Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want to get it out of the way that I am not a Republican. I am moderate democrat/republican, who has crossed party lines pretty much every election. I vote issues and people, not parties. I firmly believe in the social contract and that we have a responsibility as a society to help people in their time of need.
However, I want to understand, what is the scientific definition of "fair share". It is talked about every single day - so and so needs to pay their fair share. So what EXACTLY is this fair share? I want a specific hard definition. I am tired of pointless grand-standing. Because you definition of fair share is different from mine, is different from Boehner's, is different from Obama's, is different from ISIS, is different from your neighbor's. You can't pass laws based on vague definitions and vague promises.
If you think fair share is 50% of income, why not 51% or 49.5%? Why 50% exactly?
I want to get it out of the way that I am not a Republican. I am moderate democrat/republican, who has crossed party lines pretty much every election. I vote issues and people, not parties. I firmly believe in the social contract and that we have a responsibility as a society to help people in their time of need.
However, I want to understand, what is the scientific definition of "fair share". It is talked about every single day - so and so needs to pay their fair share. So what EXACTLY is this fair share? I want a specific hard definition. I am tired of pointless grand-standing. Because you definition of fair share is different from mine, is different from Boehner's, is different from Obama's, is different from ISIS, is different from your neighbor's. You can't pass laws based on vague definitions and vague promises.
If you think fair share is 50% of income, why not 51% or 49.5%? Why 50% exactly?
Let's say I'm an every day Joe Blow spewing the "fair share" line. My definition of "fair share" is "more than me."
If I'm a politician spewing the "fair share" line, my definition of "fair share" is "however much it takes to get Joe Blow's vote." For me, the politician, it can also mean "little enough not to anger the corporations who bought me off."
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57813
I would define it as a flat tax, where every individual pays the same percentage, no tax shelters, no deductions for anything.
For example, at 20% someone making 20,000 pays $4,000, someone making $300,000 pays $60,000. The same for small businesses and corporations, though their percentages could be different and more than the individuals since they place a bigger burden on federal services.
I want to get it out of the way that I am not a Republican. I am moderate democrat/republican, who has crossed party lines pretty much every election. I vote issues and people, not parties. I firmly believe in the social contract and that we have a responsibility as a society to help people in their time of need.
However, I want to understand, what is the scientific definition of "fair share". It is talked about every single day - so and so needs to pay their fair share. So what EXACTLY is this fair share? I want a specific hard definition. I am tired of pointless grand-standing. Because you definition of fair share is different from mine, is different from Boehner's, is different from Obama's, is different from ISIS, is different from your neighbor's. You can't pass laws based on vague definitions and vague promises.
If you think fair share is 50% of income, why not 51% or 49.5%? Why 50% exactly?
Thanks a lot
Any notion of "fair share" will depend upon a notion of "fairness" which must be carefully balanced with the need to incentivize production. If increased income is taxed too heavily, it reduces the incentive for increasing one's production of goods and services (i.e. working hard and diligently), while at the same time, not enough redistribution of resources also causes issues as wealth gets overconcentrated.
One must consider the long-term social consequences of the action, and "fairness" is often less important than avoiding hurting everyone. If everyone is hurting, this may be "fair", but that doesn't mean it is something we should strive for.
It's always a balancing act and it is very easy to fall into the trap of looking at only one or a few pieces of the puzzle without considering indirect effects.
Any notion of "fair share" will depend upon a notion of "fairness" which must be carefully balanced with the need to incentivize production. If increased income is taxed too heavily, it reduces the incentive for increasing one's production of goods and services (i.e. working hard and diligently), while at the same time, not enough redistribution of resources also causes issues as wealth gets overconcentrated.
One must consider the long-term social consequences of the action, and "fairness" is often less important than avoiding hurting everyone. If everyone is hurting, this may be "fair", but that doesn't mean it is something we should strive for.
It's always a balancing act and it is very easy to fall into the trap of looking at only one or a few pieces of the puzzle without considering indirect effects.
The term fair share holds a lot of emotional appeal but I think the goal should be to maximize the potential of the entire human race by maximizing the potential of each individual. A few wealthy individuals with more resources than they can possibly use with lots of poor people barely having enough to survive is wasted potential. Everyone being equally poor is wasted potential.
I would define it as a flat tax, where every individual pays the same percentage, no tax shelters, no deductions for anything.
For example, at 20% someone making 20,000 pays $4,000, someone making $300,000 pays $60,000. The same for small businesses and corporations, though their percentages could be different and more than the individuals since they place a bigger burden on federal services.
I disagree with a "flat" tax as you describe it. I believe that each of us is entitled to live, and that portion of our income which covers that cost of living should be tax free. Anything above that we can negotiate.
Besides, you forget that federal income tax is not the only tax out there. Social security, employment taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, state and local taxes, special district taxes,gasoline taxes, energy taxes, and maybe more. How can a "flat" tax be "fair" to all?
When I hear "fair share" I hear a talking point of the liberal left designed to stir up discontent and warm hearers to the idea of socialism and wealth redistribution.
I want to get it out of the way that I am not a Republican. I am moderate democrat/republican, who has crossed party lines pretty much every election. I vote issues and people, not parties. I firmly believe in the social contract and that we have a responsibility as a society to help people in their time of need.
However, I want to understand, what is the scientific definition of "fair share". It is talked about every single day - so and so needs to pay their fair share. So what EXACTLY is this fair share? I want a specific hard definition. I am tired of pointless grand-standing. Because you definition of fair share is different from mine, is different from Boehner's, is different from Obama's, is different from ISIS, is different from your neighbor's. You can't pass laws based on vague definitions and vague promises.
If you think fair share is 50% of income, why not 51% or 49.5%? Why 50% exactly?
Thanks a lot
You seek what does not exist - "fair" is too subjective to have a scientific definition, as several posters have clearly demonstrated.
Politicians have passed laws based on vague definitions, vague promises, and outright lies for centuries.
My view of one's fair share is not necessarily as flat as a flat tax, but perhaps a flat tax after a simple worksheet to determine one's taxable income - that income over and above what one needs for their basic living needs. We do that already on the 1040, but it is not necessarily simple.
Most humans agree at some level with helping others in their time of need - empathy is a trait that many individuals share around the world. The tricky bit becomes determining when that time of need starts and ends, and whether the need is real or assumed.
You seek what does not exist - "fair" is too subjective to have a scientific definition, as several posters have clearly demonstrated.
Politicians have passed laws based on vague definitions, vague promises, and outright lies for centuries.
My view of one's fair share is not necessarily as flat as a flat tax, but perhaps a flat tax after a simple worksheet to determine one's taxable income - that income over and above what one needs for their basic living needs. We do that already on the 1040, but it is not necessarily simple.
Most humans agree at some level with helping others in their time of need - empathy is a trait that many individuals share around the world. The tricky bit becomes determining when that time of need starts and ends, and whether the need is real or assumed.
exactly. but people love using it. My biggest issue with it is about how people use an extremely subjective word "fair" to push a very objective agenda. It just changes the debate completely - instead of debating whether a tax should be 45% or 50%, or instead of debating what causes gun violence or whatever , people focus on arguing, what's "fair". And that's something no one can ever agree on. It leads to easily repeatable soundbites while shifting away the debate form the nitty gritty societal and economic impacts of said law.
I would define it as a flat tax, where every individual pays the same percentage, no tax shelters, no deductions for anything.
For example, at 20% someone making 20,000 pays $4,000, someone making $300,000 pays $60,000. The same for small businesses and corporations, though their percentages could be different and more than the individuals since they place a bigger burden on federal services.
Could you really afford to pay the FULL price of what it costs to produce a product????
Those deductions in businesses keep prices down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
