What is a Fair Share?

Class-Warfare seems to be a hip ideology that has no basis, in reality. The wealthy earn their money—for the most part—just like other Americans do, through hard work and determination. Obama says they don’t pay their fair share. He says he pays fewer taxes than his secretary does and furthermore, has found several democratic donors with secretaries in the same situation. Well, it could be said that the Democrats need to start paying taxes, because his hit-man Mr. Buffet owes back taxes he is fighting to avoid paying. So, let’s get this straight:

 

  1. Mr. Buffet owes taxes he won’t pay.
  2. Mr. Buffet has stage 2 or stage four prostate cancer and may not be around to see those new tax laws go into effect.
  3. Mr. Buffet and several other democratic donors pay less in taxes than their secretaries pay.

 

Now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s think about what is your fair share? Over a ten-year period taxing all those making more $250-thousand a year would bring in $700-billion. If they tax those making less than $250-thousand annually, over the same period, it would accrue the government $3-trillion. There are 49-percent who collect some form of “entitlement” but pay no taxes. What is the fair share, here?

 

Forty-nine percent pay nothing. The wealthy pay between 25-percent and 50-percent, and the middle-class pay between 7 and 10-percent, so what’s fair? We have 49-percent of the population who pay only tax on gas, groceries, phone bills, etc. and pay nothing into the programs that they, alone, can actually use. There is another 51-percent who pay taxes that pay for the programs that these people use and they, too, pay gas, groceries, tax on phones, etc. However, they are paying a federal tax which is a considerably larger sum of money.

 

A fair share would demand that those who never pay taxes, to pay taxes. The percentage of income would be the same straight across the board, but Obama could care less what “is” fair. His intention is to divide and conquer and nothing more. If you truly believe that the wealthy are not paying their fair share, when the tax man cometh—and he will cometh—don’t be surprised that the government decided $3-trillion from middle-class was a fair share.

http://commonsenseinaradicalage.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-is-fair-s...

Views: 678

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Ernest E Lane on April 25, 2012 at 9:40pm

Not only would fairness mean that the half of the workers that don't pay taxes, do -- income tax ought to start at the first dollar at a level that is enough to be felt -- I bet that the sheer numbers involved would mean more money to the Treasury.  We know that the "Buffet Rule" would bring in up to $47 billion over ten years.  But that gets at a relatively tiny number of people.  Taxing _everyone_, even only 5% or so, has to mean more.

Comment by Doug Nicholson on April 22, 2012 at 2:26am

Very well said, John. Agree 100% but I would add that if we can get it passed, the FairTax does away with the IRS entirely and a big part of it is repeal of the 16th Amendment. For more information, folks can got to: fairtax.org

Comment by John Gaver on April 21, 2012 at 4:07am

Billy Bowlegs, John Delasaux & Mary Spinks, while the "MATH" of the Flat Income Tax looks simple, the "PLAN" exposes several monumental issues with trying to convert our current income tax to a Flat Income Tax; not the least of which is that our current system began as a Flat Income Tax. How long do you think it would take Congress to make it progressive again? I mean, think about it... Really...

Any changes that we make in our tax system should meet several basic goals. Here are the most commonly cited goals of a successful tax reform package and how the Flat Income Tax meets or fails on each.

  1. Clear and Simple - YES
  2. Transparent - NO - Not if it keeps withholding and the corporate income tax.
  3. Fair to ALL - YES & NO - see #5.
  4. Un-Intrusive - NO - It still requires a government agency looking into your personal finances.
  5. Un-Tax the Cost-of-Living - NO - It's actually worse than our current system on this point.
  6. Increase Compliance - NO - It’s the same as the current system.
  7. Reduce Compliance Costs - YES - Reduces paperwork.
  8. Reward Savings and Investment - NO - It's the same as our current system.
  9. Tax the Underground Economy - NO - It's the same as our current system.
  10. Repatriate Off-Shored Jobs - NO - Not as long as the corporate income tax remains.
  11. Repatriate Lost Wealth - NO - Creates no incentive for lost wealth to return.
  12. Bring in Foreign Investment - NO - Not as long as the corporate income tax remains.
  13. Revenue Neutral - YES - Most likely, a Flat Income Tax would be made to be Revenue Neutral.

As you can see, a Flat Income Tax FAILS on more than 2/3 of those goals and 3/4 if you consider that it fails on goal 3 (Fair to ALL), by now making allowances for un-taxing the cost of living. A Flat Income Tax really has only three advantages over the current system. It would be Clear and Simple. It would Reduce Compliance Costs. And it could be made to be Revenue Neutral.

You could improve its miserable score, by eliminating the corporate income tax and withholding. But even then, it would only improve its success on goals 2, 10, 11 and 12 - the last three being the result of the business magnet that would result in eliminating the corporate income tax.

But even with those changes, the Flat Income Tax FAILS on half of those goals and actually makes matters worse, by taxing cost of living on the poor.

A Flat Income Tax "SOUNDS LIKE" a good idea, till you apply standard problem solving techniques to it. In other words, establish the goals that it needs to meet and then compare it to those goals.

By contrast, the FairTax meets EVERY ONE of those goals.

  1. Clear and Simple - YES - It's the simplest of all forms of taxation - a sales tax
  2. Transparent - YES - You see every cent that you are taxed every time you make a retail purchase.
  3. Fair to ALL - YES - Everyone is taxed at the same rate and gets the same prebate, based on family size.
  4. Un-Intrusive - YES - NO IRS looking over your shoulders - Feds audit states. States audit business. NOBODY AUDIT YOU!
  5. Un-Tax the Cost-of-Living - YES - The "Prebate" does this, based on family size.
  6. Increase Compliance - YES - Tax collection points are reduced from 148 million individuals and businesses, to less than 10 million "retail" businesses, meaning less opportunity for tax fraud.
  7. Reduce Compliance Costs - YES - It's simple multiplication, mostly done in the cash register software - no accountants required (beyond normal business needs).
  8. Reward Savings and Investment - YES - un-taxes savings and investment.
  9. Tax the Underground Economy - YES - even drug dealers and illegal aliens have to eat, wear clothes, use electricity and use water.
  10. Repatriate Off-Shored Jobs - YES - Abolishing the corporate income tax, payroll taxes, etc, would create a HUGE jobs magnet.
  11. Repatriate Lost Wealth - YES - Many of the rich who have already left because they felt that they were being punished for their success would return, with their hefty checkbooks in tow.
  12. Bring in Foreign Investment - YES - The lack of an income tax would make the USA the absolute BEST place in the world to invest in and run a business.
  13. Revenue Neutral - YES - The FairTax was designed by many of the best economists in the world. It is the most thoroughly vetted tax reform package in history and Revenue Neutrality was Job #1. If anything, the increased foreign investment might even make it slightly positive in revenue.

The above goal discussion about the FairTax is an extremely abbreviated version of what is in my book.

The Flat Income Tax is a placebo that looks like a pill that will cure your ills, but does nothing of significance. In fact, it would only give Congress a reason to delay any REAL tax reform for several more years. It's a non-starter.

The FairTax has already been heard by the Ways & Means Committee and has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors in Congress. It has been thoroughly vetted and is well on its way through Congress. We just need to get the leadership of both parties to allow it out of committee.

Comment by Doug Nicholson on April 19, 2012 at 11:53pm

Here's a a link to a fascinating, funny, short video on who and what should be taxed:

Eat The Rich

Comment by Doug Nicholson on April 19, 2012 at 11:49pm

Ronald Robert Sorrells,

"HOW CAN THEY "TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION IF THEY ARE COMMUNISTS" ??"

They lie, Ron. They lie!

Comment by Ronald Sorrells on April 19, 2012 at 5:44pm

If we have 78 Democrats  "That are actually Members of the American Communist Party" they need to be identified to We The People" !  Is that 15% of the House????  HOW CAN THEY "TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION IF THEY ARE COMMUNISTS" ??

Ron

Comment by Guy Blanchard on April 19, 2012 at 5:38pm

obama will appoint czars that are commies,justices who hate our Constitution yet took an oath to uphold it(kagan) yet they vote against our Constitution,wait to see the vote on obamacare,and the stimulus that has failed and all the broken promises and the keystone pipeline that would help bigtime yet obama says no to dividing our nation through class warfare to say just a few things.Transparency right?Okay Mr transparency,lets see your college records Mr Transparency and about that fake live birth paper? Hello America,its time to wake up...Say no to socialism,say no to obama and soros..Transparency remember?

Comment by Patti Jarvis on April 19, 2012 at 3:03pm

jUST ANOTHER REASON HERE WHY WE HAVE TO VOTE ROMNEY IF HE IS THE ONE...NOT THAT HE IS MY FAVORITE, BUT HERE IT IS:

                      "If Mitt wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically
support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I'd just ask you to keep four things in mind: Justice Scalia just turned 78,
Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year, Justice Breyer will be 76 in
August, and Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago.
We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court -- in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you don't think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you're smokin' something funky."
--columnist Andrew McCarthy

Comment by Barbara Wilson on April 19, 2012 at 2:13pm

an addendum to 'Buffet' -- his estate will stand to benefit immensely from the stalling of the Keystone pipeline.

Why?   the oil will still come to the US, but it will come in a more environmentally UNfriendly way, by RAIL.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-north...

Comment by Ronald Sorrells on April 19, 2012 at 12:36pm
Billy B :

10% at point of sale to go to state and let state settle with Federal.

SemperFi,

Ron

Tea Party Nation is a social network

 



© 2013   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!