Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If half of the income “earned” by the top 1% was instead distributed to the worker bees as fair compensation for their labor and contribution to profitability of the organizations milked by the 1%, the 1% would STILL be fabulously wealthy, the economy would boom from the discretionary income spending by the workers, and the “unfair burden” of income taxes paid by the 1% would be proportionally decreased.
That kind of takes the wind out of the sails of some of the candidates for the Democratic Presidential Nomination whose platform consists of tax cuts for the middle-class.
What exactly are you suggesting here? The middle class pay MORE taxes? That won't fly. I don't feel sorry for the 1% paying the largest share of Federal taxes if the alternative is those below the 1% paying more so that the 1% can pay less.
The real problem here is the distribution of the wealth. I and many others in the middle class would gladly pay more if we were receiving more wealth. But until that happens lets just leave the tax system as is. The top 1% can get all the wealth and pay 43% of the taxes.
If half of the income “earned” by the top 1% was instead distributed to the worker bees as fair compensation for their labor and contribution to profitability of the organizations milked by the 1%, the 1% would STILL be fabulously wealthy, the economy would boom from the discretionary income spending by the workers, and the “unfair burden” of income taxes paid by the 1% would be proportionally decreased.
Sounds win-win to me.
Exactly.
For the time being the system is set up to let the top 1% earn the majority of the wealth. That's fine they just shouldn't complain that they are having to pay majority of the taxes then.
I've long said that the argument from the left that the rich need to "pay their fair share" is nonsense.
Of course it is. It's just the Democrats trying to whip up class warfare to keep the voters voting for them. There are obviously more poor than rich so it's a winning strategy to convince lower income people who often pay little or no federal income taxes that the evil rich are taking advantage of them.
If half of the income “earned” by the top 1% was instead distributed to the worker bees as fair compensation for their labor and contribution to profitability of the organizations milked by the 1%, the 1% would STILL be fabulously wealthy, the economy would boom from the discretionary income spending by the workers, and the “unfair burden” of income taxes paid by the 1% would be proportionally decreased.
Sounds win-win to me.
You would be surprised at how hard it can be to accumulate wealth when your tax rates run a total of 40-60% between state and federal income taxes.
I was also wondering about how the income tax share of the top 1% changed over time, but didn't find anything going back that far to the 40's or 50's.
The best I found is the chart below showing the income tax share of the top 1% from 1980 to 2011. The top marginal income tax rate in 1980 was 70%, but the income tax share of the top 1% was less than 20%, less than half of what it is today.
I didn't work in the 50s, but I did pay work and taxes in the 60s. In fact, I expect everyone paid something then. I worked awhile for minimum wage then(at $1.25/hour) and still paid city, state and federal income taxes.
As wealth is concentrated into fewer hands expect this to go higher.
The problem is they are not really paying the tax since they pass the cost to consumers via the goods and services they sell.
It clearly torpedoes the political rhetoric on the extreme left who claim the wealthy get special breaks and loopholes and avoid paying taxes altogether.
i engaged someone recently on facebook regarding this type of rhetoric. the guy was extremely responsive to everything i said until i asked him to name me specific tax giveaways that he is referring to (he was suggesting that the government gave walmart tons of money in the trump tax reform). all the sudden he stops directly answering and starts telling me to look it up myself.
most of the time, i can come up for better arguments for them than they can. you have the carried interest loophole and long term capital gains tax rates that could be dropped. id get rid of mortgage interest tax deduction also (probably and any other tax deduction). of course, id reduce the rates to make sure that this stuff doesnt get the government more revenue, just makes the tax system better. i guess it makes it easy that they are generally know nothings.
Whatever the share... are the raw numbers adequate? Is that 'share' a fair one?
It seems not.
What makes 'fair'?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
