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.
I think everyone knows that. That is why the poor pay less of them.
Then naturally, you understand how the "fair share" of somebody in, say the top 1% of incomes in the US, might pay more of a proportion of their income in taxes than somebody in, say, the lower 20% of incomes in the US, right?
Then naturally, you understand how the "fair share" of somebody in, say the top 1% of incomes in the US, might pay more of a proportion of their income in taxes than somebody in, say, the lower 20% of incomes in the US, right?
Obviously, that is what a progressive tax is, and I have no problem with tax schedule that is mildly progressive. However, the is a different between a reasonable progression, and paying 2 to 1, i.e. earning 20% of the income, but paying 40% of the taxes. I would say, that it would be reasonable, that if you earned, as a group, 20% of the total income earned, you would pay, perhaps 25% of all income tax paid. That difference (5 points) amounts to a 25% degree of "progressivness" (5% in 20%).
Also, we are talking about the other end, where the slackers reside.
What you are unwittingly underscoring is how slanted the income distribution is. In a previous post, we established that the top 20% earned 49.4% of the nation’s income. Now, you report that the top 1% earn 2/5 of the income of the top 20%. What's also true is that the top 0.1% (that's zero point uno percent) — about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million — are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.
We also find that the top 1% have had the biggest gains over the last 30 years. Progressive tax policy is a way to address this inequality.
Your post is gibberish on some many levels. Let me clear some of the intellectual cobwebs that cloud your thinking.
First of all, income isn't distributed in the US. It is earned (or not) by individual industry, application and the cursed "E" word "Effort" (or not), by those who are ambitious (or not).
Losers lose on the own, without regard or nexus to those who win. A winner could triple or cut to a third his or her income, and it doesn't affect the poor in any way, positively or negatively. Their failure to apply themselves and to succeed exists regardless of the efforts/successes of their betters.
You act as if inequality of income is a bad thing - it clearly isn't. Lack of income is a bad thing, but that is the pauper's issue to resolve and nobody else's, and that failure to succeed is not linked in any way to the winner's success/efforts.
Finally, punitive taking of the fruits of the winner's labors, doesn't help the losers. They are still losers. The only winner is the gluttonous monster of big government, as those whose principle motivation is ENVY.
Many are non-income such as children and stay at home mothers.
Once again, the figure of 47% of those who file tax returns, pay $0 or less in income tax. It's isn't children or stay-at-home mothers. It is tax filers.
Obviously, that is what a progressive tax is, and I have no problem with tax schedule that is mildly progressive. However, the is a different between a reasonable progression, and paying 2 to 1, i.e. earning 20% of the income, but paying 40% of the taxes. I would say, that it would be reasonable, that if you earned, as a group, 20% of the total income earned, you would pay, perhaps 25% of all income tax paid. That difference (5 points) amounts to a 25% degree of "progressivness" (5% in 20%).
What is unreasonable about a flat rate on discretionary income?
What is unreasonable about a flat rate on discretionary income?
I have no opposition to a flat tax. My opposition is people who take but don't contribute, either in the form of income tax paid, or in the form of accepting a lower interest rate on tax-exempt bonds etc.
However, I would have only a reasonable personal exemption - say, $5,000.
If you consume services, you must pay taxes - period. It's what I like to call "fair".
Your post is gibberish on some many levels. Let me clear some of the intellectual cobwebs that cloud your thinking.
First of all, income isn't distributed in the US. It is earned (or not) by individual industry, application and the cursed "E" word "Effort" (or not), by those who are ambitious (or not).
Losers lose on the own, without regard or nexus to those who win. A winner could triple or cut to a third his or her income, and it doesn't affect the poor in any way, positively or negatively. Their failure to apply themselves and to succeed exists regardless of the efforts/successes of their betters.
Income is redistributed - in both directions - by government. Thomas Sowell has brilliantly demonstrated (Markets and Minorities, Chapter 7, 1981) that local zoning regs redistribute income upward from renters to owners.
On top of this redistribution by government, markets exacerbate income inequality. When winners triple their income, they spend more money on housing. When a lot of people increase their income, they spend more on housing. Since housing supply is inelastic in the short run - it takes years to being new housing online, plus restrictive zoning and NIMBY policies hinder development - rents have nowhere to go but up.
This is why a rising tide does NOT lift all boats, and boats not lifted are often capsized.
I know a lot of people who work hard for low wages. Who are you to declare others with more money their betters?
Income is redistributed - in both directions - by government. Thomas Sowell has brilliantly demonstrated (Markets and Minorities, Chapter 7, 1981) that local zoning regs redistribute income upward from renters to owners.
On top of this redistribution by government, markets exacerbate income inequality. When winners triple their income, they spend more money on housing. When a lot of people increase their income, they spend more on housing. Since housing supply is inelastic in the short run - it takes years to being new housing online, plus restrictive zoning and NIMBY policies hinder development - rents have nowhere to go but up.
This is why a rising tide does NOT lift all boats, and boats not lifted are often capsized.
I know a lot of people who work hard for low wages. Who are you to declare others with more money their betters?
Simple logic. A pack horse works hard for its hay, but this world doesn't reward muscle work so much as brain work, and skill. If you don't position yourself and your skill set to take advantage of the available markets, well shame on you. If you insist on selling buggy whips instead of radial tires, well, who are you to blame for your failure.
It is not the governments job to take from Peter to give to Paul. It is the government's job to take some from Peter and some from Paul to build a road both Peter and Paul can drive on.
Hope that helps clear some of your cobwebs.
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.
