What is someone's "Fair Share" when it comes to taxes?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Surely since this is such a staple for the libs some of you libs on this bored can explain what a "fair share" is.

 

I ran accross this analogy today, and I gotta admit that this scenario seem fair:

 

I'm going to use the example of a condominium here. In virtually every condominium you will find a condo fee. Everybody pays a share of the operating expenses of the condominium. How, though, do you figure out what the assessments will be if different people have different sized condos? In the condominium I live in in Atlanta there are some units that have around 2,300 square feet, and a few that are up in the 9,000 square foot range. Obviously the people in the larger condos should pay a higher fee than those in the smaller ones, right? That would be fair .. right? But how do you figure out who pays what?

 

Well here's an idea? You add up the total square footage of the entire condominium. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the total square footage is 300,000 square feet and the annual budget for operating the condo is $1,600,000. If you own a 2,300 square foot condo you own a total of 0.76% of the total square footage. This means that you should be responsible for 0.76% of the annual general operating expenses. That would bring your annual assessment to $12,160, or just over $1000 a month. If you own the 9,000 square foot condo you have about 3% of the total square footage, and your assessment is going to be about $4,000 a month.

 

Now does anyone want to argue that this would not be a fair way to assess the costs of operating the condo? There's your "fair share" in action.

[tony hardware 0]

I don't feel like reading yours, but I'll suggest that one's fair share of taxes is directly proportionate to the degree to which they rely on government for survival. (It makes no sense economically, but sure is fair).

[De Novo 0]

Surely since this is such a staple for the libs some of you libs on this bored can explain what a "fair share" is.

 

I ran accross this analogy today, and I gotta admit that this scenario seem fair:

 

I'm going to use the example of a condominium here. In virtually every condominium you will find a condo fee. Everybody pays a share of the operating expenses of the condominium. How, though, do you figure out what the assessments will be if different people have different sized condos? In the condominium I live in in Atlanta there are some units that have around 2,300 square feet, and a few that are up in the 9,000 square foot range. Obviously the people in the larger condos should pay a higher fee than those in the smaller ones, right? That would be fair .. right? But how do you figure out who pays what?

 

Well here's an idea? You add up the total square footage of the entire condominium. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the total square footage is 300,000 square feet and the annual budget for operating the condo is $1,600,000. If you own a 2,300 square foot condo you own a total of 0.76% of the total square footage. This means that you should be responsible for 0.76% of the annual general operating expenses. That would bring your annual assessment to $12,160, or just over $1000 a month. If you own the 9,000 square foot condo you have about 3% of the total square footage, and your assessment is going to be about $4,000 a month.

 

Now does anyone want to argue that this would not be a fair way to assess the costs of operating the condo? There's your "fair share" in action.

 

Do you pay 2x as much for a 2 liter Coke as you do a 1 liter? No. You pay less.

 

Do you pay 20% more for a 60" TV as you do a 50" No. You pay more.

 

You have a theory about how much you want people to pay in taxes. So you picked a condo example to illustrate your point (which incidentally, is usually not how condo fees are calculated). I can't even believe I bothered reading (and then responding to) this.

[DanXIII 8]

I don't feel like reading yours, but I'll suggest that one's fair share of taxes is directly proportionate to the degree to which they rely on government for survival. (It makes no sense economically, but sure is fair).

 

There is no way to accurately quantify that.

 

IMHO, the "fair" share will never be a set number. It will always be subject to the whims of the political environment of the day. A good guideline would be some sort of proportion of wealth.

 

And RP, just between us, you would probably get more people to see things from your point of view if you didn't come across as such a combative asshat all the time. HTH!

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Fair and taxes don't belong in the same sentence. Can't happen. "Fair Tax" is one of the great oxymorons of our time. Sort of like "jumbo shrimp"

 

If the situation was such that the Republicans were advocating our current tax system (which is based upon years of Republican and Democrat bastardization) and the Dems were advocating a flat tax, you would want to keep it the same as it is.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

A good guideline would be some sort of proportion of wealth.

 

 

Give some specifics. You just restated "fair share" as it is used in the class warfare game.

 

 

Fair and taxes don't belong in the same sentence. Can't happen. "Fair Tax" is one of the great oxymorons of our time. Sort of like "jumbo shrimp"

 

If the situation was such that the Republicans were advocating our current tax system (which is based upon years of Republican and Democrat bastardization) and the Dems were advocating a flat tax, you would want to keep it the same as it is.

 

Wrong yet again. I would jump at the chance of a flat tax.

[Cdub100 3,908]

Fair and taxes don't belong in the same sentence. Can't happen. "Fair Tax" is one of the great oxymorons of our time. Sort of like "jumbo shrimp"

 

If the situation was such that the Republicans were advocating our current tax system (which is based upon years of Republican and Democrat bastardization) and the Dems were advocating a flat tax, you would want to keep it the same as it is.

 

I dunno... jumbo shrimp is pretty big

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The left is chiming in, but have zippo to offer in the way of an explanation as to what exactly a "fair share" is when it comes to taxes.

 

How should the amount that the "rich" pay in taxes be calculated in order to be fair? How about the poor?

 

I thought the analogy in my post, while not how it is done in real life, was a good attempt to get at an equitable way of dividing the fees "fairly"

[DanXIII 8]

I've already indicated my support for a flat tax, in YOUR other thread. The % would obviously be determined by political means. I would support a high enough % to balance the budget.

[Cdub100 3,908]

All people are taxed the same. What's the problem?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

How about they assess the fees based upon the market value of each condo? For example, let's say that I have a total budget of $1,600,000 (really high if you ask me) and the total market value of all condos is $800,000,000, then I would assess each condo at $50 per $1,000 in their market value.

 

So, if you had a condo that was worth $1,000,000 then your fees would be $2,000. If you had a condo that was worth $5M, then your fees would be $10,000.

 

That is a flat tax representation. However, you have totally excluded the most important part, which is the fact that there are people who are homeless or can't afford your condo. What do we do with them? I know that you like to keep things simple, but taxation is not as simple as you would like it to be.

[Cdub100 3,908]

However, you have totally excluded the most important part, which is the fact that there are people who are homeless or can't afford your condo. What do we do with them? I know that you like to keep things simple, but taxation is not as simple as you would like it to be.

 

Allow them to stay homeless.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Allow them to stay homeless.

 

I was going to go into the next step where the homeless break into your condo and steal everything. Then you either put in elaborate, expensive security or you find a way to make it so they don't want to rob you. Now we get into the welfare (teach them to fish) discussion.

 

The point is that RP would like to keep things compartmentalized, but life is not that way. There are many who seem to think that you can ignore the big picture and impact that one action has on something else. That is where we get into trouble.

[D_House 0]

flat tax. everyone pays the same, except for those below the poverty line, who pay none. all exemptions/loopholes are thrown out. politicians will never let it happen because it will mean cuts in the stupid programs and wars they love funding. plus with their marriage and child and student credits they can pretend that they are looking out for the people.

 

i'm waiting for Rude Rick's reply.

[Cdub100 3,908]

I was going to go into the next step where the homeless break into your condo and steal everything. Then you either put in elaborate, expensive security or you find a way to make it so they don't want to rob you. Now we get into the welfare (teach them to fish) discussion.

 

The point is that RP would like to keep things compartmentalized, but life is not that way. There are many who seem to think that you can ignore the big picture and impact that one action has on something else. That is where we get into trouble.

 

If they want to take the chance let them. There will always be crime just like there will all ways be homeless so I'm not sure where you're going with this?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

If they want to take the chance let them. There will always be crime just like there will all ways be homeless so I'm not sure where you're going with this?

 

There is a bigger picture that involves more than just your "condo". If you can't see it, there is nothing that I can say to change your mind.

[Cdub100 3,908]

flat tax. everyone pays the same

We do all pay the same. A man making 5 million dollars pays they same tax as you. Does he pay more? Yes, because he makes more, but he pays the same tax as you.

 

There is a bigger picture that involves more than just your "condo". If you can't see it, there is nothing that I can say to change your mind.

 

I would love for you to try and I'm open to new ideas. I just don't see where you're going with the whole crime thing.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How about your "fair share" is if you pay your proportion of the total income. That is, you take all imcomes in the country, add them up, and divide yours into that. Whatever the percentage is becomes the percentage of your income you pay.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I would love for you to try and I'm open to new ideas. I just don't see where you're going with the whole crime thing.

 

Let's see.

 

If we are talking about condo fees and condo fees only, then we are fine. If the situation were that simple, we would be all set. However, there are outside factors that affect what the amount of the fees are and the amount of the fees can also affect the value of each of the condos. In other words, the revenue side of the equation is not mutually exclusive from the cost side of the equation.

 

By talking about the homeless guy and his ability to break into the condo, I was trying to show you that there is more to the equation and introduced the component of "welfare".

 

How about your "fair share" is if you pay your proportion of the total income. That is, you take all imcomes in the country, add them up, and divide yours into that. Whatever the percentage is becomes the percentage of your income you pay.

 

We understand that you are pushing for a flat tax. You would probably have to exclude a certain amount of income from that initial tax so that people can live. If you want to go flat after that, I would be okay with it as long as we did not offer any other exclusions (cap gains, dividends, etc.) or we will end up with a complicated code again. Bear in mind that you will have to leave out some things that might be beneficial as well (tuition tax credits, medical cost credits, etc.). Got to take the bad with the good.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's not a flat tax. Everyone doesn't pay the same rate.

 

Example:

 

Total income for everyone in the country is $100

 

Patsfatboy makes $1 that year. He is making 1% of the total income so he pays a 1% tax, or one penny.

 

Recliner Pilot makes $50 dollars that year. He is making 50% of the total income so he pays a 50% tax, or $25.

 

You are in a 1% tax bracket, I am in a 50% tax bracket.

[Cdub100 3,908]

Let's see.

 

If we are talking about condo fees and condo fees only, then we are fine. If the situation were that simple, we would be all set. However, there are outside factors that affect what the amount of the fees are and the amount of the fees can also affect the value of each of the condos. In other words, the revenue side of the equation is not mutually exclusive from the cost side of the equation.

I'm guessing the condo example is absolute. Meaning you either live in a condo or your homeless. If so that means my condo is just as likely to be broken into as my neighbors or the guy 5 streets over.

Maybe I buy an ADT system or get a guard dog too deter a thief. None of these things affect my condo fee. So I still don't see how that would affect anything.

 

Then again we still haven't determined how to assess the fee.

 

It's not a flat tax. Everyone doesn't pay the same rate.

 

Example:

 

Total income for everyone in the country is $100

 

Patsfatboy makes $1 that year. He is making 1% of the total income so he pays a 1% tax, or one penny.

 

Recliner Pilot makes $50 dollars that year. He is making 50% of the total income so he pays a 50% tax, or $25.

 

You are in a 1% tax bracket, I am in a 50% tax bracket.

That is not how our tax system works. I'm pretty sure this has already been explained.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

That is not how our tax system works. I'm pretty sure this has already been explained.

 

It isn't?

 

I'm not describing how our tax systm works, I'm tryimg to find out what "fair share" means regarding taxes.

 

And you both miss the condo point. It isn't about housing, it's about paying your "fair share" of the expenses involved in the running of the condo. Kinda like paying your "fair shre" of running the country.

[Cdub100 3,908]

It isn't?

 

I'm not describing how our tax systm works, I'm tryimg to find out what "fair share" means regarding taxes.

 

And you both miss the condo point. It isn't about housing, it's about paying your "fair share" of the expenses involved in the running of the condo. Kinda like paying your "fair shre" of running the country.

So you used a flawed example to try and prove whatever it is your trying to prove. Great idea I would expect nothing less of you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So you used a flawed example to try and prove whatever it is your trying to prove. Great idea I would expect nothing less of you.

 

 

Cdumb strikes again.

 

It is only flawed because you can't comprehend it, despite it's simplicity.

[rallo 136]

It's not a flat tax. Everyone doesn't pay the same rate.

 

Example:

 

Total income for everyone in the country is $100

 

Patsfatboy makes $1 that year. He is making 1% of the total income so he pays a 1% tax, or one penny.

 

Recliner Pilot makes $50 dollars that year. He is making 50% of the total income so he pays a 50% tax, or $25.

 

You are in a 1% tax bracket, I am in a 50% tax bracket.

 

that's why taxes are too complicated to simply due everyone pays like %15 of total income. I think it needs to be regionalized, and figure in children/ cost of living etc. For instance, if you live in the midwest and you are a single male who pulls down say $80,000 a year you would have plenty of money or houses cars etc... but imagine you live in the northeast like the NYC for example and you have a family of 4 and you and your wife collectively pull down only $80,000 total with the cost of living increase and children etc you think they can afford to pay the same taxes and a single man in the midwest???

 

for the "one flat rate" for everyone idea you would have to reset the country's regional cost of living/ inflation/ and everything... that's why this system cannot work

[Cdub100 3,908]

Cdumb strikes again.

 

It is only flawed because you can't comprehend it, despite it's simplicity.

Beautiful.

[pimptastic69 0]

that's why taxes are too complicated to simply due everyone pays like %15 of total income. I think it needs to be regionalized, and figure in children/ cost of living etc. For instance, if you live in the midwest and you are a single male who pulls down say $80,000 a year you would have plenty of money or houses cars etc... but imagine you live in the northeast like the NYC for example and you have a family of 4 and you and your wife collectively pull down only $80,000 total with the cost of living increase and children etc you think they can afford to pay the same taxes and a single man in the midwest???

 

for the "one flat rate" for everyone idea you would have to reset the country's regional cost of living/ inflation/ and everything... that's why this system cannot work

 

You could move to the midwest. It blows my mind to see that a 1500 sq. ft. ranch with no basement sells for close to a million dollars on the coasts, when it is only worth $140K in the "sticks".

 

A percentage is a percentage. You've chosen where you want to live. Don't ###### about the cost of living when it's cheaper somewhere else.

[De Novo 0]

A percentage is a percentage. You've chosen where you want to live. Don't ###### about the cost of living when it's cheaper somewhere else.

There are essentially no top-notch jobs in the sticks. It's bad enough that a lot of companies don't give higher salaries to people in New York, but it's even worse that the gov't determines a national "living wage" and acts like 100k in DC provides you with the same disposable income as 100k in Des Moines.

 

It's not a flat tax. Everyone doesn't pay the same rate.

 

Example:

 

Total income for everyone in the country is $100

 

Patsfatboy makes $1 that year. He is making 1% of the total income so he pays a 1% tax, or one penny.

 

Recliner Pilot makes $50 dollars that year. He is making 50% of the total income so he pays a 50% tax, or $25.

 

You are in a 1% tax bracket, I am in a 50% tax bracket.

 

So you're proposing less than a 1% tax rate? Yet another brilliant idea from RP.

[pimptastic69 0]

There are essentially no top-notch jobs in the sticks. It's bad enough that a lot of companies don't give higher salaries to people in New York, but it's even worse that the gov't determines a national "living wage" and acts like 100k in DC provides you with the same disposable income as 100k in Des Moines.

So you're proposing less than a 1% tax rate? Yet another brilliant idea from RP.

 

Procter & Gamble has been payin the bills for me the last few years. My brother in Minnesota has an ok job with 3M.

[De Novo 0]

Procter & Gamble has been payin the bills for me the last few years. My brother in Minnesota has an ok job with 3M.

First off, I didn't say they don't exist. Second off, I said "top-notch," and "ok job" and "top notch" are very different.

[pimptastic69 0]

First off, I didn't say they don't exist. Second off, I said "top-notch," and "ok job" and "top notch" are very different.

 

Sounds to me like having a great job in NYC is the suck.

[supermike80 1,911]

Totally off the subject but I laugh everytime you tools call a liberal a liberal..like it's some sort of insult.

 

Never fails to make me

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

So you're proposing less than a 1% tax rate? Yet another brilliant idea from RP.

 

I guess the word "example" is above your comprehension level.

[Peens 0]

I pay enough tax as it is, I NEVER want to pay more. So I never vote Democrat. Plain and simple for me.