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.
You can thank the Family Values crowd and the Bush Tax Cuts for that,
Contrary to the left's complaints about tax cuts for the rich; the Bush Tax Cuts increased the proporton of federal iincome taxes paid by the rich. That's because the increased child tax credits included in the Bush Tax Cuts were substantial for middle and working class families with children, and a relative droop in the bucket for the rich. e.g. child tax credits might reduce income taxes 10%-20% for a middle class family, and 1%-2% for a rich family.
Any non-regressive income tax with fixed-dollar tax credits for children is going to leave the rich paying a greater proportion of the tax burden than the non-rich.
Did that include social security? No? Why not? Is it not federal?
And you do understand that the rich are supposed to pay more? I mean this isnt rocket science. Its often considered immoral to tax the income used to feed, vloth, and house someone. We do it to some small degree, but we do try and avoid that. Turns out the vast majority of the bottom 50% fall into that bracket today.
In fact.....during some of our most prosperous times their effective tax rate was double of today.
I do like how you try and make it about the 10% though, thats kinda cute.
You can thank the Family Values crowd and the Bush Tax Cuts for that,
Contrary to the left's complaints about tax cuts for the rich; the Bush Tax Cuts increased the proporton of federal iincome taxes paid by the rich. That's because the increased child tax credits included in the Bush Tax Cuts were substantial for middle and working class families with children, and a relative droop in the bucket for the rich. e.g. child tax credits might reduce income taxes 10%-20% for a middle class family, and 1%-2% for a rich family.
Any non-regressive income tax with fixed-dollar tax credits for children is going to leave the rich paying a greater proportion of the tax burden than the non-rich.
Kind of odd for someone who is making a lot of money to complain about the very progressive system that has facilitated the most prosperous economy in the world. Progressive taxes isn't about what is "fair." It's about trying to keep balance, when the natural order of things in the free market would create even more disparity.
And you do understand that the rich are supposed to pay more? I mean this isnt rocket science. Its often considered immoral to tax the income used to feed, vloth, and house someone.
It' immoral to take money from one hard working person and give it to somebody who refuses to work. This isn't rocket science.
Did that include social security? No? Why not? Is it not federal?
And you do understand that the rich are supposed to pay more? I mean this isnt rocket science. Its often considered immoral to tax the income used to feed, vloth, and house someone. We do it to some small degree, but we do try and avoid that. Turns out the vast majority of the bottom 50% fall into that bracket today.
In fact.....during some of our most prosperous times their effective tax rate was double of today.
I do like how you try and make it about the 10% though, thats kinda cute.
People who fail ALWAYS want others to pay but, NOT them.
Did that include social security? No? Why not? Is it not federal?
And you do understand that the rich are supposed to pay more? I mean this isnt rocket science. Its often considered immoral to tax the income used to feed, vloth, and house someone. We do it to some small degree, but we do try and avoid that. Turns out the vast majority of the bottom 50% fall into that bracket today.
In fact.....during some of our most prosperous times their effective tax rate was double of today.
I do like how you try and make it about the 10% though, thats kinda cute.
Immoral, huh? So European countries - pretty immoral, right? They do count on regressive taxes, after all, to pay for all of those welfare systems. The US has the most progressive tax code in the world and we have liberals saying it's not progressive enough. At what point is it enough for you and your ilk. I, for one, wouldn't mind a little regressive taxes like the rest of the world does. Maybe then we could have some of those nice systems and bennies they have because you're not going to get it on the backs of the rich alone.
The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country. Scandinavian social democracies like Denmark, Sweden and Norway have quite regressive direct taxes, as do the Netherlands and Switzerland. Foreign British territories are more progressive, but neither Australia nor Canada is nearly as progressive as the United States.
The disparity is even starker when you bring sales taxes into the mix, as VATs are an extremely important source of revenue for most European countries as well as Australia and Canada:
Did that include social security? No? Why not? Is it not federal?
And you do understand that the rich are supposed to pay more? I mean this isnt rocket science. Its often considered immoral to tax the income used to feed, vloth, and house someone. We do it to some small degree, but we do try and avoid that. Turns out the vast majority of the bottom 50% fall into that bracket today.
In fact.....during some of our most prosperous times their effective tax rate was double of today.
I do like how you try and make it about the 10% though, thats kinda cute.
The effective tax rate for the top 10% hasn't changed much in decades. Once again you confuse marginal rates and effective rates.
The effective rate for the lowest quartile, including FICA, is at a record low. These stats are right there on the IRS website.
Last edited by TrapperJohn; 10-26-2014 at 10:29 AM..
These statistics are misleading and don’t tell the whole story. They leave out payroll taxes that every worker pays to make sure they will have Social Security and Medicare when they retire, which fall disproportionately on the middle class. And they don’t mention that the share of the nation’s income going to the highest earners grew rapidly in the past two decades – at the same time tax rates fell for the highest earners.
In fact, because of growing income inequality, the top 10 percent of American earners now earns 42 percent of the nation’s income, and when correctly calculated, pay about 50 percent of the federal income and payroll tax burden - not much larger than their share of earnings.
Sheesh. They OUGHT to leave out social security taxes. Lower income generates disproportionately large social security benefits relative to higher incomes. And SS is supposed to be a "social insurance" benefit--everybody pays, everybody benefits.
Income taxes are income taxes. Don't confuse your universal retirement insurance scheme with income taxes. The 1%, the 5%, and the 10% are getting skewered by the most progressive income tax scheme in the world, and the cannibals want more and more and more. After you eat the rich, you'll be hungry for the middle class.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
You can thank the Family Values crowd and the Bush Tax Cuts for that,
Contrary to the left's complaints about tax cuts for the rich; the Bush Tax Cuts increased the proporton of federal iincome taxes paid by the rich.
Contrary would mean contradiction, you presented no contradiction.
saying that one person got more of a tax cut than someone else does not negate the fact that the other person got a tax cut as well.
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.
At what point is it enough for you and your ilk. I, for one, wouldn't mind a little regressive taxes like the rest of the world does. Maybe then we could have some of those nice systems and bennies they have because you're not going to get it on the backs of the rich alone.
