Political posterizing.

[Coito ergo sum]

523253_475068339170816_1141942500_n.jpg

O.k. - look -- the top 10% of income earners pay 70.47% of income taxes in the US (tax year 2009) How much more of the total tax burden should they pay? 82%? 90%? Foot the entire bill? 100%?

How about they pay the same percentage a working mother pays.

They do. Most "working mothers" pay something between jack and squat in effective income tax rates, which is the rate actually paid after deduction, home interest and renters deductions, child care credits, earned income deductions... the average family of four pays about a 5% effective federal income tax rate. A single mother making $29,000 a year likely pays $0 or a net gain. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias ... -year-job/

Then we wouldn't have a national debt. You said that they pay 70.47%, but you don't say what that means to them. If it goes up 1% will they have to live in the street?

So what percentage of the total tax burden should the top 5% pay? If 70% is not enough, then what is? 80%? 90%? What?

The point is -- we already HAVE a graduated, progressive income tax, and the rich DO pay more than the poor, and they pay a higher rate, and the whole smoke and mirrors about warren buffet PAYING a lower rate then the average secretaries or working families is pure, unadulterated bull bollocks.

[Ian]

So what percentage of the total tax burden should the top 5% pay? If 70% is not enough, then what is? 80%? 90%? What?

You still missed the point. The percentage they contribute to the total tax burden is irrelevant (or more to the point, it IS insufficient). The problem is that what the total revenue comes out to is still far short of what it's supposed to cover.

Look at it this way: if we ever get to a point where the top 1% owns 99% of all the wealth, would it be unfair to them if they're the ones providing 95% of the total tax revenue? Of course not. Well, the top 10% now own considerably more than the 70% they put into the tax coffers. Specifically, the top 10% has about 82% of the wealth in the US, give or take a couple points. It's unfair alright - it's unfair for the bottom 90%! They only own about 18% and yet their share of the tax burden is 30%.

So, conservatives should not expect sympathy when they whine about how the top 10% contributes a whopping 70% to revenue. They could be, and should be, contributing quite a lot more.
And conservatives definitely should not expect any respect or credibility should they ever claim that it is Republican policies which are meant to help the middle classes. That's outright nonsense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

523253_475068339170816_1141942500_n.jpg

O.k. - look -- the top 10% of income earners pay 70.47% of income taxes in the US (tax year 2009) How much more of the total tax burden should they pay? 82%? 90%? Foot the entire bill? 100%?

How about they pay the same percentage a working mother pays.

They do. Most "working mothers" pay something between jack and squat in effective income tax rates, which is the rate actually paid after deduction, home interest and renters deductions, child care credits, earned income deductions... the average family of four pays about a 5% effective federal income tax rate. A single mother making $29,000 a year likely pays $0 or a net gain. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias ... -year-job/

So you admit they don't pay any taxes.

Then we wouldn't have a national debt. You said that they pay 70.47%, but you don't say what that means to them. If it goes up 1% will they have to live in the street?

So what percentage of the total tax burden should the top 5% pay? If 70% is not enough, then what is? 80%? 90%? What?

The point is -- we already HAVE a graduated, progressive income tax, and the rich DO pay more than the poor, and they pay a higher rate, and the whole smoke and mirrors about warren buffet PAYING a lower rate then the average secretaries or working families is pure, unadulterated bull bollocks.

I don't believe you about that.

[Warren Dew]

More posters, less mountains of text!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More posters, less mountains of text!

[Ayaan]

[Ayaan]

[Coito ergo sum]

So what percentage of the total tax burden should the top 5% pay? If 70% is not enough, then what is? 80%? 90%? What?

You still missed the point. The percentage they contribute to the total tax burden is irrelevant (or more to the point, it IS insufficient). The problem is that what the total revenue comes out to is still far short of what it's supposed to cover.

Look at it this way: if we ever get to a point where the top 1% owns 99% of all the wealth, would it be unfair to them if they're the ones providing 95% of the total tax revenue? Of course not. Well, the top 10% now own considerably more than the 70% they put into the tax coffers. Specifically, the top 10% has about 82% of the wealth in the US, give or take a couple points. It's unfair alright - it's unfair for the bottom 90%! They only own about 18% and yet their share of the tax burden is 30%.

So, conservatives should not expect sympathy when they whine about how the top 10% contributes a whopping 70% to revenue. They could be, and should be, contributing quite a lot more.
And conservatives definitely should not expect any respect or credibility should they ever claim that it is Republican policies which are meant to help the middle classes. That's outright nonsense.

Your facts are wrong. We tax income.

The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The top 10 percent earned 43% of the total adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 70.5% of total income taxes.

The top 25 percent earned 65.8% of the total adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 87.5% of the total income tax.

The bottom 75% earned 34.2% of total adjusted gross income, but paid 12.5% of the total income tax.

So, how should these numbers change?

If you're advocating that we confiscate "wealth" (on which taxes have already been paid, or which would include the appreciation in value of real property even before the money is realized in a sale, etc.), then you're talking about something radically different than what has ever been done in the US before. It may well be the fundamental change that you want. But, it is certainly not something I would ever want.

[Coito ergo sum]

523253_475068339170816_1141942500_n.jpg

O.k. - look -- the top 10% of income earners pay 70.47% of income taxes in the US (tax year 2009) How much more of the total tax burden should they pay? 82%? 90%? Foot the entire bill? 100%?

How about they pay the same percentage a working mother pays.

They do. Most "working mothers" pay something between jack and squat in effective income tax rates, which is the rate actually paid after deduction, home interest and renters deductions, child care credits, earned income deductions... the average family of four pays about a 5% effective federal income tax rate. A single mother making $29,000 a year likely pays $0 or a net gain. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias ... -year-job/

So you admit they don't pay any taxes.

Federal income -- generally,they get a net gain, or pay no taxes, or pay very little.

They do pay sales taxes depending on the state, and if they own a home they pay property taxes, and such. So, I would never say "they don't pay any taxes."

Then we wouldn't have a national debt. You said that they pay 70.47%, but you don't say what that means to them. If it goes up 1% will they have to live in the street?

So what percentage of the total tax burden should the top 5% pay? If 70% is not enough, then what is? 80%? 90%? What?

The point is -- we already HAVE a graduated, progressive income tax, and the rich DO pay more than the poor, and they pay a higher rate, and the whole smoke and mirrors about warren buffet PAYING a lower rate then the average secretaries or working families is pure, unadulterated bull bollocks.

I don't believe you about that.

Well, you're wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, you're wronger.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, you're wronger.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, there is no "U" in "No".


No, no, glad to help.

[Coito ergo sum]

[Ian]

CES - Would a capital gains tax be "something that is radically different and has never before existed in the US"?

Please, nothing about what I wrote is radical. Yes, we tax income - and what you wrote only emphasizes how disproportional wealth is really distributed in the US. The middle and lower classes have little to fall back on besides their salaries. The wealthy tend to have a salary and other assets. So judging the tax burden by wealth instead of merely by salary is very reasonable. Those tax rates should go up for everybody, especially those at the top. They're undertaxed now, and I'll bet you're smart enough to realize it.

Unless of course you're suggesting that progressive tax is a bad idea, in which case you would be the radical. You'd have to go back to the pre-Civil War days for an example of a time when we didn't have it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is that the shocker or the show stopper?