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.
Ok so here is a perfect story to explain the tax code.
[font=Arial]Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
Your example does not work out where taxes are passed onto the consumer.
Especially when a number of companies get a negative income tax as well.
Looking at just a few companies is not the best approach. Every year, some companies pay no income tax or less, but they don't tend to do that over time. Neither of course does the "highest corporate tax rate in the world" that corporatists shriek over actually come into play very often. The table linked to below shows the average effective US tax rate by industry over a ten-year period. This approach should allow a view of both the forest and the trees.
Your example does not work out where taxes are passed onto the consumer.
His silly parable was a giant fraud to begin with. It's like those alternate versions of The Grasshopper and the Ant. Those are always amusing.
In any case, the ability to pass taxes on to consumers depends heavily on the price-elasticity of demand that a producer faces. These can vary considerably from one industry to the next and even one firm to the next, running anywhere from pretty low to pretty high. In the first case, significant portions of taxes can be passed on, while in the latter case, it's pretty much shareholders are going to be stuck with the bulk of the bill.
His silly parable was a giant fraud to begin with. It's like those alternate versions of The Grasshopper and the Ant. Those are always amusing.
In any case, the ability to pass taxes on to consumers depends heavily on the price-elasticity of demand that a producer faces. These can vary considerably from one industry to the next and even one firm to the next, running anywhere from pretty low to pretty high. In the first case, significant portions of taxes can be passed on, while in the latter case, it's pretty much shareholders are going to be stuck with the bulk of the bill.
I agree.
I could not help but throw that out there though since that is a talking point his type brings up if it were another topic.
I imagine because the lower income people plow that bit of additional money right back into the economy, while the higher income people just stash it in some offshore account where it accomplishes NOTHING.....
This used to be common knowledge, as this is why use progressive tax rates.
False,
progressive tax rates are needed because you don't want poor people to take food out of their mouth to pay for taxes.
That's why there's a "living wage" and people should only pay taxes about "living wage"
that's why it seems like poor people don't pay anything while rich people pay a lot.
Well, given how the bottom 50% of earners pay negligible taxes compared to the upper 50%, both in terms of total dollars and as a share of their income, it seems pointless. Here's some shocking stats for you.
In 1980, the top 1% paid 19.29% of all Federal taxes. Today, earning around 21% of the total AGI, they pay around 38% of their income.
In 1980, the bottom 50% paid 7.02% of all Federal taxes. Today, earning around 11% of the total AGI, they pay 2.78%. That means, the top 50% of earners pay roughly 97% of all Federal taxes.
I realize that most people's notion of the rich is formed from old Richie Rich comic books, but people who are screaming about the wealthy not paying their fair share just aren't paying attention to the facts.
Social security/Medical taxes aren't defined as an income tax. It gets categorized as a payroll tax.
Personally, I think the wealth redistribution component of social security is too large already. We're just fundamentally at opposing views on that is my guess. I'd much rather see a flat system like Germany's where what you pay in is what you get out rather than our system where low earners get more benefits at the expense of higher earners. That's not going to happen, of course. When the inevitable reforms finally end up happening little of the cuts will be to low earners.
I'm in general agreement with most of the points in your earlier posts, but I disagree here. Well off people live longer than the poor and end up taking about the same in Social Security as poor people.
I will say, however, that I do think there's a lot of abuse with disability and they really need to clamp down on that. I have social worker and psychiatrist friends who are more liberal than me, and both tell me they see a lot of SS disability abuse in their respective lines of work.
There is still time to change your mind. Which you seriously should consider.
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.
