# What is a fair amount of tax for the rich to pay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416 "2010-04-26T16:52:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/301 "2010-05-02T17:22:09Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I always figured the folks making from approximately $90k-$110k were getting hosed the most because most or all of their income is subject to the SS tax. It’s become a struggle for the hearts and minds of that group because the wealthy tell them “If only the government would get off your back a little, you could be rich like us!”, while the working class and struggling middle class are telling them “The wealthy business interests have been sucking us dry, and you’re next.” > > Also, the numbers in that PDF indicate that state and local taxes aren’t all that progressive. I’m betting some of these struggling states are way too reliant on sales taxes. Over all, states get 26% of their revenue from income taxes and the rest from sales taxes, property taxes, and fees. In the PDF it shows that state and local taxes are actually regressive for all income quintiles. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/302 "2010-05-02T17:37:09Z")
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1](http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1) This is a Cit-Group plan dent to rich customers !. World is divided in 2 groups-Plutonomies -where economic growth is powered and consumed by the wealthy few and the rest. The characteristics of Plutonomies are disruptive technologies, creative financial innnovations,capitalist friendly governments, international use of immigrant band rule of law. There is much more but they describe how the government and the economic control will be a tool of the few . This is long but, it is Citi-Group laying out their plans . If this doesn’t shake you up, I don’t know what will. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/303 "2010-05-02T23:00:36Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > We don’t tax churches. Many of them aren’t exactly skimping by. And exempting churches from taxes has nothing to do with rhetoric about “fair or unfair.” Would it be better for the country if they were taxed? I dunno. You’re correct, it has nothing to do with fair and unfair. I believe churches aren’t taxed to ensure that government doesn’t establish one over another through taxation > [@](#): > > As for not taxing the businessman, yes I could see how a government could rationalize _not_ taxing a rich person if the government thought he could bring economic growth to the area. It wouldn’t look like a straight exemption though. It would be disguised as a tax moratorium or creative subsidy. This scenario also wouldn’t have anything to do with fair/unfair – the government in this case is simply making an objective bet that not taxing the businessman to lure him to the area would bring jobs, thereby increasing the overall tax base. The government basically is doing it by calculated greed vs trying to dole out “fairness.” The government can create an infinite number of unfair tax policies - this thread is about what is a fair one and I’m wondering about a basic principle we can use to determine if a tax policy is fair or not. > [@](#): > > That’s _market segmentation_ and different from what I was talking about. I’m emphasizing that we don’t charge different prices for the exact same item/service by first examining what buyers’ incomes are. > > When I get a haircut, the barber does not ask to see my last 12 months of paystubs to calculate how much he should charge me. But market segmentation only works because of marginal utility. Your barber doesn’t look because you self select a barber targeting your level of income. Haircut prices can vary my an order of magnitude at least, and the pants I mentioned are 20xs as expensive as ones you can buy at Target. Unless their target market is pants fetishists, we can assume they are bought by people for whom they are about as expensive as normal pants for you and I. And I’d bet the people who buy them do not make 20X what we do - but they have enough spare money so that buying them is not a hardship. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/304 "2010-05-03T00:56:14Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > No problem, you need the help. Always happy to learn something which why I enjoy GDs. In this case it wasn’t you offering useful information > [@](#): > > So far you have advocated a tax system that will lower taxes on the rich , well that must automatically be bad. I did note that under a flat tax without all the loopholes and special case deductions the wealthiest still pay a lot more taxes than anyone else right? We’re also just talking income tax rather than other forms of state and Fed revenue. > [@](#): > > have even more people at the low end get a free ride, the deductions would benefit everyone equally and would not eliminate all taxes, so free ride is just ridiculous. > [@](#): > > and raise taxes on the middle class. that and the principle of marginal utility does give me something to consider. I’m glad \*somebody \* made the effort to offer some information, which I kinda expect in GD > [@](#): > > Then you want to lower tax rates during a boom, which leads to having to raise them during a bust so that you’ll have less demand and prolong an economic turn down. I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Lowering taxes during a boom does not automatically mean no surplus and raising them during a downturn. > [@](#): > > I’m looking for the trifecta of poor public policy. How about returning to the gold standard? How about offering some worthwhile information rather than information free criticism? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/305 "2010-05-03T01:47:10Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Dan** , your initial is [not](http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf) completely true (warning, pdf), or rather is only true under particular definitions of “rich”. The biggest share relative to income is not paid by the top 1% or the next 4%. The 90-94.9%ile pays the biggest share relative to income - that group, with an average income of $144K, pays 32.2% of total income to total taxes, while the top 1% pays 30.9%. The entire lower 99% averages 29.4% of total income paid for total taxes, so they don’t even pay much more per unit income than the average Joe. The lower 20% does get off a little easier, paying 18.7% of their income to total taxes. > > Now I suspect that this board has an over representation of well educated professional sorts that are likely clustered near enough that $144K average that they fall into the 90-95%ile or pretty damn close. And likely few who make enough to be in that top 1% ([$348K plus](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html) in 2007). > > Is it “fair” that the 90-95%ile group pays more of their total income in taxes than does the top 1%? Now that’s interesting. Help me understand the graphs. In the first graph the first total taxes column is a % of taxes collected and the second is % of taxes paid correct? Is the 2nd graph also total taxes paid compared to income? It seems the fourth group pays almost as much as the top 1% {because they make up a much higher percentage of the population?} but the top group still pays more taxes than any other group. Is that correct? It also seems that the fourth and fifth group combined pay more taxes than the top 1%. Is that also correct? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/306 "2010-05-03T02:06:34Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > It’s pretty funny looking at that PDF. Essentially it’s saying that the outcome of the current tax system is pretty much what the advocates of the flat tax would like to have. Most people pay close to their share of taxes relative to income, with those at the bottom paying relatively less. Using **CosmoDan** ’s exemptions, the first 20-40% of households would pay no taxes at all (state, local or federal) and we’d need to spread their current share of taxes over the rest, giving a tax rate of somewhat more than 31%. That would be a tax increase for 60% of households and some hard to calculate number of households in the 2nd quintile. That means that the tea party demographic would pay more. They could take solace, however, in knowing that the richest 1% would pay less. > > All of the above, however, ignores that fact that we have a huge deficit. The actual tax rates would need to be a higher for a while, or there would need to be draconian budget cuts in the range of 20% plus. I’d start with Medicare as it’s a win-win: waste less on health care for old people and then when they die early we’d save money on social security as well. > > This would make quite a platform: We are going to raise your taxes, lower them on the richest 1%, have the free-loaders on the bottom pay nothing, and cut your Medicare benefits. I’m not sure I’d want to give that speech to armed Tea Partiers. > > ETA: fixed typos So when someone presents some facts to show you’re mistaken and we’re close to a flat tax in a very convoluted complex way, your response is “Yeah but cosmosdan was more wrong” The problem is you’re still wrong because the pdf includes all taxes and I was only referring to income tax. Not sales , property, or even really state income tax ftm since we don’t have one here in TN. It does seem in concept alone , we’ve gravitated toward the flat tax idea. That’s not counting UHC which I would support as a non deductible percentage and educational opportunities for everyone as a boon to all society. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/307 "2010-05-03T03:55:20Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > So when someone presents some facts to show you’re mistaken and we’re close to a flat tax in a very convoluted complex way, your response is “Yeah but cosmosdan was more wrong” > > The problem is you’re still wrong because the pdf includes all taxes and I was only referring to income tax. Not sales , property, or even really state income tax ftm since we don’t have one here in TN. It does seem in concept alone , we’ve gravitated toward the flat tax idea. > > That’s not counting UHC which I would support as a non deductible percentage and educational opportunities for everyone as a boon to all society. No, you don’t understand, I was agreeing with the other poster. Despite all the wailing by conservatives, the rich do not pay an undo amount of taxes as a percentage of income. For Federal taxes only, the rich pay a greater share of taxes than their share of income, but not a tremendous amount more. What **DSeid** ’s graph showed is that if you include the regressive state sales and property taxes then the rich really don’t pay more taxes than any group except the bottom quintile, and the richest 1% pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the 90-95th percentile. So I’m not sure exactly what you think I’m wrong about. If we have a flat tax at the federal level then the rich will pay less than they do now and the middle class will pay more. Do you not agree? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/308 "2010-05-03T04:07:23Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > A > the deductions would benefit everyone equally and would not eliminate all taxes, so free ride is just ridiculous. I really have no idea of what you are talking about. A deduction of the first n amount of income does not benefit everyone equally. In your example the family was exempt from the first $40K of income. A family making less than that will pay no taxes at all. Isn’t that the free ride that you conservatives are complaining about. Today, even if they paid no federal income tax at all, they pay 7.25% of their income in FICA taxes. Under your plan a deduction of $40k from a person making $100k means that they only pay taxes on 60% of their income, while a person making $1M pays taxes on 96% of their income, and someone making $100Mm pays taxes on 99.6% of their income. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/309 "2010-05-03T11:43:27Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Now that’s interesting. Help me understand the graphs. > In the first graph the first total taxes column is a % of taxes collected and the second is % of taxes paid correct? > Is the 2nd graph also total taxes paid compared to income? It seems the fourth group pays almost as much as the top 1% {because they make up a much higher percentage of the population?} but the top group still pays more taxes than any other group. Is that correct? It also seems that the fourth and fifth group combined pay more taxes than the top 1%. Is that also correct? It is presenting figures for total taxes collected, not just income and not just Federal The first column shows what percent of the total income produced and of total taxes paid each group produces/pays. So the top 1%ile is shown as having produced 22.2% of the nation’s income and of having paid 23% of the total tax burden; the next 4%ile is producing 14.3% of the nation’s income and paying 15.5% of the total taxes paid; and so on. The second column is what percent of each group’s income goes to taxes (Fed, state/local, and total all listed). And then they show those figures graphically in that order. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/310 "2010-05-03T14:58:07Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > So I’m not sure exactly what you think I’m wrong about. If we have a flat tax at the federal level then the rich will pay less than they do now and the middle class will pay more. Do you not agree? well this > [@](#): > > Using CosmoDan’s exemptions, the first 20-40% of households would pay no taxes at all (state, local or federal) I was referring to federal income tax only not SS state or local. In light of this new graph info it appears to truly assess “fair” we have to consider taxes as a whole, and oddly enough, if that info is accurate, we are in the flat tax ballpark. I agree that changing the federal income tax without also addressing other tax issues that take their toll on the working masses, is unwise. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/311 "2010-05-03T15:17:31Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I really have no idea of what you are talking about. A deduction of the first n amount of income does not benefit everyone equally. In your example the family was exempt from the first $40K of income. A family making less than that will pay no taxes at all. Isn’t that the free ride that you conservatives are complaining about. Today, even if they paid no federal income tax at all, they pay 7.25% of their income in FICA taxes. > > Under your plan a deduction of $40k from a person making $100k means that they only pay taxes on 60% of their income, while a person making $1M pays taxes on 96% of their income, and someone making $100Mm pays taxes on 99.6% of their income. First, because I entertain the concept of a flat tax in the interest of fairness, it’s incorrect to assume I’m a conservative. Most conservative’s including my conservative friends would call me pretty left of center but it does depend on the issue. Although I prefer to live in a society where we offer aide and opportunity to the less fortunate I also see the need to steer people toward personal accountability. We don’t want to be a society that enables bad behavior on either end of the spectrum. We are reminded fairly often on these boards that poor families that pay no income tax , or even get more back than they paid in, still pay taxes in other forms. So, I was not advocating a free ride for anyone. I think promoting the idea that almost everyone ought to pay something to reap the benefits of our society promotes that sense of personal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/312 "2010-05-03T15:18:28Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > In light of this new graph info it appears to truly assess “fair” we have to consider taxes as a whole, and oddly enough, if that info is accurate, we are in the flat tax ballpark. I agree that changing the federal income tax without also addressing other tax issues that take their toll on the working masses, is unwise. Sorry I have been snarky. Do you think that if more people were aware of the real impact of the tax code, rather than the common perception that the rich pay way more than their share, that it would change the attitude of groups like the Tea Partiers? Or for that matter, do you think that most people really know how much Federal income tax they pay? I know that I am always surprised when I look at the actual numbers. It may not have been clear, but in my figures I was including SS and other payroll taxes. Because SS tax is capped, it makes the tax system less progressive. Often times people will look only at income tax, without realizing that 75% of Americans pay more in SS than they do in Federal income tax. One of the easiest changes we could make to the tax code is to lift that cap. Historically that has not been done because of the desire to keep SS separate, and because SS benefits are capped. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/313 "2010-05-03T15:22:40Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think promoting the idea that almost everyone ought to pay something to reap the benefits of our society promotes that sense of personal responsibility. I actually agree with that. Even if it is a realtively small amount, I like the idea that everyone pays _something_. If for no other reason, I think it would help create a sense of community. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/314 "2010-05-03T16:41:35Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Sorry I have been snarky. Accepted and thank you. I am embarrassingly ignorant of the big picture and the numbers concerning taxes so participating here was educational for me. > [@](#): > > Do you think that if more people were aware of the real impact of the tax code, rather than the common perception that the rich pay way more than their share, that it would change the attitude of groups like the Tea Partiers? Or for that matter, do you think that most people really know how much Federal income tax they pay? I know that I am always surprised when I look at the actual numbers. I think the big picture is different than that. I have several conservative friends who are terrific people and their frustration seems to be the government taking the money they work hard for and earn and giving to people who don’t earn it. It’s not that they don’t want to help others. They do. One even started a small charitable organization. It’s just that they think the government as a whole is horrible at it and all the entitlement programs get abused and discourage personal responsibility. I think what they may not realize is how small a number that abuse is in relation to other economic issues. One friend is in the 150k annual income bracket and we’ve talked several times about the % he pays vs others. It hasn’t stopped him form having a fabulous home and lots of toys but it still bugs him as unfair. I do agree that people are woefully ignorant of how taxes work. I know I got a bit more back this year than last but I saw a video online of Tea Party protesters being interviewed and denying that working families got more back. > [@](#): > > It may not have been clear, but in my figures I was including SS and other payroll taxes. Because SS tax is capped, it makes the tax system less progressive. Often times people will look only at income tax, without realizing that 75% of Americans pay more in SS than they do in Federal income tax. Really? Wow. > [@](#): > > One of the easiest changes we could make to the tax code is to lift that cap. Historically that has not been done because of the desire to keep SS separate, and because SS benefits are capped. Is it also true that people get back all they paid in a more on a pretty regular basis? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/315 "2010-05-03T16:42:45Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I actually agree with that. Even if it is a realtively small amount, I like the idea that everyone pays _something_. If for no other reason, I think it would help create a sense of community. Right, a sense that, since we share this society everyone should contribute what they can. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/316 "2010-05-03T18:01:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But market segmentation only works because of marginal utility. > … > > - but they have enough spare money so that buying them is not a hardship. Incorrect. You’ve narrowly connected “marginal utility” to the **quantity** of money. This is not necessary. One can have marginal utility simply based on how different people **prioritize their usage** of money. Therefore, market segmentation can still work even if everyone was given an _equal_ amount of money. You give $10,000 to both John and Jane. They have an equal quantity of money. John, happens to really like movies. Jane, happens to really like fancy clothes. Market segmentation can still be applied because John will pay more for a premium Blu-Ray disc than Jane. Jane will pay more for a hat than John. It’s the buying preferences and **not the quantity of money** that lays at the foundation of marginal utility. Therefore, your characterization of “market segmentation” being similar to progressive taxes is wrong. Likewise, it is entirely reasonable to see progressive taxation as “more unfair” than a flat tax because the progressive tax is connected to “quantity” of money. There are good reasons for progressive taxes but “marginal utility” is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/317 "2010-05-03T19:19:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I agree but you don’t use the highest spending year in our history as the baseline. > > I think we should pay down debt or (gasp) save money when we expect a surplus but the last surplus we had was consumed (and then some) to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Remember Clinton left an expected budget surplus and before 9/11 or any of that stuff, Bushco jammed a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans through congress and this tax cut more than consumed the projected surplus but Bush said it would be OK ebcause tax cuts will generate more tax revenue (something even the CATO institute doesn’t believe anymore). Of course tax cuts _can_ raise revenue, just as tax raises _can_ lower it. Historical precedent and common sense says so (otherwise we’d all be on board with that 99% tax rate). Unfortunately for the idealogues of the right and left, neither _always_ does so, and it’s usually impossible to predict in advance. You’ll find no defense from me of Bush’s budget policy, but it must be pointed out that he did not merely cut taxes – he also [raised spending massively](http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31), even if you exclude the military. Bush was running a deficit even if the tax cuts never happened. Obama is just increasing spending even faster yet, while raising taxes. And no, that’s not one-time stimulus: Even if we assume absolutely everything goes according to their plan, the current administration will not balance the budget. [Not in five years, not in ten years](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Summary.shtml#1099511), not in any planned future at all. And of course, it won’t go according to plan. There will be be another downturn, or another war, and again, the cries will go up for “one time” spending to deal with this new, “unexpected” crisis. This is not a partisan point. Bush was shitty too, and I expect that whatever Pub is next in office will be shitty. Even if my wet dreams come true and we elect a serious libertarian, I’d expect him to be hamstrung by congress, the bureacracy, corporate interests and ultimately, we the people, who are addicted to our government cheese. I expect we’ll keep on going until it all goes south, and then, like Greece, we’re going to be shocked and angry when people decline to keep funding our profligacy. While I’m all for tax reform (massive simplification, including combining ALL federal taxes, would be my biggest wish) unless and until we get our spending under control, fiddling with the tax code just determines how quickly or how slowly we sink. Which of course takes me off the topic of this thread … ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/318 "2010-05-04T04:25:05Z")
[http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/](http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/) Time for you kiddies to get your hackles up. There is a bi-partisan Fiscal Commission that is intended to prevent financial disaster. They say time is of the essence. One member Reuschauer says the longer reform takes, the greater the chance for financial collapse. Bernanke said it is important to make the tax system fair and equitable, while considering how much revenue is needed. Other members include Budget Director Orzag and Former CBO director Penner. I feel sad that you guys can not see what has been done. Nor do you want to face what it will take to fix it. But we are not out of the woods. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/319 "2010-05-04T08:36:39Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’d say between 20% an 35%. But for me, a better answer than an actual number is: the same percent everybody else pays. If you make $10,000,000, pay say $2,000,000. If you make $100,000, pay $20,000. This ignores the fact that the utility of money diminishes the more you have of it. Or to put it another way: Take away 30% of a rich man’s income and he’s still living a life of luxury. Take away 30% of a poor man’s income and he’s out on the street. A flat tax is only “fair” for what I would consider an overly simplistic definition of “fairness”. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/320 "2010-05-04T17:10:25Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Current spending has little to do with the question of what taxes are fair. So if the richest man in the country paid $1 because that is all it cost to run our government, you would have a problem with the fact that he was carrying the entire burden? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=17)