# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/341 "2010-05-05T00:18:24Z")
The problem is taxes in America are too low. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/342 "2010-05-05T00:20:59Z")
I’m pretty sure that you can pay more if you really want to, gonzo. Why don’t you contact the IRS and ask them if they would please increase your taxes to a level you feel is appropriate? -XT ---
**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 5, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/343 "2010-05-05T00:31:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Exactly. If you want to cut spending, then cut spending, stop staring at the tax code. Which inspires me to repeat my challenge to Republicans and other anti-taxers. Why not commit to not cut taxes until you cut spending first - and given the deficit, cut spending more than you cut taxes until it is closed. They never seem interested in this proposition because they know full well that despite all the election year blathering, cutting spending to the degree necessary is political suicide. If they commit to this reasonable proposition, they know they will never decrease taxes. They would be fiscally responsible, but clearly that isn’t very important to them. (And I know about needing to spend in a recession - I think I started this challenge before the crash.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/344 "2010-05-05T02:48:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you remember the story of the poor woman offering a pittance to Jesus? The apostles laughed at her because it was such a small amount and Jesus rebuked his apostles for their ridicule and said that her pennies mean more to him than a welathy man offering a lot of money? Its because Jesus understood marginal utility and knew that the sacrifice the poor woman was making far exceeded the sacrifice the wealthy were making. You confuse _giving_ with _taking_. We can have a 1% tax and that does not prevent any person from either writing a check to the government for another 98% or _giving_ it away to charity. So, you can get off your high camel. Taxes are what one MUST pay, what he can and will be FORCED to pay. Charity is given freely. Do you really think that Rich Person A and Rich Person B would be the same is Jesus’s eyes if one voluntarily gave away 99% of his income and the other wrote a check for that amount because he was required to do so or be locked up? Nope. Sorry. Like I said, you confuse given something and having it taken. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you want to do a “what would jesus do” analysis of distributing the tax burden, I don’t think you end up where you think you would end up. When Jesus represents the government, we can talk about the relevance of this then. In the meantime, if you think me a religious type, you’re mistaken. I only brought that up to show how organizations that have been around for thousands of years have handled the issue. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Because Person A can live without want with what they make in the month of June alone while Person B will have to make significant tradeoffs in consumption when they spend or save the money they earn from April through December. Rich people have it easier in many ways than poor people. Film at 11. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think most people would agree with this. I’m not so sure. But I’d like to think you’re right. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The current system is not perfect but its a lot fairer than a flat tax system I agree that nothing will be 100% fair by every metric, but I’ll go with the Flat Tax, or the Fair Tax (hey, it even has “fair” in the name ;)) over what we have now to deliver fairness. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/345 "2010-05-05T03:10:32Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > That was terrible. The rich get a lot more from the system than we do. Ever drive a junker car through a fancy neighborhood and get pulled over 3 times by the cops? Ever notice the quality of roads in good neighborhoods? We don’t all get great police and fire protection.They pay a far smaller portion of their wealth on taxes while getting far better services. Buffet thought it was wrong his secretary paid a greater proportion of her income in taxes than he did. He figured out it was fundamentally wrong. Too bad you can not see it. If the rich paid a reasonable share we would not have this deficit. Do airports service the rich or poor? A poor person might go on an airplane a couple times in their whole life. The rich get better everything and pay less. Hell they pay much less interest on credit cards or for homes. Lots of poor people pay their credit cards and mortgages on time. But they don’t get preferred rates. The guy who invented credit cards said the rich are subsidized by the rest of us. If you would stop your rant for a second and actually read what I wrote, I never addressed paying for SERVICES such as schools, fire, defense, etc. My argument was specifically on the wealth redistribution inherent in a social welfare program and the rationale for why the rich (not the government because they pay for it with money from taxing the rich) should pay an increasing amount of their salary to help support the poor whether through Social Security, welfare, UHC, food stamps or whatever you want. In other words, why should the rich be forced to give (more) money to the poor? The getting back to the OP, how much is fair. Maybe we should all just pool our money together each paycheck and divvy it up equally. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/346 "2010-05-05T05:25:45Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > In other words, why should the rich be forced to give (more) money to the poor? The getting back to the OP, how much is fair. Maybe we should all just pool our money together each paycheck and divvy it up equally. Let’s see: 1. We live in a democracy and get to vote on laws; some of which set tax policy, others let groups of people form corporations that limit their personal liability, and others protect the intellectual property of individuals. Accepting laws that differ from your personal beliefs without whining is part of growing up. 2. Having social mobility keeps society stable and allows people with natural talent and ambition, rather than just inherited wealth, contribute to the growth of wealth. 3. Someone needs to buy all the shit that rich people make, so having a lopsided distribution of wealth is not good for anyone, including rich people. That’s why a middle class person today lives better than landed gentry of the past. 4. Using the term “distribution of wealth” is stupid. If it were really true, then we would not have had an increase in the inequality of income in the US over the last few years, with the rich having a greater share of the wealth than before and the rest of society facing stagnating wages. ETA: 1. Social Security is a particularly stupid example. It is a flat tax with no exemptions that is capped at $70k or so, so people are pretty much paying their own way. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/347 "2010-05-05T12:10:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you remember the story of the poor woman offering a pittance to Jesus? The apostles laughed at her because it was such a small amount and Jesus rebuked his apostles for their ridicule and said that her pennies mean more to him than a welathy man offering a lot of money? Its because Jesus understood marginal utility and knew that the sacrifice the poor woman was making far exceeded the sacrifice the wealthy were making. > > If you want to do a “what would jesus do” analysis of distributing the tax burden, I don’t think you end up where you think you would end up. I like this. Point taken. I think there’s a passage, “Render unto Ceasar’s what is Ceasar’s , taking marginal ultility into account” ---
**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 5, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/348 "2010-05-05T14:46:16Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m pretty sure that you can pay more if you really want to, gonzo. Why don’t you contact the IRS and ask them if they would please increase your taxes to a level you feel is appropriate? > > -XT Gonzo is right. There is no way to get from where we are to a balanced budget without higher taxes. Our taxes are at historical lows. Anyone that wants tax cuts now are in the bread and circus crowd. ---
**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 5, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/349 "2010-05-05T14:48:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Which inspires me to repeat my challenge to Republicans and other anti-taxers. Why not commit to not cut taxes until you cut spending first - and given the deficit, cut spending more than you cut taxes until it is closed. because they would have to cut military spending, medicare/medicaid, or social security to make any sort of a dent in the budget. Its a lot easier to say "Lets cut taxes and that will cause tax revenues to increase. Its a lie but its much easier politically because people out there will want to believe that you can get something for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/350 "2010-05-05T15:02:31Z")
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] Gonzo is right. There is no way to get from where we are to a balanced budget without higher taxes. Our taxes are at historical lows. Anyone that wants tax cuts now are in the bread and circus crowd. [/QUOTE] Two things. First off, I’m not calling for a tax cut. Secondly, do you have a cite demonstrating that taxes are at an all time low? Because I’m thinking you pulled that out your ass. From memory, taxes were lower during Reagan’s administration, then rose steadily until after Clinton left, then dipped down for a couple of years when Bush proposed his tax cuts, and have been on the rise again since 2004-2005, where they are back to the level they were at when Clinton was in office. Obviously you are looking at some other data, so would you cite it please? -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/351 "2010-05-05T15:04:14Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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. Does personal responsibility extend to those who have the means to escape paying their share of taxes with shelters and off shore hidden bank accounts. How about the powerful who lobby to get their taxes cut, just because they can. Taxes are not fair. that is one reason everybody hates them. If we had a fair tax system, people might not hate it so much. But I tire of people thinking the poor are the ones taking advantage of it. How? What political and financial power do the poor wield? ---
**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 5, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/352 "2010-05-05T15:10:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You confuse _giving_ with _taking_…, you can get off your high camel. I was talking about the fact that 2000 years ago Jesus understood marginal utility when her ecognized the old woman’s offering was a greater sacrifice than the offering of the wealthy. You presented the concept of tithing as support for a flat tax (as if adding the imprimatur of religion gave you some sort of legitimacy). I was presenting the religious (or at least the Christian) argument for marginal utility. So why don’t you come down off your high camel and give me a hand off of mine. > [@](#): > > When Jesus represents the government, we can talk about the relevance of this then. You’re the one that brought up tithing. > [@](#): > > In the meantime, if you think me a religious type, you’re mistaken. I only brought that up to show how organizations that have been around for thousands of years have handled the issue. They used to do a lot of things for thousands of years. > [@](#): > > Rich people have it easier in many ways than poor people. Film at 11 If you can’t wrap your mind around the concept of marginal utility then I don’t know how this discussion progresses. > [@](#): > > I agree that nothing will be 100% fair by every metric, but I’ll go with the Flat Tax, or the Fair Tax (hey, it even has “fair” in the name ;)) over what we have now to deliver fairness. I get a lot of my opinion of what constitutes fair from John Rawls. Its a simple but impracticable idea, but it gives you a perspective from which you might approach things. The biggest problem with fairness is that it is hard to pin down objectively. John Rawls says that if you want to know what is fair you take a person who is not yet born, who doesn’t know if they will be smart, stupid, rich, poor, healthy, sickly, black, white, strong, weak, beautiful, ugly, female, male, they know nothing about who they will be. That person is in a position to give an objective opinion of what is fair. ---
**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 5, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/353 "2010-05-05T15:45:31Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > If you would stop your rant for a second and actually read what I wrote, I never addressed paying for SERVICES such as schools, fire, defense, etc. My argument was specifically on the wealth redistribution inherent in a social welfare program and the rationale for why the rich (not the government because they pay for it with money from taxing the rich) should pay an increasing amount of their salary to help support the poor whether through Social Security, welfare, UHC, food stamps or whatever you want. In other words, why should the rich be forced to give (more) money to the poor? The getting back to the OP, how much is fair. Maybe we should all just pool our money together each paycheck and divvy it up equally. First of all the rich (or at least the strata of the rich we have been talking about) do not give more for social security than millions of people who are less rich than them. This is just also true for medicare. There are two reasons for this. First most of the truly rich don’t earn most of their money from a paycheck so they don’t pay social security or medicare on it (one of the effects of the dividend tax rate reduction has been that businessowners have been paying themselves lower salaries, but they have been paying themselves dividends which results in lower tax liabilities. Second, social security currently has a cap. How much do you think we spend on welfare, food stamps, etc.? Are you familiar with the welfare reform act of 1996? According to the Heritage Foundation (and I will bet dollars to donuts that they are going to come up with a higher number than most), all means tested benefits was $491 billion. Medicaid is about half of that and I agree that we need to cut medicaid/medicare benefits generally and wrap them into a single payer health care system. Most of our income taxes are going to military and interest on debt (about 800 billion/year). If you credit medicare receipts to medicare and social security receipts to social security, the net cost of these two programs is about 50 billion/year (but that number is going to ballloon, which is why we need a single payer health care system). ---
**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 5, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/354 "2010-05-05T16:04:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > because they would have to cut military spending, medicare/medicaid, or social security to make any sort of a dent in the budget. Its a lot easier to say "Lets cut taxes and that will cause tax revenues to increase. Its a lie but its much easier politically because people out there will want to believe that you can get something for nothing. Let’s say I’m not holding my breath. Poll after poll in California show that people want more money for schools, prisons, and roads, and also lower taxes. I guess the cuts can all come out of earmarks and government waste. If we find that government worker with $1 trillion forgotten in his desk drawer, all our problems are solved. ---
**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 5, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/355 "2010-05-05T16:52:13Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I like this. Point taken. > > I think there’s a passage, “Render unto Ceasar’s what is Ceasar’s , taking marginal ultility into account” Yep, once you take marginal utility into account, progressivity makes sense. Without it, flat taxes make sense. ---
**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 5, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/356 "2010-05-05T17:06:33Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Two things. First off, I’m not calling for a tax cut. Secondly, do you have a cite demonstrating that taxes are at an all time low? Because I’m thinking you pulled that out your ass. From memory, taxes were lower during Reagan’s administration, then rose steadily until after Clinton left, then dipped down for a couple of years when Bush proposed his tax cuts, and have been on the rise again since 2004-2005, where they are back to the level they were at when Clinton was in office. > > Obviously you are looking at some other data, so would you cite it please? > > -XT Well there are certainly people who are calling for cuts in the top marginal tax rate. I said taxes are at historical lows. Simply google “historical tax rates” and there is a plethora of charts showing historical tax rates and aside from a 7 year period during the 20’s and early 30’s and a 5 year period during the late 80’s early 90’s, we have never had lower income tax rates. Our capital gains rates haven’t been this low since 1916 and dividends have never been treated differently than ordinary income. Tax rates were higher than they are now for the majority of Reagan’s administration (top margnial tax rates of 50% for most of his administration, 38.5 for one year and 28 for the very last year of his administration). Income tax rates have not chaged 2003, the capital gains rate was increased to 20% in 2009 (along with teh dividend tax rate) and the Clinton tax rates don’t come back until 2011. ---
**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 5, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/357 "2010-05-05T17:14:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Let’s say I’m not holding my breath. Poll after poll in California show that people want more money for schools, prisons, and roads, and also lower taxes. I guess the cuts can all come out of earmarks and government waste. If we find that government worker with $1 trillion forgotten in his desk drawer, all our problems are solved. Yeah, I was talking to a doctor friend of mine the other day and he was complaining about Obama. He was pissed because Obama was raising taxes (not technically true but close enough). Then he turned around and started getting pissed because Obama cut medicare part C which paid out 15% more than regular medicare. So I asked him whether he wanted more benefits or lower taxes. He honestly believed that we could have both because lowering taxes would raise revenue. I broke it to him that we would probably have to raise taxes while reducing benefits to get anywhere close to a balanced budget in our children’s lifetime. He believed me because of what I do for a living but he kept asking me if I was sure that lowering taxes wouldn’t raise the federal tax revenue. I assured him that if that were true, the Democrats would be the first ones to jump on this so that they could spend that money to provide criminals with pay per view and to pay more money to welfare queens. He seemed to accept that explanation. He’s very bright but he has been hanging out with the wrong crowd since he went into private practice. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/358 "2010-05-05T20:23:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > First of all the rich (or at least the strata of the rich we have been talking about) do not give more for social security than millions of people who are less rich than them. This is just also true for medicare. There are two reasons for this. First most of the truly rich don’t earn most of their money from a paycheck so they don’t pay social security or medicare on it (one of the effects of the dividend tax rate reduction has been that businessowners have been paying themselves lower salaries, but they have been paying themselves dividends which results in lower tax liabilities. Second, social security currently has a cap. > > How much do you think we spend on welfare, food stamps, etc.? Are you familiar with the welfare reform act of 1996? > > According to the Heritage Foundation (and I will bet dollars to donuts that they are going to come up with a higher number than most), all means tested benefits was $491 billion. > > Medicaid is about half of that and I agree that we need to cut medicaid/medicare benefits generally and wrap them into a single payer health care system. > > Most of our income taxes are going to military and interest on debt (about 800 billion/year). If you credit medicare receipts to medicare and social security receipts to social security, the net cost of these two programs is about 50 billion/year (but that number is going to ballloon, which is why we need a single payer health care system). So let’s say I concede to all that. We are still left with the question of why the rich should pay more tax. Will the increase in tax? 1. Be used to retire the debt or at least lower the deficit? 2. Be used to increase the budget? 3. Be used to increase social programs? In the first case, I would agree that a higher tax is fair while in the third case it would be unfair since it is simple wealth redistribution. I suspect that the reality would be #2 where the increase will raise expenditures on services and welfare. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/359 "2010-05-05T21:21:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Except at the very extreme ends, this is untrue. Tax cuts simply do not generate enough additional economic activity to overcome the reduction in tax rate. Please define “extreme ends.” In this thread, multiple people have advocated 90%+ rates. I find it highly improbable that 90% tax rates would not discourage risk-taking investments. > [@](#): > > Other than health care, how is he raising spending (and I beleive with health care we are paying 1% more in halth care costs to cover an additional 15% of the population, maybe not a bargain you wold make but a bargain nonetheless). > **[United States federal budget | Total outlays in recent budget submissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_in_recent_budget_submissions)** > > 1.2025 United States federal budget – $6.8 trillion (submitted 2024 by President Biden) | > 2.2024 United States federal budget – $6.8 trillion (submitted 2023 by President Biden) | > 3.2023 United States federal budget – $6.1 trillion (submitted 2022 by President Biden) | > 4.2022 United States federal budget – $6.3 trillion (submitted 2021 by President Biden) | > 5.2021 United States federal budget – $6.8 trillion (submitted 2020 by President Trump) | > 6.2020 United States federal budget – $6.5 tri... > [@](#): > > And not to argue semantics but I thought Obama was letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire while cutting taxes for the bottom 95% of the country and raising taxes on the top 1%. That was his claim, and he has not directly raised income taxes on those making below $250K; he has, however, raised a variety of other taxes that will certainly affect them, directly or indirectly. [http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/01/19/cato-institutes-list-of-creative-obama-taxes/](http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/01/19/cato-institutes-list-of-creative-obama-taxes/) [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html](http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html) > [@](#): > > What does a balanced budget have to do with whether or not the stimulus is a one time event or a structural budget item? To recap: you suggested that it was unfair for Sam to use last year’s deficit to point out how bad our debt situation was, because after all, the “stimulus” was last year and that was a unique event. I have pointed out that that is/was not the case, and that the current admin plans to continue the policy of running deficits each and every year, in good times and bad. ---
**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 6, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/360 "2010-05-06T01:32:05Z")
> [@furt](#): > > … In this thread, multiple people have advocated 90%+ rates. … I must have missed this. Can you please quote some of these “multiple” examples? I seen posts documenting that extremely high rates were tolerated in the past without devastating economic consequences, but that is not advocating it. In terms of posts that actually address the op I only seen a few themes: The same percent of income is “fair” with variants of that being total tax or just income tax. That it isn’t “fair” if a certain wealthier percentile grouping pays more total tax than a lower percentile grouping. That fairness should be based on marginal utility. That progressive taxation is “fair” because the wealthier benefit from society more. That “fair” is what society will tolerate that raises most effectively the revenue that society has decided to spend. That the fairness of what is paid depends on what it is being spent on. BTW, I do have a problem with the concept of marginal utility. Imagine if you please a wealthy individual, top 1%, who has overspent himself, lots of debt and lots of incoming bills. He is on the brink of bankruptcy and every dollar matters to him right now. His marginal utility is high even though his income is high as well. Should (s)he be taxed at a low rate because (s)he has been fiscally imprudent? Compare that to a lower income individual who has saved for years and can now afford to splurge a little and buy some luxuries. Given his/her extensive savings his/her marginal utility is low. Should he consequently be taxed at a higher rate as a consequence of his fiscal prudence? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=19)