So now that tax day has ended I thought this would be interesting

According to AI we spend $13,500 per person and this is removing Medicare and social security spending. $19,500 if you include those.

If we believe these numbers and this is on income tax alone everyone would need to pay this to pay their share in raw numbers.

Husband and wife= $27,000
Family four= $54,000


This is pretty staggering. Based on this if you aren't paying that per person in your family then you aren't paying your fair share based off these numbers.

Is there a solution? I know cut spending but will that get it down to $7,000 a person? Even then many people won't even pay that.

Even if tariffs would work (I don't think they will) then how would tax cuts work. Too many already pay little to no income tax and the screams of tax cuts for rich will be all over the place.

This doesn't sound manageable

13,500 or 19,500 per person excluding the government's other taxes or just income tax?

$19,500 takes out social security and Medicaid so not counting those taxes. Counting them would be $19,500 just to federal government.

TomFoolery said:

---

The only option is to cut expenses

---

Just like the rest of us do our budget! I only have x coming in. I cannot currently get more than x. I have >x going out. I guess I'll need to spend less.


Edit: I'm in full agreement with you in case my wording was weird.

I don't disagree. Most people here probably pay their fair share. I am just curious how we correct

We certainly have our work and sacrifice cut out for us to climb out of this hole. As a boomer, I say, I hope the younger generation move to the right is sustainable and grows. And so many "educated" women need to open their eyes to reality.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

We should only have a sales tax. Zero exemptions. 2% goes to federal, 2% state, 2% county, 2% city if applicable.

If that's not money the governments are either doing too much or need to be more pro economic growth.


Wealth, property, and income could never be taxed.

---

Since a lot of people do not spend everything they make, and since a large part of people's budget goes to payment of debt (home, vehicles, etc.) which would not be subject to sales tax, how much revenue would your 8% sales tax generate?

How would you allocate the spending of the 2% the federal government would get, i.e., what do you intend to cut?

GrapevineAg said:

---

If you want to discuss "paying your fair share", then shouldn't it be based on what gov't services one consumes? What if I'm not using Medicaid/Medicare - is it fair for me to pay for someone else who is?

---

You have to think of those services like insurance. Everyone pays in and hopes they never need it, but in case of wrmergency it's there.

The only way to claw back from this insanity without a full blown uprising in the streets…and it will be very unpopular on this forum…is to cut spending by about 8-10 percent and raise taxes by about 4-5 percent on the top 35 percent of income earners for about 5 years with a legal sunset provision. It would also require that the income earnings cap on SS tax deductions be eliminated and Medicare tax cost rise to about 5%. That is the fiscal reality unless we rejigger the so called social contract to find other ways to pay for medical care and support the disabled.
It is infuriating that nobody except Rand Paul is serious about a balanced budget.

Ita way more than that when you add up

- SSN and Medicare
- Income tax
- Property tax
- Sales tax
And if you have enough left to invest, Capital Gains tax. And this isn't even the full list of taxes.

Property and sales are state issues.

Gas tax but I am guessing most people spend less than $500 a year on that

Interesting but why not 5% income tax raise on everyone?

If you raise or eliminate the ss cap are you going to raise the maximum monthly payment? If not aren't you just advocating more income redistribution?

JB99 said:

---

GrapevineAg said:

---

If you want to discuss "paying your fair share", then shouldn't it be based on what gov't services one consumes? What if I'm not using Medicaid/Medicare - is it fair for me to pay for someone else who is?

---

You have to think of those services like insurance. Everyone pays in and hopes they never need it, but in case of wrmergency it's there.

---

And welfare? All the other nonsense social programs? With insurance, I can opt out. We're forced to pay for other people's benefits.

Based on this, some of us are paying for quite a few others apparently!

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

We should only have a sales tax. Zero exemptions. 2% goes to federal, 2% state, 2% county, 2% city if applicable.

If that's not money the governments are either doing too much or need to be more pro economic growth.


Wealth, property, and income could never be taxed.

---

How many people proposing a federal sales tax are also against tariffs

Based on this, I paid well more than my 'fair share'...

GrapevineAg said:

---

If you want to discuss "paying your fair share", then shouldn't it be based on what gov't services one consumes? What if I'm not using Medicaid/Medicare - is it fair for me to pay for someone else who is?

---

No it's not fair and it will always lead to failure

Most here without children probably do. Now family of four might be different.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Interesting but why not 5% income tax raise on everyone?

If you raise or eliminate the ss cap are you going to raise the maximum monthly payment? If not aren't you just advocating more income redistribution?

---

The lower income earners don't contribute much to overall revenues because, well, they are net takers. I would be glad to have them pay something and not be net takers, but you know as well as I do the next Democrat president and Congress will radically lower their tax or offset with new government outlays. I am trying to look at what is remotely possible to balance the budget.
Try this budget simulator if you have time:
https://us.abalancingact.com/federal-budget-simulator

Some form of this would be good I think. It would put a lot of accountants who are just trying to do their jobs, and some lawyers who are trying to game the system, out of a job. It may also make it harder for congress to pick winners and losers based on an industry ("green" vs oil for example) which would be a good thing. It would also hopefully reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence. Another good thing. Would congress try to do something stupid though like make the sales tax on energy produced by wind less than the sales tax on energy produced by natural gas. Or the sales tax on a product made from GE less than a product made by a 50 man firm to cut out competition.

backintexas2013 said:

---

So now that tax day has ended I thought this would be interesting

According to AI we spend $13,500 per person and this is removing Medicare and social security spending. $19,500 if you include those.

If we believe these numbers and this is on income tax alone everyone would need to pay this to pay their share in raw numbers.

Husband and wife= $27,000
Family four= $54,000


This is pretty staggering. Based on this if you aren't paying that per person in your family then you aren't paying your fair share based off these numbers.

Is there a solution? I know cut spending but will that get it down to $7,000 a person? Even then many people won't even pay that.

Even if tariffs would work (I don't think they will) then how would tax cuts work. Too many already pay little to no income tax and the screams of tax cuts for rich will be all over the place.

This doesn't sound manageable

---

I own a small business and we paid so much more than that it would probably blow your mind. Orders of magnitude more. High 6 figure tax bills are not uncommon for small business owners.

Remember that even among the workforce not everyone pays taxes. Less than a third of Americans pay income tax so each taxpayer needs to pay closer to an average of $50,000 or so.

Nothing ticks off a progressive, leftist more than when one asks them to define what a "fair share" is ... they resort to name calling along w/ an inordinate amount of screeching.

Same as when ask them how much should be spent to "educate" a kid. Every response is "more."

The government got big because it tried to solve problems the private sector can't fix. Throwing out random tax % isn't helpful. The country needs to align on what will government try to solve, basically what government needs to provide to the people. After we figure that piece out, then we have to figure out how much it'll costs. Then figure out how to raise the money to fund.

No politician has ever told us what they want to keep vs what they want to cut. None of them, even the biggest anti-spend politicians won't loudly tell you what to cut.

I used to care but I don't care anymore. Not worth wasting my brain power on thinking of things that will never happen.

UTExan said:

---

The only way to claw back from this insanity without a full blown uprising in the streets…and it will be very unpopular on this forum…is to cut spending by about 8-10 percent and raise taxes by about 4-5 percent on the top 35 percent of income earners for about 5 years with a legal sunset provision. It would also require that the income earnings cap on SS tax deductions be eliminated and Medicare tax cost rise to about 5%. That is the fiscal reality unless we rejigger the so called social contract to find other ways to pay for medical care and support the disabled.
It is infuriating that nobody except Rand Paul is serious about a balanced budget.

---

Then my vote is uprising. I already pay 5 times my fair share according to the op.

I rather shoot my 5 to 10 fellow Americans that decide to rise up.

That is the easy button solution from my perspective.

Isn't everyone not paying the numbers I posted a taker?

I don't see a way out but I think you are probably spot on that a bunch of people are going to get ****ed in the name of "fair share".

backintexas2013 said:

---

Isn't everyone not paying the numbers I posted a taker?

I don't see a way out but I think you are probably spot on that a bunch of people are going to get ****ed in the name of "fair share".

---

Yes, the overwhelming majority of Americans are not paying their fair share and a taker.

Spending less = Stealing less

That's why it won't happen. Need to lock legislatures up, throw away the keys, and forget to feed them. That's the only solution.

Quote:

---

raise taxes by about 4-5 percent on the top 35 percent of income earners

---

Nope.

Have to be fair. If we have an income tax, it should be 20% of all incomes from 0 to infinity. You get the first $20,000 of income tax free per person, after that, everyone pays.

Better yet, 0 income taxes, sales tax only. That way, big spenders get hit, big savers do not.

Back to the OP, I'd gladly reduce our taxes to $20,000 per person.