What percentage of your earnings do you think is fair to pay in Federal Taxes?

[so.cal.fan]

I am willing to pay 25%. I live in California, so I also have to pay state taxes.
I still think 25% if a fair share for everyone.

How about you guys?

[DJofSD]

10% - they want to act like a religion, that's all they deserve.

[so.cal.fan]

DJ,
I'm an advocate of a 10% flat takeout both in the mutual pools and what we pay the IRS on a big hit, we should not have to report our winnings. We are already taxed enough!

As for Federal Tax, I would like about 20%, but 25% is probably fair.

I would like to hear from Mr. Mostpost on this question? I'm interested in your opinion here.

[LottaKash]

This debate has been going on for as long as I can remember, and during one of those times, someone did the math, and this is what he gave:

A 10% tax paid by "ALL" parties living and doing business in the U.S, would simply have the National Treasury "overflowing" with kash....ALL !

So why isn't that being feasibly done ?....."GREED" is why, and because of it, it will never happen....

best,

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

10% - they want to act like a religion, that's all they deserve.

Not only that, but it worked for God, so I don't know why it wouldn't work for mere mortals.

Boxcar

[Jeff P]

I am a reasonable man. I personally don't mind paying as high as 20% to 25%... with one condition:

When, I as a reasonable man, look at what government (at ALL levels) does with our tax money - I see it being wasted. Just to be clear, by "wasted" I mean I see government (again at all levels) spending money in a manner that is no different than LITERALLY THROWING IT AWAY.

As a reasonable man, I vote that government at all levels do everything in its power first to downsize itself (just like companies and households in the private sector have to when money becomes tight) and stop throwing tax money collected from its citizens away.

After doing that - and ONLY after doing that - should government at any level even consider raising taxes.



-jp

.

[HUSKER55]

OBVIOUSLY, some of us, (libs, dems) are not that smart.

ask them who pays the bills, payroll included, for government workers.

[Robert Goren]

I believe in a graduated income tax. The richer you the more you pay. That is fair because the richer you are the more you benefits recieve from the government.

[TJDave]

If my government were honest then whatever was truly needed would be fair.

It isn't...

So whatever it asks for is too much.

[so.cal.fan]

Robert G?
How do you figure the wealthy get more from the government?
I suppose if they are government workers or politicians this is true.

We are certainly not wealthy, however, here in Calif. we pay well over 30% in taxes, including our State of Calif. taxes.
We don't get much from the Government......never have.

Your comment doesn't make sense, at least here in Calif. it doesn't.
Please tell me where I'm wrong here?

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I believe in a graduated income tax. The richer you the more you pay. That is fair because the richer you are the more you benefits recieve from the government.

What screwed up logic.

[ArlJim78]

the rich get the benefit of paying for government.

[Valuist]

20%. Have a 20% VAT and eliminate the personal income tax. Our current tax system is too complicated. If you itemize, you either must buy Turbo Tax or take it to an accountant. And by eliminating the income tax, you eliminate loopholes, and you also disincentivize illegals who come here and pay no income tax. Everybody pays based on consumption.

[serp]

I do not have an answer but I see problems with both.

I see the appeal of a flat tax and the folly of giving the government more money. It's a nice dream to believe that everyone can work hard and get ahead and make their millions.

I also see the great inequality with the current distribution of wealth. The top 10% have 74% of the wealth and the bottom 40% have <1%. That was in 2001 and the trend shows it is growing worse. This top % have well more than they are going to distribute by normal means of spending. And we are not using our personal wealth to create jobs. We are using that wealth to gain more power, control, and money.

At some point, when so few have such a high percentage of wealth it is bad for the economy in a capitalist system.

So if a progressive tax is not the answer.. what is? I'm fully willing to accept that it is not the answer. But I think that there needs to be an answer for this before we toss it out.

[DJofSD]

I also see the great inequality with the current distribution of wealth.

What a curious turn of a phrase. I think it reveals a lot. None of it good.