An Inconvenient Truth About The Bush Tax Cuts

Quote from deltastrike:

What would make the most sense to me would be a ratio in personal income vs. the gross national income. I.e. you're in the top 1%, at the national level you make up 50% of the gross income, you should be taxed at 50%. You can extrapolate from there. There should also be a +/- factor for average cost of living for the lower classes. Then again, I think that's kind of the point of having a marginal tax system. Now if just worked the way it's supposed to...
More...
I agree with you.
The top 1% make 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes.
All the top categories pay about double their percent of income.
The top 50% pay 100% of taxes.

The bottom 50% make about 20% of income. They pay no federal taxes. Do you believe the bottom 50% should pay taxes?

I would say that the current tax scheme is the optimal progressive tax program.
Very hard to say that any group is not paying their fair share, except the bottom 50% who pay nothing
 
Quote from Mercor:

I agree with you.
The top 1% make 20% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes.
All the top categories pay about double their percent of income.
The top 50% pay 100% of taxes.

The bottom 50% make about 20% of income. They pay no federal taxes. Do you believe the bottom 50% should pay taxes?

I would say that the current tax scheme is the optimal progressive tax program.
Very hard to say that any group is not paying their fair share, except the bottom 50% who pay nothing
More...

According to what I'm seeing here the top 1% make about the same, if not more than the bottom 50% combined. This is where the +/- cost of living comes in (tax deductions). The top 1% can handle taking an extra point or two on their taxes because their cost of living vs. income ratio is much lower than that of the bottom 50% (generally speaking).
 
Quote from deltastrike:

According to what I'm seeing here the top 1% make about the same, if not more than the bottom 50% combined. This is where the +/- cost of living comes in (tax deductions). The top 1% can handle taking an extra point or two on their taxes because their cost of living vs. income ratio is much lower than that of the bottom 50% (generally speaking).
More...
The top 1% make 16.9% of income and pay 36.7% of taxes
The bottom 50% make 13.5%% of income and pay 2.3% of taxes

To me this is very progressive.

You have joined all the others calling for fair share paying.
Please tell me if it is fair to change the 36.7% and the 2.3% that the 1% and bottom 50% pay.
What would you change the number to to make it fair in your mind.
 
Quote from Optional:

How many of you retards here who rail that the 1% are getting screwed are even IN that 1%?
I'm gonna wager its 1%
More...
The eternal question that no Liberals will ever give a straight answer.
To make sure all pay their fair share......
What percent of all taxes should the top 1% pay?
What percent of all taxes should the bottom 50% pay?

I have never got an answer from any democrat
 
Quote from Mercor:

The top 1% make 16.9% of income and pay 36.7% of taxes
The bottom 50% make 13.5%% of income and pay 2.3% of taxes

To me this is very progressive.

You have joined all the others calling for fair share paying.
Please tell me if it is fair to change the 36.7% and the 2.3% that the 1% and bottom 50% pay.
What would you change the number to to make it fair in your mind.
More...

I suppose I should rephrase then, I'm in favor of a fair, efficient, and effective progressive tax system. As you move up the brackets, the ratio of income to individuals in that bracket increases dramatically. In effect, you have much fewer people earning a lot more. This is where my argument for cost of living:income comes into play. Paying, for example, 10% taxes on a $30k/yr income, when cost of living is ~$28k/yr, is a lot different than paying 10% taxes on a $500k/yr income when cost of living is $300k/yr. Obviously the $500k/yr earner can take the tax burden more easily than the $30k/yr earner. At the same time, the bottom 50% is fairly stratified within itself, which may also be why the effective rates are so low in that bracket. As far as numbers go, I do believe the bottom 50% could pick a bit more of the burden, somewhere in the 5-10% range. Of course this wouldn't relieve too much burden at the top, but then again they can manage better than anybody else. I'm getting long-winded here...but I believe my original argument was that the increase of revenue from the top 0.1% was not a 1:1 reflection of their increase in net worth. If they had paid the taxes on their actual increase of net worth, I believe there would have been more revenue.

P.S. Not a democrat...
 
Quote from Mercor:

Everyone should pay their fair share.
I have yet see someone put a number on what is a fair share.

What percent of total federal taxes should the top 1% pay?
What percent of total federal taxes should the top 10% pay?
What percent of total federal taxes should the top 50% pay?
What percent of total federal taxes should the bottom 50% pay?
More...

Brilliant. Too bad the republicans never asked this question in the election.

For Obama , the answer would be his supporters pay nothing and republicans pay it all, which is pretty much what happens now anyway.
 
Quote from deltastrike:

I'm actually inclined to agree with Keynes, but at them moment we're trying to dig out of a recession with the Bush tax cuts still in place, and additional payroll tax cuts also in place. Additionally, we have a massive deficit and national debt which also drags on the economy in a more abstract way. So, in order for any reform to be effective, we would have to cut spending substantially more than we would cut revenue. In my mind, this would lead to cuts mostly in social programs, which would lead to lower/no spending from recipients. Additionally, this could lead to significant social unrest.
More...
\

Yes, by all means. Let's continue spending money we don't have.

You are making an assumption that cutting spending would lead to massive social cuts, rather than efficiencies. There is no incentive for any of these programs to function well, or efficiently, if all we do is throw money at them and never expect any of them to do more with less (like the real world has to). This also, incidentally, addresses your "how can we raise revenue by cutting taxes" question. When you put dollars in the hands of private individuals and corporations, they spend those dollars much more efficiently than government could ever hope to. If you let them keep more of their money, they put it back into the economy in an efficient manner, gaining them more profit and income, and thus paying more in income tax. This, of course, is sans all the loopholes we have in our system that should be removed.
 
Quote from Mercor:

The top 1% make 16.9% of income and pay 36.7% of taxes
The bottom 50% make 13.5%% of income and pay 2.3% of taxes

To me this is very progressive.

You have joined all the others calling for fair share paying.
Please tell me if it is fair to change the 36.7% and the 2.3% that the 1% and bottom 50% pay.
What would you change the number to to make it fair in your mind.
More...

The only FAIR tax is a flat tax.

To accommodate low wage earners, "everybody gets $30,000 exclusion from income tax".

Above $30,000, there is a flat tax for everybody. No deductions.

Also fair is a "consumption tax". Certain items can be exempted... like non-prepared food items. Clothing too. Set a "non-tax" limit for essentials. For example... $3 exclusion for underware. If you purchase Fruit of the Loom at Target, no tax. If you buy Hugo Boss at Macy's, you pay the tax on the cost above $3.

Then, everybody would pay his "fair share". (Progressive income tax rates are immoral... likely unconstitutional as well.... not that it matters any more.)

All of this easy to implement with computers nowdays.

THEY HAVE A FLAT TAX IN RUSSIA, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!
 
Quote from deltastrike:

What would make the most sense to me would be a ratio in personal income vs. the gross national income. I.e. you're in the top 1%, at the national level you make up 50% of the gross income, you should be taxed at 50%. You can extrapolate from there. There should also be a +/- factor for average cost of living for the lower classes. Then again, I think that's kind of the point of having a marginal tax system. Now if just worked the way it's supposed to...
More...

So it is now the responsibility of those who have fought hard in this world and made themselves to success to do whatever they can to make others (who are not inclined to do so) get off their butt and work harder, or else face higher income taxes because they represent more and more of the income share?

Are you mad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top