Do you pay your "fair share" of taxes?

Money Web ^ | 9/15/12 | Jasson Urbach

[Libloather]

Do you pay your "fair share" of taxes?
Author: Jasson Urbach, Free Market Foundation
15 September 2012 23:29

Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, remarked that American Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, ought to pay his ‘fair share of taxes’. However, Mitt Romney, like most other high income earners across the globe, acts rationally – just as most of us do – in the sense that they try to reduce their total tax burden by avoiding whatever taxes they can; behaviour that is well within the laws created by government and perfectly legal. Any insinuation that high income earners do not pay their “fair share” is an indictment on the rules and regulations created by government.

**SNIP**

Several countries have introduced a flat tax in order to stimulate economic growth. Estonia introduced a flat tax on personal and corporate income at a single uniform rate of 26% in 1994. This rate has gradually been reduced over time and is currently sitting at 21%. Other Eastern European countries with flat tax rates include the Czech Republic (15%), Georgia (20%), Latvia (25%), Lithuania (15%), Montenegro (9%) and Russia (13%). African countries such as Mauritius, Madagascar and Seychelles also have flat rates of 15%, 22% and 15% respectively.

[Libloather]

I like the whole flat tax idea.

[fhayek]

What could be more fair than a flat tax? Exempt the first $25,000 and pay a percentage of every dollar earned above that, whether its $1.00 or $1 million. Everybody has skin in the game, there are no disincentives to earning more money. Tax returns are simpler, and anyone knows where they stand.

[elpadre]

the only ones who do not pay their fair share of taxes are the 47% that pay none

[Pearls Before Swine]

A few observations:

Most people are innumerate and confused between marginal and average rates.

Typically, the Democrats decry the rates (without specifying marginal versus average, or the deduction regime) that the “rich” pay. But, when asked “How much is fair?” there is no answer—the real answer is always “More.”

This brings us to the fundamental problem: The simple, and true measure of burden on the productive is how much the government takes from them. One way of looking at this is to examine how big a share of the economy passes through the Federal, and State governments, plus estimating the amount that is spent because of “mandates”. This is the burden, which taxes partially pay for. We have to keep our eye on the ball—if the burden went down, so would taxes in the aggregate, as well as the deficit.

[Gene Eric]

>> What could be more fair than a flat tax? Exempt the first $25,000

That’s not a flat tax.

[fhayek]

It’s flat (after $25,000). (Ducks from the brickbats)

[CodeToad]

I pay more in taxes than I get in representation, so, yes, I do pay MORE than my fair share!

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!

[babygene]

“Exempt the first $25,000 and pay a percentage of every dollar earned above that, whether its $1.00 or $1 million.”

If you exempt the first 25K, then everyone doesn’t have skin in the game. Why would you do that?

[mosaicwolf]

Please someone tell me the definition of “Fair Share”.

[abb]

[PubliusMM]

Only makes sense if you conclude that taxing income is the way to fund government. Flat taxes have been under discussion for a great many years...to no avail.

There’s a large component of the public (myself included) who find consumption taxes as the better way. That argument is ongoing, as well.

Regardless of where someone settles on that argument, the deeper reality is this: Tax Reform without Spending Reform is a fool’s game.

Get the government (at all levels) off the scam model that is baseline budgeting and replace it with true zero-based budgeting. Sunset ALL government programs as an element of their enabling legislation.

And, ideally, return the Federal government back within the confines of the Constitution...scrap the Dept of Ag, Dept of Ed, Dept of Energy, HHS, IRS, the Fed, and all the rest of the commie claptrap that has been foist on the American people in the last 200 years.

Wean back from the social support nets...SocSec, Medicare, Food stamps, and all the rest. Get the government out of everything not covered by the enumerated powers.

That’s a good start.

[CaspersGh0sts]

An expenditure tax makes a lot of sense. It would increase our nation’s savings rate, amongst other things—something we could greatly benefit from.

[JohnD9207]

Do you pay your “fair share” of taxes?

NOPE my fair share would be one heck of alot less than it is now. Who had the idea that sending money to DC was actually a good thing? Must have been some idiot.

[JohnD9207]

Correct, because everyone spends money. I know there are a bunch of people who sell crack and pay no taxes, but buy $300 shoes like its nothing. Many people have been trained to do hair weaves but sit home and charge 200-300 bucks a head who pay no taxes, but collect welfare, but always have money for beer, gold chains, and crap. Exempt food, and drugs and tax the rest. No IRS, no Tax attorneys, no problem.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Vintage Freeper for posting this:

[familyop]

Property owners are paying much more than their fair share. As for taxes, no new taxes! Cut spending!

[zencycler]

I know Mitt doesn't like to brag about his charitable giving, but somebody's got to make the point that his taxes are low because his charity is high (along with the fact that he's now in the stage of life where he's investing his substantial savings - savings on income that was already taxed at high rates - resulting in capital gains taxed at a lower rate, since investments like that are naturally something we NEED to encourage, especially now).

I say we start hitting back on this point with something like this:

The Right Way to Analyze Tax Data...