2012 Presidential Race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

20% because that's the example you gave. I think it's fair to say that if you are wealthy then the percentage of your income collected as tax should be at least the same proportion as anyone earning less than you. This is how a progressive system works.

---

I wish things were that simple. Btw,is Europe example of how progressive system works?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janvanvurpa

Once again, a reply that has nothing to do with what is written, what is quoted..

Why do you come and disrupt conversations if you aren't goping to do anything other than post random, confused postings?

---

Once again, I wish you all the best! Not interested! Good day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FIAT1

I wish things were that simple. Btw, is Europe example of how progressive system works?

---

No.

Europe is a continent.

The European Union on the other hand is made up of 27 member states and 17 of those use the common currency. Neither the continent of Europe nor the European Union impose income tax and neither of those things are sovereign entities.

Europe is not example of how progressive system works; just like North America is not an example of how gravity works just because it happens to be a continent on Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No.

Europe is a continent.

The European Union on the other hand is made up of 27 member states and 17 of those use the common currency. Neither the continent of Europe nor the European Union impose income tax and neither of those things are sovereign entities.

Europe is not example of how progressive system works; just like North America is not an example of how gravity works just because it happens to be a continent on Earth.

---

I beg your pardon,I did not know that. I'm afraid that lecturers from other lands don't see that member states of the continent,union or whatever is the name now days ,are bankrupt with progressive way of life. No need to impose income tax when big daddy is watching and protecting with same dime that this election is all about. Furthermore ,when it comes to how gravity works I think we figured out pretty good over here.

Sorry but you are generalising again. You do understand that Europe is composed of many different countries, all with different tax and social policy, right? Do you care to expand on your point, or shall I go with assuming you don't actually know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FIAT1

I beg your pardon,I did not know that.

---

Really? My goodness. Another example of the educational divide mentioned several times earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Sorry but you are generalising again. You do understand that Europe is composed of many different countries, all with different tax and social policy, right? Do you care to expand on your point, or shall I go with assuming you don't actually know?

---

I will have to respectfully decline further engagement in to deep conversation on foreign affairs, because li looks like I have encountered higher level of intelect and knowledge on the matter, but that could all change ,and I could expand my point as soon as I read latest instalment of Rolling Stone magazine.

Your call. Just don't go making sweeping generalisations and expect everyone to agree with you. In this case, you may well be right, but haven't shown anything to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Really? My goodness. Another example of the educational divide mentioned several times earlier.

---

Agree, and I do apologize if my sarcasm got lost in translation.

My original question was: "An interesting question for everyone. Define what "fair share" means in the context of a discussion on taxes." Perhaps I wasn't clear that I meant a person's total income and not just wages. Mark had one answer in that everyone should pay at the highest rate (per the figures in my example). Certainly a valid way to look at it. I'll go through some of your points anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

1. Joe Blow at income 50,000 a year is in all likelyhood deriving his entire income from wages. This means to say that he has personally "worked" for his money. Whereas Romney at an income of ten million a year is more likely to have derived the vast bulk of his income from dividends, interest, etc. The generation of that income (since all income is essentially derived from real work and the production of goods and services), has been been a deduction for the firms that paid the wages but taxed in the hands of those that received it.
Fairness would suggest that the taxation rate on the income from non-personal sources should either equal or above that of the taxation rate on the income in the hands who actually performed real work in generating that income; in this case which Romney did not.

---

Also a good point. The theory behind a lower capital gains rate (interest, except for some government bonds, is taxed at the regular rate) is to provide incentive for people to invest in businesses that create jobs and more wealth. The rate is lower so people will invest in the riskier stock market rather than in bonds or other vehicles. Given that the theory is mostly, but not always, true, how would you get people to do that investing sans a bigger potential reward against the bigger risk?

Quote:

---

2. If things like the Department of Defence are seen as a collective insurance system, then the stability of the economy should also be seen as a collective insurance system. People who benefit the most from the economy's stability, should therefore be liable for the greatest proportion of premium because they derive the greatest benefit from the stability of the economy.
If we take an example of equivalency, should a person driving a $10,000,000, gold plated, Bugatti Veyron pay a higher insurance premium than a person driving an Opel Insignia?

---

Depends on what you're insured against. For personal injury you shouldn't pay more. For replacement or repair value of the car, then obviously you should pay the equivalent premium for the cost of the repair.

Quote:

---

3. People on lower incomes have a higher marginal propensity to consume. Their incomes are already more likely to be directed to private firms through retail spending. By giving people on lower incomes a concession, the economy is effectively permanently stimulated.
As incomes increase, the marginal utility of money decreases along with the marginal propensity to consume. Because the marginal utility of money decreases the actual burden of taxation is less as incomes increase.

---

Another way to look at it. That's the basis for a graduated tax.

Quote:

---

Good question. Please tell me more about your theoretical economy so that I can play with some actual numbers.

---

I wasn't trying to create an entire economy, just looking to see what people felt about the subject of just exactly what is a "fair" tax.