Do the rich pay their fair share?

posted at 3:21 pm on August 7, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

Last week, Georgetown law professor Peter Edelman wrote about poverty in America in the New York Times. Edelman spent most of his time outlining what he sees as the causes of poverty in America, but he did offer some basic liberal fare when it came to solutions:

We know what we need to do — make the rich pay their fair share of running the country, raise the minimum wage, provide health care and a decent safety net, and the like. But realistically, the immediate challenge is keeping what we have. Representative Paul Ryan and his ideological peers would slash everything from Social Security to Medicare and on through the list, and would hand out more tax breaks to the people at the top. Robin Hood would turn over in his grave.

Edelman’s ideas are, of course, philosophically laughable to readers of this site – for example, the wealthy already pay a higher average tax rate than everyone else. Unfortunately, they are popular within certain segments of Congress, the media, higher education, etc. Their appeals to emotions (“Robin Hood would turn over in his grave”) often make conservatives look cold and heartless. So how do we turn the tables, especially when it comes to taxes? Simply put, we break down the math of taxes into the most easily understood manner possible – direct comparisons.

Normally this would be an arduous endeavor, but a numbers breakdown comparing income to federal taxes paid just came out this week from Just Facts, based upon a Congressional Budget Office report in July that analyzes the 2009 effective federal tax rates of households. Here is the relevant Just Facts chart:

To break it all down even more simply, consider the following, based upon two tables at the link above:

  1. In 2009, the top 20% of earners brought in an income about 10 times that of the bottom 20% of earners. However, they paid about 221 times as much in taxes.
  2. Breaking down the top one percent of earners is even worse for the liberal argument. To wit: The top one percent of earners made about 50 times as much money as the bottom quintile in 2009, but paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes.

Let me repeat this: in 2009 the top one percent paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes as the average in the bottom twenty percent. So now the question arises: what is the fair share the wealthy should pay? Is 40% of their income going to the federal government enough? How about half? Does it matter that the 50% or so of Americans who pay little or no non-retirement income taxes basically get a free ride when it comes to federal roads, immigration control, etc. – on the backs of the wealthy?

While almost all Americans do pay some sort of federal taxes…the 50% or so of taxpayers who don’t pay non-payroll income taxes benefit from federally-funded roads, education services, immigration control, the military and other federal services. Who, then, pays for these services? According to the Tax Foundation in an October 2011 report, “The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.” In short, most taxes for non-retirement social spending – the same social spending liberals are so keen on expanding – are being paid by those people liberals also say don’t pay enough in taxes – the top five percent.

The nation desperately needs tax reform, both to jump-start the economy and begin the process of expanding the tax base. However, targeting the rich simply isn’t going to do enough – as the Joint Economic Committee pointed out, even the much-ballyhooed Buffett Rule would only bring in about $47 billion over ten years. Liberals can wish the rich aren’t paying enough taxes all they want to, but it’s simply not true. And until they they start pushing solutions that include the elimination of loopholes and lowering rates, we’ll know they aren’t serious about increasing fairness, reducing deficits, or getting the economy back on track.

 

 

 

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Too much…when 47% don’t pay anything.

Oil Can on August 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Does the National Socialist Left EVER define the term fair share?

What percentage of a person’s life is that?

Chip on August 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

“Fair share” is a phrase best left for use at recess in kindergarten.

Adults should never use that phrase.

tom daschle concerned on August 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM

When it comes to moving the cart, why are some encouraged to ride, even rewarded for it?

Why aren’t they held accountable for not doing their fair share in supporting themselves?

tom daschle concerned on August 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Does paying your fair share come with your own special lane on the highway? If not, then why bother, it will never be fair.

txmomof6 on August 7, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The libs could make the whole thing easier for the masses to uneducated masses to understand:

From each according to their ability…to each according to their needs.

We’ve been on this road to full socialism for a long time.

GCStateConservative on August 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Fair is a vague, nebulous term—stretched loosely around liberal ideology. They can’t even define it. If a guy pays a 35% tax rate, and a liberal perceives that there is some “unfairness” or some unfunded “priority” well, the fairness bar moves to 36%, or higher.

ted c on August 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM

My idea of a fair tax is that everyone pays SOMETHING. That’s fair. Everyone needs to have a stake in the game. The problem is how you sell that argument. It’s easy to defend the “poor”, but how do you sell the position that the rich already pay 1500 times more than those in the poorest households. How do you defend that position? I think it’s probably best to focus on how “the rich” keep the economy going, how it’s not right to confiscate property legally obtained. Tough sell, I think, but I hope Romney can do it.

COgirl on August 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Liberals can wish the rich aren’t paying enough taxes all they want to, but it’s simply not true.

And who says the liberals care about truth? Certainly not dirty harry reid, barack hussein obama or eric holder.

katablog.com on August 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM

We know what we need to do — make the rich pay their fair share of running the country, raise the minimum wage, provide health care and a decent safety net, and the like. But realistically, the immediate challenge is keeping what we have.

Good Lord. Why doesn’t he just come right out and say he’s for full-bore socialism.

Bitter Clinger on August 7, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Nothing new under the sun… The socialists (i.e. liberals) want to always take the producers money and give it to the parasites and in return the parasites vote them in power.

Now when the socialists run out of the producers money their only way to stay in power to go communists and take by force all the properties and assets of the producers…of course within few years 99% of the population would be equally poor, oppressed, deprived of freedom, and their lives are at the mercy of their communist rulers…

Our goal is to make sure we defeat the socialists before they turn into communists, and we defeat them at the ballot box…

mnjg on August 7, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Try not to confuse Barry’s supporters with facts.

bayview on August 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM

The Rich ar epaying much more than their Fair Share of the taxes as every fact indicates… It is the parasites who are not paying any share of the taxes… Tax the Parasites… Tax the democrat voters… it is only fair…

mnjg on August 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Furthermore, if any lib tries this, point out to them that their Barack Obama Party, their Barack Obama, and their Barack Obama’s supporters do not pay their CURRENT share by liberal definition.

That’s a short list. You can show John Kerry skipping town on his yacht’s taxes, Claire McCaskill dodging taxes on the plane she used to campaign for Obama, and Sherrod Brown skipping out on his property taxes for his DC condo.

And then there’s Turbo Tax Timmy and Hilda “Dios mio, no comprende” Solis.

northdallasthirty on August 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM

[tom daschle concerned on August 7, 2012 at 3:25 PM]

+1

The defense is an all out offensive against Lakoff’s effort to pervert the language, though his rules can still apply, such as:

1. Use your language. Never use your opponents language.

Dusty on August 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Edelman is obviously not a professor in the mathematics department. Enough wealth does not exist to create the welfare state he wants.

gwelf on August 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Does the National Socialist Left EVER define the term fair share?

Chip on August 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

No they haven’t. Nor will they.

“Fair share” is like tomorrow. It’s a place we can never get to. If “fair share” was given a hard numerical value, and we applied that value, they wouldn’t be able to use “fair share” as a rhetorical weapon in the following election.

Alberta_Patriot on August 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM

If my “fair share” means I’m paying part of your cost of operating the govt and providing services why don’t I get more of a say in what happens?
If you’re not paying your way why do you have the right to dictate what is done?
He who pays te piper calls the tune.

katiejane on August 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Love the “fair share” argument. It’s like the affordable health care line. For these people anything above being free is too much. You want fair share, how about you get up off the coach and work the 80 hours I worked last week them we can talk about fair.

bsinc1962 on August 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM

will mittens’ tax plan be a fair one? the left is already calling him RomneyHood (robs the poor so his rich friends can pay less)…has mittens responded yet?

America needs conservatives in charge for a change (and mittens ain’t one of them)!

Pragmatic on August 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

If the rich really payed their fair share, your morning commute might look something like this:

Imagine you approach the on ramp for the interstate. The ramp splits three ways. One side has a sign that says “Millionaires Only,” another sign says “$50,000 Per Year or Less Keep Right,” and another says, $50,000 – $250,000 Per Year Straight Ahead.”

You pick your lane based on your income. Once on the highway, you notice that the millionaires’ lane looks smooth as glass and has an 85MPH speed limit. The $50,000 or less lane is riddled with potholes and has a 55MPH speed limit. You get the idea.

Our progressive income tax system takes more from the wealthy, but the wealthy don’t get more value for what they pay. They drive on the same highways as the rest of us. The same military fights for everyone’s freedom. A rich guy still has to wait in line if he goes to the DMV.

CurtZHP on August 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM

bayam!

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

The dirty secret is that the real money is found in taxing the middle class.

gwelf on August 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

make the rich pay their fair share of running the country, raise the minimum wage, provide health care and a decent safety net, and the like.

Raise the minimum wage – Always reduces the number of low wage jobs available, only helping those who actually keep their jobs. Makes the cost of necessities even higher, negating the wage gain. If your supermarket bagger, cart collector, gas station attendant (required in Oregon, no self serve), and fast food worker all have to get paid more, the poor are the hardest hit. It’s self defeating.

Provide health care – Middle class people hit by unexpected medical bills can become poor because of them, but poor people don’t become poor or stay poor because of lack of health care.

Decent safety net – Lib speak for paying the lazy to be lazy.

Let the rich keep their money so they can create jobs, that’s the best way to help the poor.

PastorJon on August 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Fair Share

faraway on August 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Is it time to trot out that Iowahawk video detailing how much wealth confiscation it would take just to balance our current budget – never mind the budget the liberals really want?

gwelf on August 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM

My fellow travelers on the left are already calling him RomneyHood (robs the poor so his rich friends can pay less)

Pragmatic on August 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Shows how much you and your fellow Leftists know about the Robin Hood story.

Oh, and O’bama thanks you for your Vote.

A+++

Del Dolemonte on August 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It’s important to keep our eye on the ball. Most people that oppose punitive taxes on the rich are not rich themselves. They certainly know the theory that inanely high taxes hamper the economy and small business, leaving them vulnerable to un- or underemployment.
But most importantly… they are living the American dream. Though they may not be rich, the dream is to become rich, and just the excitement of being in the journey where they have these big dreams, these wonderful possibilities, gives them a lot. They don’t want the rich to be dumped on, because they see that that could be themselves. Anything over 40% in taxes (fed, state, local, payroll) is too much, and starts to eat away at the (American) dream many or most of us have that they can become wealthy and be left in peace.

anotherJoe on August 7, 2012 at 3:54 PM

When people don’t have a stake in something, they don’t take care of it as well as when they do.

Waste, fraud and corruption have reached biblical proportions in our government, and too many people just don’t seem to care. I guess people figure if they aren’t paying taxes, it’s not their money. So what if Obama helps Solyndra loot the treasury.

Maybe if we redefined the Alternative Minimum Tax to make it so that everyone paid something, $25 or $50 we’d have more people outraged when millions and billions are wasted or stolen.

MessesWithTexas on August 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Much as I loathe sending traffic to HuffPo, this tidbit is too rich to ignore: Bloomberg is telling Obama to let all of the Bush “tax cuts” (actually, tax rates) expire. Bloomie says that such a move would “stick it” to the Republicans, who do not want to raise revenue.

Does Bloomberg not realize that his own tax policies have led to an exodus of NYC citizens? What a yoyo!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/michael-bloomberg-obama-bush-tax-cuts_n_1752153.html

onlineanalyst on August 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM

This only tells half the story.

When you figure out how much each quintile receives in government money, only then do you really know the story. The rich are getting royally screwed by Uncle Sam already, but our would-be progressive overlords won’t be happy until America goes full-on communist.

OhioCoastie on August 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Hmmm …

“fair share” to the gubmint to get flushed down the investment toilet of a “green” company with crony ties to Obumbler that will go belly up in a few weeks or to increase food stamps and welfare entitlements and encourage slackerism

or

“fair share” left to invest in businesses that will actually provide jobs, a useful product or service and generate the payroll, income and sales taxes that appropriately fill the US Treasury with real money as opposed to printed money or money borrowed from China and other opportunistic foreign country global king wannabes?

No brainer.

stukinIL4now on August 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

The people who are CREATING wealth don’t owe a penny to anyone. The economy wouldn’t exist without them.

If you want to tax the rich, fine, TAX THE RICH: Institute a national property tax. But for some reason, people who aren’t making any money, but are living on trust funds, like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and the Kennedy Klan are violently opposed to that idea. I wonder why?

logis on August 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

It’s not now, nor ever has been about getting the rich to pay “their fair share.”

It’s simply about Marxist ideology that strives to 1) control centralized power and 2) redistribute what the Marxists in control don’t squander on themselves.

It will be ‘fair’ when *all* are impoverished, and until then, these leftists asshats won’t stop squealing.

There’s no point arguing with them, or trying to get them to see reality. They must simply be squashed so that they may never again have a negative impact on the rest of us.

Midas on August 7, 2012 at 4:06 PM

My fellow travelers on the left…

Pragmatic on August 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Not all of stay on all day and are therefore not as aware of who the idiots are all the time. Thanks for the heads up lightweight. You’re excused now.

DanMan on August 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Government could tax every taxpayer earning $200k or more at the rate of 100% and it would not make even a small dent in the debt burden Obama has foisted upon America.

The Progressives will not be satisfied until everyone is earning the same low wage…paid by government of course, and only our gifted and educated elite rulers will be paid more, of course, as they are the smartest guys in the room.

Where will this lead?

When everyone is poor, then poverty will be wiped out, of course.

When everyone is equal…except for those who are more equal…then all of our problems will be solved, right?.

This garbage must be stopped, cold, in November.

We are well on our way to becoming East Germany.

BTW, the “rich” owe nothing to government. Without the “rich”, millions upon millions upon millions would be working the most menial jobs, if they would be working at all.

Investors, inventors, entrepreneurs, farmers, contractors, shop keepers, factory owners built this Nation.

It is the 50%+ of Americans who pay no taxes at all who are not paying their fair share.

coldwarrior on August 7, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Obama is RobbingHood.

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Romney paid about 6 mil in taxes for 10 and 11. I am going to have to work the rest of my life to pay my “fair share” from Romney’s last 2 years.

weaselyone on August 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Do the rich pay their fair share?

They pay more.

The thing is, if you’re making millions a year then you’re paying hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions for the super-wealthy) while most of us pay in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

That doesn’t seem fair, even if they were to pay a smaller percentage they’d be stiffed for way more than the majority of us compared per capita.

At any rate, the income taxes, corporate taxes and taxes on dividends and interest are criminal.

National sales tax would be fair…but only if Congress got only the money they needed to run the government and that’s no where near what they’re doing now.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM

When do the unwashed masses learn that the rich (business owners) just pass these “fees” along to you and me. I am tired of it. Let’s talk real fair and have everyone pay something.

landowner on August 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Logically explaining this concept to liberals will just cause them to glaze over…and then start calling you names in order to demonize you.

OccamsRazor on August 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Screw all these percentages. Show the actual $ values of what rich people pay in taxes. It’s sickening.

Scrappy on August 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Do the rich pay their fair share?

Do the poor? Short answer, No.

applebutter on August 7, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Math is hard…anything that has to do with math, the public doesn’t understand…in fact 90% of the people don’t understand, including the 90% of the “brilliant” posters on this site.
Over the years I have been astounded how simple math confounds the brilliant posters.
So anything that has math in it, like:

In 2009, the top 20% of earners brought in an income about 10 times that of the bottom 20% of earners. However, they paid about 221 times as much in taxes.

Breaking down the top one percent of earners is even worse for the liberal argument. To wit: The top one percent of earners made about 50 times as much money as the bottom quintile in 2009, but paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes.

Completely throws people off, and they shut down.

Example:

will mittens’ tax plan be a fair one? the left is already calling him RomneyHood (robs the poor so his rich friends can pay less)…has mittens responded yet?

America needs conservatives in charge for a change (and mittens ain’t one of them)!

Pragmatic on August 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Pragamatic has no idea what this post was about…none…so what did he do? What any liberal does, ignore the facts, the math, and just makes some stupid ignorant charge without any facts…”calling him RomneyHood”, good grief, it is no wonder Obama go elected with doofus like this voting.

right2bright on August 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Logically explaining this concept to liberals will just cause them to glaze over…and then start calling you names in order to demonize you.

OccamsRazor on August 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Exactly…and Pragmatic is a perfect example…

right2bright on August 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM

If I recall Robin Hood took from the government that was stealing money from the citizens, you know by taking “protection” money from them the same way a gangster would do. I imagine letting people keep more of their own money is something of which Robin Hood would approve.

Ellis on August 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Liberals can wish the rich aren’t paying enough taxes all they want to, but it’s simply not true.

The Buffet Rule is only one tax provision- it’s not comparable to a broader tax increase on those earning over $250k or $500k a year.

But don’t let anyone stop you from getting excited when liberals want to raise their own taxes. Don’t fool yourself- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in major cities and on the coasts, the same areas where liberals live. Yes, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Larry Ellison all want to raise their own taxes. How terrible!

It’s just as interesting to see that you make no reference to the structural problems that occur when wealth is stratified- a topic that Wall Street frequently discusses. You’re oversimplified view of the world prevents you from making this observation. And no, Bill Gross is not a commie:

Next, Bill Gross observed that the corporate wages are at an all-time low as a percent of GDP because companies and shareholders are being too greedy. This is also a very smart point. This corporate and shareholder greed is hurting the economy because it’s depriving average workers of good salaries and, instead, putting more and more of the country’s wealth in the hands of “the 1%.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-bill-gross-is-wrong-about-stock-returns-2012-8#ixzz22tZ1GGfE

bayam on August 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM

When inflation hits triple digits, we’ll all be rich in terms of marginal rates.

applebutter on August 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM

The Progressives will not be satisfied until everyone is earning the same low wage…paid by government of course

There you go again, engaging in class warfare that refuses to accept the reality that Larry Ellison or Bill Gates might actually have a better grasp of capitalism than Glenn or Rush. Instead, let’s pretend that it’s the poor and welfare class that’s holding you and Joe the Plumber back.
Conservatives love to jump on their free enterprise high horse but don’t seem to actually have any meaningful answers to today’s problems other than last decade’s talking points.

bayam on August 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Imagine if we didn’t even know anyone else’s income. Just imagine. Only a few short decades ago, we didn’t. We were a better people then.

J.E. Dyer on August 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM

bayam on August 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Obama is the class warfare Pimp.

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Simply asking the question about “fair share” demonstrates the wrong priority. We should leave money where it does the nation the most good, and I believe that is in the hands of its owner.

If you take $10,000 away from a “rich person”, and give it to a bureaucratic, corrupt, and inefficient federal government, less of that money finally ends up stimulating the economy than if you simply let the “rich person” spend it.

We should take from taxpayers an absolute minimum necessary to perform constitutional responsibilities, not a dime more.

slickwillie2001 on August 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Let’s be clear, for Obama there is nothing about making anything work or bringing in more tax revenue. This is all about being mad at achievers.

Even though Obama knows that when the capital gains tax is increased there is less capital gains tax revenue (& less overall tax revenue). When confronted with that fact, candidate Obama said he didn’t matter that it was a matter of fairness.

Obama’s new math; 1+1=POTATO.

jukin3 on August 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM

poverty in America: sitting on your fat ass collecting welfare while watching your big screen TV, and texting on your government freebie cell phone. our grandparents wish they had it that good in the 1930′s…

burserker on August 7, 2012 at 5:39 PM

make the rich pay their fair share of running the country, raise the minimum wage, provide health care and a decent safety net, and the like.

We really should let the left do all of this. In less than 2 years there would be riots in the streets.

GarandFan on August 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Pragmatic you’re certifiable. There’s a few of you that really need mental help. And NO I am not kidding.

CW on August 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Do the rich pay their fair share? Short answer: Who cares.
If the rich gave every cent they had to the government, how much of that would we see? Zero. They would just find even more extravagant ways to spend our money.
Do you know why the rich usually don’t care if you raise their taxes? Because they will just fire a few hundred employees, consult with their two dozen accountants and still end up not paying any more in taxes than they were in the first place.
For those of you who think it is unfair that the rich have all that money, get over it. Sorry, this is America. We don’t confiscate someone’s belongings and redistribute them to to others simply because we believe they have to much wealth (unless Obama gets reelected).

bandutski on August 7, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Liberals can only count days of the month until the 1st. Any more than that is asking too much. Hell, they even call an increase a cut. Only they would show up to a Bris and call it an increase. Up is down, in is out, blah, blah. Arguing numbers with the emotional train wreck that is liberalism will loose every time. I have done it for years, and not once has any liberal said “Aw, shucks. Your right. Boy, was I stupid to think that way”. No, they change the conversation and start with the heart strings. It is a ruse. They don’t want to talk about anything; they want to FEEL. What is missing from their little pitter patter, kool-aid pumping hearts is the cold blade of an executioner in Moose-lamb world that would separate their head from their body pulling the same junk. Pursing words and splitting hairs on money with a Liberal is tantamount to arguing with a two year old about GDP and supply curve shift. Ain’t gonna work. What they do understand is their goodies taken away; crack pipe, welfare check, kick backs, prostitutes, and Hollywood. Those gone, and their world crumbles like a graham cracker in a Texas twister. The thing is, they don’t have any real control over anything. It is in their mind, like a sickness. A month in the Colorado Rockies with only a back pack and no matches (or pot) will break them of their lillie white dreams. Good God people. Quit fighting on numbers. Of course we know them. Of course we tell libertards when we talk to them. Of course we watch and understand. Unless it fits on a bumper sticker, they are not going to see. Even then, the roach clip burning their fingers will overt their eyes just long enough for them to miss it. It is a burning passion for this country, not apologizing for it. Believing. Knowing. Living. As much misery as the pole dancing queen harry reed spreads, the country still runs without him giving directions. He is a legend in his own mind, just like the rest of them. Take that away and watch them squirm.

Molonlabe2004 on August 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Feed the poor
Tax the rich
tell there’s no more rich

Then what?

plutorocks on August 7, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Liberal definition of “fair share” = You have something; give it to us!
I wonder where they would turn their sights next if a flat 100% tax on the rich were implemented (once they found out it wasn’t “enough”).

ghostwalker1 on August 7, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Do the rich pay their fair share?

No, they get to keep their fair ( or unfair ) share out of the goodness of Obama’s heart. They pay Obama’s/government’s fair ( or unfair ) share.

Buddahpundit on August 7, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Bayam,

But don’t let anyone stop you from getting excited when liberals want to raise their own taxes. Don’t fool yourself- most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in major cities and on the coasts, the same areas where liberals live. Yes, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Larry Ellison all want to raise their own taxes. How terrible!

Once again, to put this to the test – how much do these individuals take advantage of CPAs and tax attorneys to pay the lowest possible taxes? How much of their income do they voluntarily give to the gov’t? they pay the lowest possible taxes they can and give nothing voluntarily to the gov’t. Thus, the idea that they want to raise their own taxes is, as you know, a lie.

they want to raise other peoples’ taxes. They know that with their army of tax lawyers and cpas, their own taxes won’t go up. But people attempting to become rich like them won’t have that same luxury and will pay more taxes. that is why the call is to raise taxes on those making $200k a year, not just on those making $10million a year. And, when push comes to shove, liberals will want to raise taxes on everyone making more than $70k a year, b/c otherwise, you don’t raise enough money to matter.

So, enough with the constant lies – by you, other leftists and the likes of Bill Gates, et al. When they start refusing to use exemptions, credits and deductions and also voluntarily give 10% more than their current tax rate for 5 years in a row, I will believe that they “want to raise their own taxes”. Until then, like all leftists, it is lying.

Monkeytoe on August 8, 2012 at 8:06 AM

There you go again, engaging in class warfare that refuses to accept the reality that Larry Ellison or Bill Gates might actually have a better grasp of capitalism than Glenn or Rush. Instead, let’s pretend that it’s the poor and welfare class that’s holding you and Joe the Plumber back.
Conservatives love to jump on their free enterprise high horse but don’t seem to actually have any meaningful answers to today’s problems other than last decade’s talking points.

bayam on August 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Bill Gates may understand how to make money selling computer software. That is not the same thing as understanding economics or good tax policy for an entire nation. How about you make an argument instead of doing the usual liberal nonsense of “citing to authority”.

I can find just as many millionaires who want lower taxes and less spending. So, if we poll all millionaires and find that a majority want the GOP plan instead of the liberal plan, will you admit the GOP is right b/c those who “understand capitalism” want it that way?

No? Why not? Or, do you get to pick which millionaires “understand capitalism” based on whether or not they agree with you?

Such dishonest idiocy. Yet you probably believe you are making intelligent points.

that last bit about the “last decades talking points” is too laughable to believe. For 75 years or longer, the Left has been saying bigger gov’t, more spending and higher taxes. Yet the left’s policies have constantly failed and the left refuses to come up with any new answers. the right wants to try new things and offers new ideas all the time. What does the left offer? “Tax the rich”.

Such idiocy and dishonest, again. Doesn’t it ever bother you that all you do is lie? That as a leftist, you can never be honest? doesn’t it ever make you think your ideology is wrong?

Monkeytoe on August 8, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Do the rich pay their fair share?

Can we stop allowing the question to be framed this way? There’s no such thing as a “fair share.” It leads to the kind of percentage comparison that is going on now.

Start with the premise that taxes should be as low as possible to avoid being a drag on the economy and a recognition that people have a right to the fruits of their labor, whatever that value may be. That right is one the government must protect. Another is that people have a right to the same opportunity as anyone else with no discrimination against others on the basis of skin color, sex, or religion.

Build a tax system around those rights and the government will have all the money it needs to operate. When that system struggles to produce sufficient funds, its a sure sign of a government that has expanded beyond its legitimate function.

That’s where we stand now and arguments about what’s fair got us there. Inevitably, it leads to class envy and claims that because they have more, it’s fair that wealthy people should pay more. Taking more from the wealthy is simply a failure by government to protect a fundamental right.

EconomicNeocon on August 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

We need a constitutional amendment to:

1) Repeal the 16th Amendment. No more direct taxation of individuals and corporations by the federal government. The federal budget is to be paid by the states and apportioned to each state based on population.

2) Repeal the 17th Amendment. The Senate will be composed of representatives of the states, not representatives of the people. Since state governments will be responsible for the federal budget, it is only fitting that they be represented in Congress.

3) Require a balanced budget.

4) Require that any domestic disbursement of federal funds be made through state governments and be apportioned according to population.

kbTexan on August 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Those who take from Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul. Unfortunately for America, we have an abundant–and expanding–supply of Pauls.

uncle_fweddy on August 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Does the National Socialist Left EVER define the term fair share?

Yes, the same way union boss Samuel Gompers, in the early 20th Century, defined what would be fair for union members:

MORE.

Paul_in_NJ on September 9, 2012 at 12:05 AM