10%, same as for welfare recipients.
....same as in Russia...flat 13%....fill in a postcard size form and mail it in with a check for the 13%
A “fair” share? How about treating everyone equally? Is that not the definition of fair? How about a flat tax or a use-based tax? This graduated scale is anything but fair.
Give welfare to the unemployed for six months. Give them a chance to get back on their feet. Eliminate "generational" welfare. I've known of families who have five generations of welfare deadbeats.
Do that for starters, and we'll discover a huge surplus in tax dollars. Enough to even lower taxes across the board.
Doesn’t matter, the rich ‘collect’ their taxes from the poor.
That’s not criticizing the rich: they earn their money by providing benefits to the poor and that is where money the they pay to taxes have to come from.
They will- and must- maintain the same ROI after taxes.
Not saying I am against a flat tax, just want to move the line that defines progressive/regressive taxation. The midpoint should be where everyone pays the same amount.
God requires us to tithe 10% to him.
The word “fair” and the word “taxes” should never be used in the same paragraph, let alone in the same sentence or phrase.
Labor taxes (aka income taxes) are actually a modern form of slavery. A tax rate upon labor of 100% is the very definition of slavery. Therefore any lesser percentage is merely a matter of degree.
Obama shouting ‘tax the rich’ while dining out at $1,000 restaurants is a little hard to take.
Leftists have gushed over the 90% tax rate under Eisenhower.
Rats should just send it all in as example for the others.
last i checked, if there is a $100 bill and 100 people to pay it... ‘fair’ would be $1 each.
the Constitution states how taxation should be appropriated across the population. taxes were to be weighed on the states evenly due to their population (A14S2). richer states, like NY and VA, were not expected to pay more. exactly how those states were to collect their taxes was left up to them. flat, progressive, fair, sales tax, whatever... it was left up to the state.
why? because we just had a revolution over, among other things, outrageous taxation on the individual
the wisdom behind states defining the taxation method allowed the states to experiment and find the best way. if the citizens didn’t like it, they had the freedom to move to a different state. we no longer have that freedom... hell, we can’t even escape fedgov taxes by leaving the country
How much is a fair share? What’s it cost? How much ya got?
Depends on who’s asking the question and who’s answering it.
Hmmmm...fair share...
The fancy dinners that the Obamas had in Hawaii should have been removed right before they poked a fork in. The food should then be taken out and given to the first homeless person found. That’s fair share.
What’s a fair share of what, their wages? How about zero? When I trade my labor and experience for wages, I’m not gaining anything more than my employer. It’s an equal trade we agree on. To say that the exchange of my labor for wages is income is to say that my labor is worth zero, or at least it’s only worth my gross income minus net income divided by the hours I worked.
If I make $20 per hour, but my taxable income is the equivalent of $15 of that per hour, the government is saying I am only providing $5 per hour of value, because the rest is “gain” according to supporters of the income tax.