Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[DownShore]

If they earn it they should not have to give it up they worked hard for it

 

[Philadelphia]

They pay more than their fair share because they pay much more taxes than anyone else.

 

[kill dank]

In general, the people who pay taxes do not really see any proportional return on what they pay into the system. Businesses should have to pay more taxes. The main way people get rich is through big corporations that have money to pay these higher wages but what they should be doing with the money is pumping it back into the communities that they rob of their livelihood instead of making their executives richer. But, that's all off topic kinda..

The system is rigged in the rich guys favor.

 

[ninja 204]

Its laughable to call what we have now a "free market"

You realize how huge of a role corporate protectionism serves in supporting these monopolies? Every major phone company receives massive government subsidies, without them they would cease to exist or be forced to develop more efficient business strategies.

Very true. But we could get further away from a free market.

 

[Chris]

Your quotes are perfect, except the 3rd one is a bit extreme, as no one wants to be on welfare, and everyone gets things like police/ambulance etc. Imo there should be one set tax, that everyone pays a set %, because it kinda sounds weird if I tell you that you can work really hard, make a nice salary but then I'll tax it a whole lot more, but then I say, don't do much, make minimum wage and I will barley tax it.

 

[Idealism]

the rich pay their fair share.

 

[TrustKing]

Look at it like this, people who work for their money, want to keep all of it as that is what they have put their hard time into. But tax is needed for nations to have economic growth which has social and economic benefits on society. I know someone who makes $800k per year, they pay $384k in taxes per year. That means whilst they are working extremely hard for $800k per year they are actually getting just a little over half of what they worked for. $416k. I think the rich pay their fair share as it already is.

 

[Kiln]

Why should rich people have to pay more taxes? It isn't their job to support deadbeats

 

[Kiln]

the rich pay their fair share.

With exponentially higher taxes, I agree.

 

[Xolr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

 

[BrianTirae]

I make a little over 100,000 a year and I pay 40,000 tax that's just from my salary... Then you add another 1000 a month for my expenses because everything is taxed... So in total more then half my salary is going to tax in one year. Now imagine the super rich were talking millionair's... I know poor people complain they don't pay enough but trust me when I say that they do.

The government has everyone by balls and they are not letting go! in fact there only going to squeeze you harder... In basic terms the more money you have the harder they will squeeze

 

[Xier0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

I'm actually glad someone posted this video. I was absolutely appalled when my sociology "professor" showed this video in class last year.

This video is absolute bullshit to the core, the whole thing is one giant fallacy. They don't back up any claims whatsoever.

-The entire video is comparing what people (not experts, regular everyday morons) THINK the wealth distribution is or should be in America. These aren't economists, their opinion is USELESS.
-After that, they compare peoples opinions of what wealth distribution is or should be, then they compare it to what it actually is. The only thing making a comparison between the two shows is that the bulk of the people asked the question simply don't know anything about the state of economics.

Polling idiots their opinion on a subject they know nothing about is so idiotic. Polling them about economics makes as much sense as polling them to determine what the mass of the Earth is. People don't have the slightest clue what the mass of the Earth is, why would you ask them and take their opinion as useful in any way?

-In addition to this, they never qualify as to WHY the current wealth distribution is a problem. There's nothing immoral about wealth not being distributed evenly. Fighting the natural wealth distribution is fighting against the laws of supply and demand, it's futile and costly.

 

[Visci]

Polling idiots their opinion on a subject they know nothing about is so idiotic. Polling them about economics makes as much sense as polling them to determine what the mass of the Earth is. People don't have the slightest clue what the mass of the Earth is, why would you ask them and take their opinion as useful in any way?

It seems out of character to see you so condescending. There is value in showing the disparity between what people would perceive as the wealth distribution and reality because it shows that people are exactly what you've stated: uninformed.

Does it tell you anything about how wealth inequality should be handled? No, but it's not totally worthless, nor are they 'idiots.'

In addition to this, they never qualify as to WHY the current wealth distribution is a problem.

Now, I feel there is a subtlety you've missed here. The current wealth distribution is NOT the problem. While it may be shocking, it is not necessarily a problem. The issue is the ever increasing gap, the rich continue to get richer at an unprecedented rate while the poor get poorer at an albeit slower rate.

There's nothing immoral about wealth not being distributed evenly.

You're right - there is nothing immoral about it, nor is there anything moral about it. Wealth distribution is merely a reality, it is intrinsically amoral. That being said, certain things jump to mind: slums in India just a step away from gated communities; the ghettos in Brazil with the World Cup lights in the background.

I am not prepared to argue either way on this, but hopefully that's food for thought. If you are a part of a small faction of people with huge wealth, is it right for you to ignore the poor? It is easy to demonize those less fortunate than us and cast off any burden of responsibility. I don't know if we have some sort of moral imperative, but I'm certainly not prepared to say that we don't.

Fighting the natural wealth distribution is fighting against the laws of supply and demand, it's futile and costly.

I don't quite understand what you mean here, but I'd like to point out that being wary of wealth disparity is not a bad thing. It is never harmful to consider what something means and where it's taking us.

To the initial post:

I am not sure if wealthy individuals pay a fair share. I am very certain that wealthy coporations do NOT pay there fair share. A cursory google search on 'negative tax rates' shows a tax rate percentage on a US corporation of -59.7%. The same economist article states that those corporations pay an average of 18.5% tax instead of the mandated 35%. Apple exploited tax flaws in the US/Irish systems to avoid corporate taxes on ~70billion in revenue. I struggle to suggest that could some way be fair.

Even if we lived in a perfect world, I think I'd still disagree with a flat rate tax system. A tiered system seems fair to me.

not-really-an-edit: Holy fuck I just watched the video and it's goddamn awful. Other than the pretty infographics it's horribly one-sided.

real edit:

That's like saying "You have two kidneys, and this guy who had ignored his health his entire life is now suffering from kidney failure, we are now forcing you, without your consent, to give him one of your kidneys because you have more than you need."

Clearly unethical. Just because I have two kidneys doesn't mean the government should take one from me to give to someone else because they don't have a working kidney.

This is a very poor analogy, and again is extremely condescending. For starters, not all poor people are poor because it is their fault. Secondly, you've entered into an agreement with the government when you choose to continue to live there. That aside, when you donate a kidney or a part of your liver you lose ~10 years off of your life. Paying twice as much % in tax if you reach the tax bracket will typically (if the tax law is reasonable) not effect your life in a way that's nearly as substantial.

I'd also like to point out that this is often used as an ethical experiment that justifies abortion, with a few minor alterations. Not at all saying that that discredits it, just thought it was interesting

 

[krutoi]

Idk what to say about this. The world's fucked up with taxes, all is attached to the government. It is the way it is. We will die some day and nobody will regret it.

 

[homm88]

Well I think is not fair for the rich, but that's how the system was made, you can't do anything..

 

[Xier0]

@Visci

There is value in showing the disparity between what people would perceive as the wealth distribution and reality because it shows that people are exactly what you've stated: uninformed.

Does it tell you anything about how wealth inequality should be handled?

Why exactly does wealth inequality need to be "handled"?

The issue is the ever increasing gap, the rich continue to get richer at an unprecedented rate while the poor get poorer at an albeit slower rate.

Why is the increasing gap an "issue"?

This is a very poor analogy, and again is extremely condescending. For starters, not all poor people are poor because it is their fault. Secondly, you've entered into an agreement with the government when you choose to continue to live there. That aside, when you donate a kidney or a part of your liver you lose ~10 years off of your life. Paying twice as much % in tax if you reach the tax bracket will typically (if the tax law is reasonable) not effect your life in a way that's nearly as substantial.

Richard would probably dispute that you entered in an agreement with the gov't, but that's a 200 post sticky- anyways

Let's say I take obligation to pay the gov't taxes as a given, why should any one person have to pay more than another, if everyone is equal under the law? People who work harder are given a decreased return on their time due to higher earnings leading to higher tax rates, where people who do not work as much are rewarded with benefits and a higher return on their time for not working.

The essence of the system itself is flawed: Higher tax rates for higher earners and lower tax rates for lower earners deincentivizes work, innovation, and investment.

 

[Visci]

Why exactly does wealth inequality need to be "handled"?

Why is the increasing gap an "issue"?

The top 1% getting richer isn't necessarily the issue - it's the middle class getting smaller. As more and more people eventually get pushed under the poverty line or to the point where they have no disposable income, the economy will suffer.

This is getting pretty off-topic though.

Let's say I take obligation to pay the gov't taxes as a given, why should any one person have to pay more than another, if everyone is equal under the law?

For starters, because we're not really equal under the law. There are countless examples of extravagant wealth meaning you are treated differently.

If I take it that we ARE all equal though, I believe there is still a precedent for the rich to pay a higher percentage - namely that they make their money off of lower classes. Take walmart as an example, they made $17 billion USD last year - where does this money come from? People who shop at walmart, ie. lower classes. Same goes for exxon and mobil and so on and so forth.

Back to the walmart example - the average employee makes 22k USD/year. The CEO made 23200k USD/year. For the employee, paying 10% of their anual income is only 2.2k, but that could be huge when you have no disposable income. The CEO would pay 2.3 million, and still have 20 million left, but he's got a huge disposable income.

This is why I am in favor or a tiered system, where if you make more money you get to keep more money, but you do pay a higher tax rate. It is difficult for me to rationalize a flat tax rate as fair because it disadvantages the poor to an egregious degree.

People who work harder are given a decreased return on their time due to higher earnings leading to higher tax rates, where people who do not work as much are rewarded with benefits and a higher return on their time for not working.

This isn't necessarily true. Working harder does not mean that you work more, nor does making more money mean that you work more. To say that 'people who do not work as much are rewarded...for not working' is nonsense, there are people who work 60 hours a week and make less than those who work for 20.

The essence of the system itself is flawed: Higher tax rates for higher earners and lower tax rates for lower earners deincentivizes work, innovation, and investment.

I call bollocks - people who make more money are already innovatig, working, investing regardless, and people who are not making enough money (and thus getting taxed less) do not have the disposable income to invest, though they may be working just as much.

You didn't comment on the other thing I pointed out - how corporations do not pay the normal mandated rate. If we want to discuss something that kills innovation, it is companies that do not need to do more to make more, because working out how to avoid tax is more lucrative.

I would argue that this probably true of very wealthy individuals as well. People who come from 'Old Money' used to often flaunt that they'd never had to work a day in their lives.

 

[Xier0]

If I take it that we ARE all equal though, I believe there is still a precedent for the rich to pay a higher percentage - namely that they make their money off of lower classes. Take walmart as an example, they made $17 billion USD last year - where does this money come from? People who shop at walmart, ie. lower classes. Same goes for exxon and mobil and so on and so forth.

Back to the walmart example - the average employee makes 22k USD/year. The CEO made 23200k USD/year. For the employee, paying 10% of their anual income is only 2.2k, but that could be huge when you have no disposable income. The CEO would pay 2.3 million, and still have 20 million left, but he's got a huge disposable income.

This is why I am in favor or a tiered system, where if you make more money you get to keep more money, but you do pay a higher tax rate. It is difficult for me to rationalize a flat tax rate as fair because it disadvantages the poor to an egregious degree.

This is supply and demand. CEOs get paid that much because there are very few people who have the ability to perform the duties of a CEO. Walmart greeters get paid that little because anyone can do that job. If Walmart employees were really worth a $100k salary, that's how much they would be paid. If a CEO was really worth a $1m salary, that's how much they would be paid. The nature of a market identifies how much each individual laborer is worth.

This isn't necessarily true. Working harder does not mean that you work more, nor does making more money mean that you work more. To say that 'people who do not work as much are rewarded...for not working' is nonsense, there are people who work 60 hours a week and make less than those who work for 20.

I call bollocks - people who make more money are already innovatig, working, investing regardless, and people who are not making enough money (and thus getting taxed less) do not have the disposable income to invest, though they may be working just as much.

When I describe someone as a "harder worker", obviously it isn't always the case that people who work hard always earn more and people who don't always earn less. "Harder worker" is just a short way to say "Person who contributes a more valuable service to the work force than another". This can be talent, work, effort, physical ability, anything that increases their value in the work force, and thus, their pay.

You didn't comment on the other thing I pointed out - how corporations do not pay the normal mandated rate. If we want to discuss something that kills innovation, it is companies that do not need to do more to make more, because working out how to avoid tax is more lucrative.

I would argue that this probably true of very wealthy individuals as well. People who come from 'Old Money' used to often flaunt that they'd never had to work a day in their lives.

I didn't bother commenting on that because although it is a fact, it doesn't link coherently to the point. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, yet the stereotype is that the US is corrupted by corporations at every level.

The reason that corporations manage to pay less than they should is because the corporate accountants are good at their jobs. The government is simply so inefficient at spending their money, they cannot write or enforce tax laws properly.

 

[Visci]

This is supply and demand. CEOs get paid that much because there are very few people who have the ability to perform the duties of a CEO. Walmart greeters get paid that little because anyone can do that job. If Walmart employees were really worth a $100k salary, that's how much they would be paid. If a CEO was really worth a $1m salary, that's how much they would be paid. The nature of a market identifies how much each individual laborer is worth.

Sure! I'd agree that if there are more or less people willing/skilled to do a job the payscale of the job will move in that direction. I disagree on the second count however - people are greedy. In a near laissez-faire economy, people will pay people as little as they can to generate the maximum profit. I firmly believe that the market itself does not identify how much a job should be paid.

By the sounds of things we might have to agree to disagree on this topic though.

I still feel like my point stand however that a CEO who makes 1000x the wage of his workers, and derives that wealth from the middle-class, should pay more tax than his workers do. He has expendable income, and reaps benefits from everyone under him. In my mind, I can see no reason why this isn't fair, while a flat tax rate is egregiously unfair to lower-wage earners. Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

When I describe someone as a "harder worker", obviously it isn't always the case that people who work hard always earn more and people who don't always earn less. "Harder worker" is just a short way to say "Person who contributes a more valuable service to the work force than another". This can be talent, work, effort, physical ability, anything that increases their value in the work force, and thus, their pay.

Glad we're clear on the first bit about 'harder' workers, but I'm still not 100% in agreement on the second. There are people with huge talent, effort, physical ability that still make less than others. People who increase our quality of life like artists, writers, developers etc. come to mind. This is pretty off topic though

I didn't bother commenting on that because although it is a fact, it doesn't link coherently to the point. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, yet the stereotype is that the US is corrupted by corporations at every level.

Doesn't it? Something like 35% of the top 1%'s wealth is derived from compensation (ie being a CEO). We're talking about if the rich pay their fair share, and a lot of tax avoidance would surely be undertaken by individuals as well as corporations, if they're not already a part of that.

I'm not prepared to argue about if the US is corrupted by corporations, nor is it really the point I'm trying to make.

The reason that corporations manage to pay less than they should is because the corporate accountants are good at their jobs. The government is simply so inefficient at spending their money, they cannot write or enforce tax laws properly.

I don't disagree on either point, and again I think it probably extends to individuals. If they've got the best accountants and the gov't is inept though... doesn't that lead to the conclusion that they're not paying what they're supposed to, and hence their fair share?

 

[Xier0]

I still feel like my point stand however that a CEO who makes 1000x the wage of his workers, and derives that wealth from the middle-class, should pay more tax than his workers do. He has expendable income, and reaps benefits from everyone under him. In my mind, I can see no reason why this isn't fair, while a flat tax rate is egregiously unfair to lower-wage earners. Do you disagree with this? If so, why?

Yes, I disagree. Simply having money/resources does not obligate you to give it to anyone else. People always say that "the CEO wouldn't have all that money if it wasn't for his 1,000 minimum wage employees!", well, those 1,000 employees wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for that CEO, and thousands to billions of other stakeholders wouldn't benefit from that company.

According to Walmart's website, the average wage for a full-time store worker is $12.83 per hour, which translates into a salary of about $27,000 per year.

By Ed Smith's math, the CEO of Walmart earns more in an hour than his employees will earn in a year. Smith, an alderman in Chicago, presented posters at a city council meeting showing that Walmart CEO Michael Duke's $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92.

2.2 Million employees

The CEO pays almost 40% on his earnings, even though corporate tax has already pilfered his bottom line. Let's say after deductions and such are taken out, he pays 30% for a nice round number (double the rate of his employees).

Most Walmart employees are taxes 15% on their earnings.

The CEO's salary of 35 mil at a rate is 30% is 10.5 million dollars. That is as much as 2500+ of his employees. Why should someone who provides jobs for 2.2 million people and impacts the economy with a volume of 450 billion in sales annually pay 2,500 times more than everyone else for achieving that? It's a popular opinion to trash corporations as businesses that exploit the customer, the worker, and anyone they can in the name of greed, but the very nature of a free market produces the best overall utility. Look at Walmart's financial report. Their profit margin is only 3.3%. Because of competitive markets, even Wal-mart, with their massive economic power, only profits 15b from 450b annual volume, and pays 8b in income tax.