Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share

[Berzerker]

Of taxes. Now, why do these liberals who keep saying this want some people to pay "their share" of taxes while exempting so many other people from paying their share?
Yeah, you make $100,000 a year so your " share" is ~$50,000 or more, but if you make $15,000, your share is $0. Hmm... so much for paying our "share"...

[Skanky Burns]

Wouldn't someone who made $100,000 by definition have received much more benefit from the environment the government has created for them, than someone earning $15,000?

[reds4ever]

$100,000 paying $50,000
and
$15,000 paying $3000

Sound fair?

[David Floyd]

$100,000 paying $50,000
and
$15,000 paying $3000

Sound fair?

No. Questions of the fairness of a tax, period, aside, this is not a fair tax system because one person is paying proportionally more than the other person.

If the person who makes $100,000 is taxed $50,000, the person who makes $15,000 should be taxed $7500. Or, if the person who makes $15,000 is taxed $3000, then the person who makes $100,000 should only pay $20,000.

[David Floyd]

Wouldn't someone who made $100,000 by definition have received much more benefit from the environment the government has created for them, than someone earning $15,000

Irrelevant. The government is obligated to "create" - which really means "maintain and protect" - a free, fair environment anyway.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No. Questions of the fairness of a tax, period, aside, this is not a fair tax system because one person is paying proportionally more than the other person.

If the person who makes $100,000 is taxed $50,000, the person who makes $15,000 should be taxed $7500. Or, if the person who makes $15,000 is taxed $3000, then the person who makes $100,000 should only pay $20,000.

Tax the rich, they can more easily afford it

[Victor Galis]

No. Questions of the fairness of a tax, period, aside, this is not a fair tax system because one person is paying proportionally more than the other person.

Does a person who makes more require proportionally more food? Face it, the basic needs that all humans have are the same for everyone. Someone who is hardly making enough to stay alive can simply not afford to pay the same percentage as someone who is ridiculously wealthy (i.e. much more than $100k per year).

[David Floyd]

I thought we were talking about fairness, not who can afford what. Who are you to say that a "rich" person can afford something?

[reds4ever]

Do you have a flat rate of taxation in the US?

[David Floyd]

Does a person who makes more require proportionally more food? Face it, the basic needs that all humans have are the same for everyone. Someone who is hardly making enough to stay alive can simply not afford to pay the same percentage as someone who is ridiculously wealthy (i.e. much more than $100k per year).

Fortunately, I have a solution. Tax them both at the same rate, that allows the poor person to buy the basic necessities. This means both people get to eat, but the tax rate is not skewed against either person. A flat tax.

Assuming that there is a tax, a flat tax is the closest thing to fair.

[David Floyd]

Do you have a flat rate of taxation in the US?

No. Your point?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by David Floyd
a flat tax is the closest thing to fair.

Not to a socialist

How about, as a compromise, for every dollar you earn (say) between

$0 - $5000 - you pay no tax
5,000 -15000 - you pay 15% tax
$15000 - $30000 - you pay 20%
$30000 - $60000 - you pay 35%
$60000 + you pay 50%

totally arbritary figures, but you get the gist?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No. Your point?

relax, just a question

[David Floyd]

Not to a socialist

Then I suppose socialists don't know what "fair" means

How about, as a compromise, for every dollar you earn (say) between

Explain how that's a compromise? That's simply a system of taxation slanted against those who do well in life. Now, I don't believe we should have ANY income tax, but if there is one, the closest thing to "fair" is to set a tax rate that allows people who make the least amount of money to survive, and apply that rate to everyone.

[Berzerker]

"Fair"? What happened to "share"? "Share" connotes we each have an obligation to pony up, not some pony up more so Al Sharpton's supporters pay little or nothing. Now, why is it "fair" to steal (oops, "tax") more than half of what you make while I pay nothing?

Skanky -

Wouldn't someone who made $100,000 by definition have received much more benefit from the environment the government has created for them, than someone earning $15,000?

You're confusing nature with government. The former most likely created that different environment, not the latter. If you and I are both sent to government schools and you succeed and I don't, the government didn't create one environment for you and another for me.