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.
That income which is the result of government policy which is quite significant. The real victims are the wealthy who make an actual product, along with those who would like to purchase them.
The US has had a progressive income tax for many decades.
The reason the top 5% pay 40% of income taxes is because the top 5% earn 20% of all the income. With a progressive income tax, that means they'll pay more of the income tax.
If thr top 5% earned 10% of all income they'd pay less of the income tax. If lower income Americans earned more they'd pay more of the income tax. This is not difficult.
In terms of what is fair share. I think that depends on the terms of the debate. For me, if incomes for all Americans would have kept growing at roughly the same pace, then the argument that burdening those who make more is unfair.
Those at the top have taken basically all the income gains for over 30years, while the rest have only gained a little. In terms of income taxes, you go where the income is located.
Thoughtful and well stated response to a stupid question. I have to wonder if people who create these threads are trolls, idiots, or make millions of dollars every year. At best citizens with a very radical agenda that bears little resemblance to anything from the modern American era; if it's not a fantasized past or experimental utopia they are after, the closest approximation is the 1870s.
Almost a mil for empty land. Its worth is because the government says its owned by someone.. If someone wants to use it you get to take their stuff ( about 1 mil) cause the government says so if you want to use it. Big daddy government enforcing access charges for the rich quite obviously. The rich just love these purchases of monopoly rights because the poor can't buy into them and people always look more convincing when they commit fraud in expensive suits.
You are just blind to it. You don't like when the government takes your stuff and gives it to someone else. However you love when the government grants you taxing rights on a piece of ground you can lease or sell, extorting someone out of their stuff. The bankers of course prefer you give most of it to them and purchase it on credit so they can just take people's stuff.
When the government is involved, they are involved. You think the biggest government giveaway of food stamps?
Look at the selling points
Parks & Recreation
Schools
Walkability
Pet-friendly
All that "value" not created by the land owner. Welfare at its finest.
I'm an independent (voted for Romney) and I think I have a great answer to this question.
First, I start with a nominal minimum tax (somewhere in the range $100 - $500 per person). This ensures everyone pays something. A childless adult working full time at minimum wage currently pays $500 per year, so I could live with that.
Then I would not tax people further until they have discretionary income. I consider discretionary income to be money left after meeting the basic obligations considered to constitute personal responsibility. (For example, we expect people to provide for shelter (for this set of purposes I use the 25th percentile, basic and neither bare-bones nor extravagant), food, healthcare, insurance of many types, and reserves for future needs like emergencies and retirement.
Then I would apply a single flat tax rate to all discretionary income.
Everybody pays something, nobody gets penalized for making a lot of money, and the poor do not get taxed beyond the nominal universal tax.
Thoughtful and well stated response to a stupid question. I have to wonder if people who create these threads are trolls, idiots, or make millions of dollars every year. At best citizens with a very radical agenda that bears little resemblance to anything from the modern American era; if it's not a fantasized past or experimental utopia they are after, the closest approximation is the 1870s.
I know. I read some of these people and its like they are amazed that the US has a progressive income tax.
I noticed not a single answer with numbers and rates that would add up to what our Government demands each year.
Not that I expected to; the same question has been asked 1,000 time and answered only with vague non-numerical platitudes "a flat tax on discretionary income."
That might be too much to expect...
but how about if we start with the pre-Bush levels?
So, just raising taxes to the Clinton era rates will fix everything, right? I further assume that these rates will be raised on everyone? And, spending will be back to Clinton era levels?
income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income.
The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden.
...but....but....they have it and we want it!
It's unfair!
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.
