we rebuild America and feed, house and clothe these people they devastated in their own greed.

 

The expanding economy and expanding rolls of tax payers. One of the key things that helped create the surpluses of the late 80's was welfare reform. You take people off welfare, and expense, and turn them into taxpayers, revenue. Didn't you fallow the link I gave you? At what rate do we collect the most capital gains tax revenue?

 

ROFL I understand EXACTLY what she is talking about the question is do you?

She says they are not paying their fair SHARE of income taxes.

Again the top 1% is pay FORTY PERCENT OF INCOME TAXES. If that is not their fair SHARE of income taxes what share of incomes taxes should they be paying to make it fair?

If someone makes money in a foreign investment they pay income taxes on it regardless if it is held in a foreign bank.

It is taxed. Why do you think the top 1% is paying 40% of income taxes and the top 20% is paying over 80% of them. If that is not their fair SHARE then how much more a SHARE should they pay?

How have "they" taken your wealth and income from you and be specific as to how "they" did it?

I prosper from my work what is your problem?

The top 1% makes 20% of the income but pay 40% of income taxes, why is that not fair?

Not federal income taxes which is what Hillary is talking about so stay focused.

Bush43 did that already, the bottom 25% MAKE MONEY off the tax system. So how can she promise them tax relief from federal income taxes?

Why? What is your purpose here, more tax revenue or satisfy your envy?

First, as already noted the top 1% are paying 40% of income taxes and the top 20% are paying 80% of them, so what is the premise of your claim they are avoiding taxes when they are paying such a disproportionate amount of them. Seems to me they are doing a LOUSY job of avoiding them. Second those are not "profit" to them it is income and they pay taxes on them whether that income is earned domestically or overseas no matter where the bank is in which it is held.

 

If the economy expands fast enough (or spending slows enough), that we stop operating at a deficit I'm fine with leaving rates as they are. Until we get to that point, I would support higher rates.

I'm tired of politicians saying let's spend more money, the economy will expand, and we'll get it back and more. Then apologizing when it doesn't work. Risk money when you have it in the bank to risk, borrowing to gamble is a dangerous habit.





​

 

Why?

Then don't vote for Democrats as Obama;s folly has disproved the government spending/handouts makes the economy grows.

There is nothing wrong with debt if it is managed properly. Most people don't pay cash for a house because it would take you about 20 years to save up the money to buy one. Companies don't pay cash to build a new factory, they finance it long term. The problem with borrowing and debt is when you start using it for day to day expenses or worse to pay the carrying cost of other debt.





​

[/QUOTE]

 

It's only your job if you created it.





​

 

I agree that there is nothing inherently unhealthy about debt, if managed properly. That doesn't apply to deficit spending. Spending at a deficit means there is a problem (likely including poor debt management). Deficit spending is occasionally necessary, it is never healthy, and we've been doing it for longer than can be reasonably justified.

Government doesn't build factories and it can't grow our economy. It shouldn't try. Our economy has grown and will grow by taking risks on crazy ideas. About one in ten of which will actually pay off. Government money shouldn't be involved in that gamble, that's what the market is for.

Let private industry explore and bet on promising technologies and solutions like self assembling software, robotic ovens, GMO crops, intelligent cars... just not with government money. And while they're doing that government should maintain the infrastructure that we can afford, without deficit operating costs. Government will sometimes have to regulate or inhibit those trying new ideas and taking crazy risks so that we can keep this country safe and stable. But for the most part Governments job is to just stay out of the way.





​

 

I am always fascinated by the "fair share" argument.

It implies that there is a number decided somewhere for a level of taxation at each level of income that should be "fair".

1. Who decides that number?
2. What are the criteria for judging whether a particular percentage of income is "fair"
3. What exactly IS that number? The only possible way someone can say that an individual has not paid his or her "fair share" is to have a specific number by which to judge whether that statement is true.

If you ever ask a progressive to define "fair share" in numbers, say, ask what is the "fair share" for someone who has an income of $5 million. Or $500,000, or $50,000. You will hear lots of humina humina.. They will NEVER give a specific because they don't have one and because they know that if they define a number they will be stuck with the number and not the "fair share" issue.

 

Jack up the tax rates on the top dogs to what it was until Reagan took office and that will be what this nation considered to be a fair share before the neoliberals got into office and destroyed the ability of this economy to create living wage jobs.

And no, 40 percent of the taxes being extracted from these elites is not enough. You have to tax the money where it is found in abundance, and that is right there at the top, for they took 60 percent of the middle's income with globalization, which they bought and paid for.

It used to be that you could not cut middle class taxes much because that is where our revenue came from. But now that money was taken by the top dogs, and so we no longer have such a middle class to use for most of our taxes. So the top dogs should be paying what was lost from the middle, for they ended up with that income.

So, take rates back to pre Reagan, and then get rid of some of those loopholes they used. If they do not like it, let em move to communist china where they are making their money. And then do not allow their goods to come back here to be a parasite on this nation. Time to cut this cancer out. And then they can try to sell their Chinese made goods to the Chinese workers who of course cannot afford to buy what they are making. And that will teach them a lesson as well. Parasites eventually kill their hosts.

 

Similar to Bill and Barry and Bush Jr -
Hillary is a Money serving RepubloCrat.
No Banker Left Behind is the True Deed
Regardless of unfulfilled words.

No RepubloCrats Please.


Moi


r > g

No ​

 

Deficit spending in the operational budget is not good, in business or in government. Debt should be used for capital spending or infrastructure spending. A business do the former and it goes out of business, the government just prints and borrows money building up the debt for operational expenses. ESPECIALLY when Democrats control the budget.

The government can contribute to the economy when it buys copiers and telephones and spends money buying high tech military equipment and just plain old supplies. The problem is the money to do so comes not from creating value in a product or service and selling it but by taking money from the citizens and businesses who would have spent or invested it into producing that product or service value.

So all that being said.

Hillary and her supporters have yet to explain why the current share of income taxes paid by the highest earners is not fair.​

 

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.




​

 

Deficit spending in the operational budget is not good, in business or in government. Debt should be used for capital spending or infrastructure spending. A business do the former and it goes out of business, the government just prints and borrows money building up the debt for operational expenses. ESPECIALLY when Democrats control the budget.

The government can contribute to the economy when it buys copiers and telephones and spends money buying high tech military equipment and just plain old supplies. The problem is the money to do so comes not from creating value in a product or service and selling it but by taking money from the citizens and businesses who would have spent or invested it into producing that product or service value.

So all that being said.

Hillary and her supporters have yet to explain why the current share of income taxes paid by the highest earners is not fair.​

 

Hillary's "fairshare" mantra has about as much validity as Barry's "change" mantra! Neither person accomplished anything positive and important for our country before their running for president, and Obama is still maintaining the same.

 

You do know the effective tax rate during the Reagan years is about the same as the effective tax rate now and has been all along.

So 1% of citizens paying 40% of income taxes is not their fair share? 1 in 5 citizens paying over 80% of income taxes is not their fair share of the tax burden? On what basis is that not their fair share and they should be paying more?

What is the fair share of the bottom 50%?

No it has pretty much always come from the top, never as much as now though.

The middle class did quite well under the Gingrich/Kaisch tax rates and under the Bush43 tax rates and the resulting strong economies and growing incomes. When tax rates are raised on the higher earners they don't do as well.

So you DON'T want the same tax system as under Reagan, who cut tax rates and cut loopholes which resulted in SOARING tax revenues.

Tell me exactly what your goal is here, more tax revenues or just sticking it to the highest earners because you are jealous of them?

Never read Atlas Shrugged?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh if I had held my breath the last two decades waiting for an answer I'd surely be dead