Their fair share of your labor

[Deacon]

What would you say is the politicians' fair share of what you earn? How much is Trump's fair share? How much is Hillary's fair share? Are those amounts different? How much of what you earn do they deserve, are they entitled to take for their own use? Are they entitled to seize 90% of the wage you worked for, of the returns on investments you made with what was left? Do they deserve 10%? How much is their fair share to take from you?

[NorthernComfort]

This sounds like some semantic word dance around what tax rate I want to pay, which can't be looked at in isolation. More importantly: how much does the government spend, what do they spend it on, and are we balancing fiscal and monetary policy in respect to being the global reserve currency?

[Deacon]

Why are you avoiding your fair share?

I think the "fair share" thing begs the question. It starts out with the presumption that politicians are entitled to take your paycheck, and that there's some amount for them to take that is only fair, and if they take any less then it's unfair to the politicians, that you owe them.

It seems to be lobbed confidently and hungrily by exclusively progressives. Which is a little disingenuous when half the Obama administration has been caught by the IRA for not paying taxes.

But that said, why couldn't you throw out there how much of your earnings the politicians are entitled to take to spend on your behalf as they see fit?

[NorthernComfort]

Why are you avoiding your fair share?

Because it’s an oversimplification. Religion can get away with dictating the dogma of the tithe, but fiscal policy is much more complicated. There’s no such thing as a simple fair share.

It starts out with the presumption that politicians are entitled to take your paycheck, and that there's some amount for them to take that is only fair, and if they take any less then it's unfair to the politicians, that you owe them.

The world isn’t fair. Tax policy isn’t fair. You pay what the law dictates you are required to pay. And that sum is determined by many factors, none of which is fairness.

But that said, why couldn't you throw out there how much of your earnings the politicians are entitled to take to spend on your behalf as they see fit?

Because it depends on too many factors to have a simple answer. But on a semantic note, “the politicians” i.e. the federal government is entitled to take whatever amount of my income they decree by law. Two things in life are certain, death and taxes.

[The Cid]

The world isn’t fair. Tax policy isn’t fair. You pay what the law dictates you are required to pay. And that sum is determined by many factors, none of which is fairness.

I will note, though, that loopholes nobody seems interested in closing make it easier to avoid taxation the richer one becomes, sticking the middle class with a full bill and leaving the "one percent" a certain part of America never shuts up about with a million outs.

Which makes our economy extremely lopsided toward the already-rich, and the large business, while punishing entrepreneurs severely for daring to go outside of the normal way of doing things.

[Deacon]

Well when half the households in this country pay no income tax at all, it seems a little rich for them to point fingers at others and GOP up and down shouting about everybody else "paying their fair share."

[The Cid]

At the same time, if we must have these laws, the loopholes create a barrier to entry for our economy with which I am not at all comfortable.

In the name of "looking out for the middle class" a bunch of people have screwed the middle class. By making them pay much more than their "fair" share, and allowing their larger competitors to pay much less than theirs through exploiting loopholes that you can find when you pay enough lawyers and accountants. And raising that bill on the middle class every time you find yourself short on money you refuse to actually make anyone above them have to pay.

A consumption-based tax rather than an income-based tax would, theoretically, be much harder for the richest people to circumvent. It would also become much more proportionate, which is as close as I can get to "fair." Unfortunately, we've decided to essentially close our political system to anyone who would advocate for such things.

[NorthernComfort]

Well when half the households in this country pay no income tax at all, it seems a little rich for them to point fingers at others and GOP up and down shouting about everybody else "paying their fair share.”

How dare those poor people complain about wealthy people! It's downright un-American!

[Deacon]

It's just as easy for hardworking people to look at The Others and use words like bootstraps and phrases like "get a job" and "show up on time" as it is for perpetual porch dwellers to look at The Others and say they get all the breaks. We're all The Others to someone else. And it's always easy to see our own challenges we face and dismiss those of The Others.

But yeah, it's certainly not in keeping with longstanding American ideals to say that person over there found a way to earn a living, so they should give me some of what they got because I don't have much and I can't seem to keep a part time job.

[NorthernComfort]

We're all The Others to someone else. And it's always easy to see our own challenges we face and dismiss those of The Others.

To be honest I can’t really relate to this sentiment. Ignoring my own conscience and sense of empathy for others isn’t easy, but downright impossible.

I think that fundamental difference in our worldview is why I look at tax policy as a piece of a larger puzzle of global monetary circumstances & fiscal/social policy, a piece of a much larger whole, while you focus on individual politicians taking a slice of your individual labor.

[Deacon]

What does the income tax, plus sales tax, plus fuel tax, plus sin tax, plus property tax, etc, have to do with anything global?

[NorthernComfort]

What does the income tax, plus sales tax, plus fuel tax, plus sin tax, plus property tax, etc, have to do with anything global?

At the macro level, taxes are paid in USD and therefore reinforce global demand for USD over other currencies.

At the micro level, every part of the global economy is interconnected.

On a meta-thread level, I have a hunch that you'd rather have a traditional kvetch about tax rates, framed in the dichotomy of 2-party politics, and that discussing macro-economic monetary theory is probably not your cup of tea. And to be blunt, I'm now a bit more cautious about wasting my time wading into topics you may not be familiar with.

[Deacon]

At the macro level, taxes are paid in USD and therefore reinforce global demand for USD over other currencies.

I don't follow. How does the IRS taking dollars from you increase global demand for dollars? It's a closed system.

At the micro level, every part of the global economy is interconnected.

Well, sure. Everything is always connected. Not sure how micro that really is.

You can tread into preemptive accusations of 2-party system support and overall ignorance, but various economists' disagreements over international monetary theory don't really have much to do with how much of what you earn is the government's fair share.

[NorthernComfort]

I don't follow. How does the IRS taking dollars from you increase global demand for dollars? It's a closed system.

Because it's not a closed system. I might want to be paid in Euros or RMB or gold bullion, but come tax time I need to have USD to pay my taxes.

...various economists' disagreements over international monetary theory don't really have much to do with how much of what you earn is the government's fair share.

Because it's a silly question to pose in the first place, and to actually discuss the motives for tax rates and fiscal policies that dicatate them suddenly will dunk you into the deep-end of those various economists and their disagreements. Trying to separate the two issues is a fool's errand so I'm afraid I can't join you in abstractly discussing the notion of fairness when it comes to taxation. I mean, I'm guessiing you think a flat tax is fairer than a progressive tax, and on that I would disagree, but again, taken in total isolation it's about as useful as saying that I prefer the color navy blue and you prefer sky blue. The interactions between monetary and fiscal policy in the US is the real issue at hand here. I suppose you've heard of the tail wagging the dog.