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.
It just really doesn't work that way. There's still a pretty significant discrepancy between low- and high-income earners' share of income vs share of taxes paid. Newer data, for 2015 shows that the bottom 60% are paying less than their fair share, the top 60-80% are just about at their fair share., and the top 20% are overpaying.
The question that also comes to mind is why should one person pay millions of dollars in taxes each year for access to the same government services and benefits for which another person pays a few thousands or even hundreds? How does that meet the equal protections clause of the Constitution?
The problem is what is "fair"? Based on your links, EVERYONE pays far too much in taxes. The lowest quintile pays less than 20% in total taxes, while they work their way to over 33% of total income for higher incomes. 1/3 of your income, or probably more like 25% averaged over all groups...just in taxes? Obvious question-what do you get for 1/4-1/3 of YOUR income? It's not the government's money-it's yours and you are paying for the services you receive. So, really, what do you get?
Roads? sure.
Education for kids. Considering that US kids graduate all too often barely literate, I question if we're getting our money's worth.
Police/fire/ems?
National defense?
A "retirement" program with a really poor return on your investment?
So...you need to question if the government spends money even remotely well or responsibly? Are these services worth 1/3 of the income you earned? I also question if your chart truely reflects ALL taxes we pay. Does it include fuel taxes? Corporate/business taxes imbedded in the costs of every item we purchase? Vehicle registration and license fees?
About 91 percent of people between the ages of 25 and 29 years old – a group of Americans typically old enough to have acquired both high school and undergraduate degrees if they've gone those routes – had earned a high school diploma in 2014, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. So it's not surprising that a smaller share of teenagers would be disconnected when compared with young adults in their 20s.
so it is not too bad.
I was born in 1985, my financial situation improved a great deal from age 21-29. I have two useless degrees, but I believe in both work smart and work hard. Now I am making slightly over 6 figure a year.
Did I have family assistance? Yes, absolutely. For those who have no help, it is going to be tough. Everybody's situation is different. Bernie Sander's free college for all sounds good in theory, but there is no such a thing as "free", tax payers have to absorb the cost.
Eight Million Young people without work or a degree is horrifying to me, and it just lets me know that the crime and violence will be increasing and the threat of a crime towards me is greater then before. What needs to happen to these young ones that are not thriving and contributing to society? Millions of Young Americans Are Floundering, Study Shows
Hate to tell you this but older people are floundering too. I know several people who were downsized out of industry in 2000-2008 who have never recovered. They've had to stop saving for retirement or had to start living off of their retirement savings. Unlike the young people who are out of work they don't have years to make up for lost earnings.
This is reality for people across the board. If you were lucky enough to not have lost your job during the recession you are doing ok. If you did, you're likely floundering right along side the young people who can't find work. It's just the way the economy is working right now.
The problem is what is "fair"? Based on your links, EVERYONE pays far too much in taxes. The lowest quintile pays less than 20% in total taxes, while they work their way to over 33% of total income for higher incomes. 1/3 of your income, or probably more like 25% averaged over all groups...just in taxes? Obvious question-what do you get for 1/4-1/3 of YOUR income? It's not the government's money-it's yours and you are paying for the services you receive. So, really, what do you get?
Roads? sure.
Education for kids. Considering that US kids graduate all too often barely literate, I question if we're getting our money's worth.
Police/fire/ems?
National defense?
A "retirement" program with a really poor return on your investment?
So...you need to question if the government spends money even remotely well or responsibly? Are these services worth 1/3 of the income you earned? I also question if your chart truely reflects ALL taxes we pay. Does it include fuel taxes? Corporate/business taxes imbedded in the costs of every item we purchase? Vehicle registration and license fees?
Of course the government doesn't spend money even remotely well or responsibly.
Still begs the question... why should one person pay millions of dollars in taxes each year for access to the same government services and benefits for which another person pays a few thousands or even hundreds? How does that meet the equal protections clause of the Constitution?
It just really doesn't work that way. There's still a pretty significant discrepancy between low- and high-income earners' share of income vs share of taxes paid. Newer data, for 2015 shows that the bottom 60% are paying less than their fair share, the top 60-80% are just about at their fair share., and the top 20% are overpaying.
The question that also comes to mind is why should one person pay millions of dollars in taxes each year for access to the same government services and benefits for which another person pays a few thousands or even hundreds? How does that meet the equal protections clause of the Constitution?
What do you mean "it just really doesn't work that way?" Are you trying to suggest that income earned from capital gains, dividends and interest is not taxed at a lower rate than average income for most Americans? Hell, most Americans don't even earn capital gains and dividend income!
And how do you define "fair" in these regards?
I think I have explained this to you before as well, and I just can't spin in these circles going nowhere as long as you can. Budgeting really has nothing to do with "fair." There is where revenue comes from and there is what expenses to cover and there is what comes of balancing revenues and expenses in order to accomplish the intended goals. Government is very different from business, but just like a business, the management of revenues and expenses is a matter of accounting and financial management, not "fairness."
I make $14 million in one year (like Romney reported he made that one year his returns were made public). I pay a NET tax rate of about 14% (as he was reported to pay), which leaves me about $12 million after taxes, to add to my net worth of $200 million (as his net worth was reported then too).
You make $60,000 in one year working as a teacher. After cost of living to raise a family of four, you don't have all that much before the question of what taxes you pay even comes along. Nothing, really, is going to savings. In fact (like the case with my friend who's wife is a teacher), turns out the roof on the house needs replacing, so a little dip into home equity that actually REDUCES their net worth, and roof gets fixed.
Please explain to me what is "fair" and what is not. Then, tell me how that matters given what federal expenses we have -- not even discretionary -- and what sources of tax revenue can be had from the economy.
Or right, better yet, let's not waste more of our time when there is a three-day holiday weekend to enjoy...
I make $14 million in one year (like Romney reported he made that one year his returns were made public). I pay a NET tax rate of about 14% (as he was reported to pay), which leaves me about $12 million after taxes, to add to my net worth of $200 million (as his net worth was reported then too).
Don't mean to argue, but please explain how does this work.
Of course the government doesn't spend money even remotely well or responsibly.
Still begs the question... why should one person pay millions of dollars in taxes each year for access to the same government services and benefits for which another person pays a few thousands or even hundreds? How does that meet the equal protections clause of the Constitution?
Back up the bus! Are you now suggesting that progressive taxes is unconstitutional?
Oh pahleese have mercy!
Might ask your question in reverse...
Why should one person earn multi-millions of dollars working as hard as they can while a day-laborer makes only $10/hour working as hard as they can? Is the person making millions of dollars in one year that many million times more entitled to ALL that money over the day-laborer?
Is the majority stock holder of Safeway entitled to all that food stamp revenue funneled into Safeway supermarket operations? Maybe yes, maybe no, but regardless the opinion, how "fair" is it that the rich get richer while the poor get nowhere? Year after year after year...
Maybe "fair" as well that someone like Trump is a billionaire and maybe also fair his daddy gave him a million dollars and a launch into real estate development in NYC while he was still in his twenties -- maybe that's "fair," but that Trump and those so "fairly" privileged not AT LEAST pay a progressive tax rate? Maybe a tad bit higher than Romney did on $14 million earned in one year?
Even Trump says that sort of "fairness" is out of whack! And he's not exactly a socialist...
Don't mean to argue, but please explain how does this work.
Your income tax bracket should be 39.6%, not 14%
One's gross income tax bracket and what tax rate one pays NET (after deductions and so forth), are two entirely different things, especially for the most wealthy who have lots of tax deductions and different forms of income that are taxed at rates lower than the rate in the tax schedule for highest income earners.
This is how someone like Romney making $14 million in one year pays far less than that 39.6%, more like 14% as was publicly reported.
One's gross income tax bracket and what tax rate one pays NET (after deductions and so forth), are two entirely different things, especially for the most wealthy who have lots of tax deductions and different forms of income that are taxed at rates lower than the rate in the tax schedule for highest income earners.
This is how someone like Romney making $14 million in one year pays far less than that 39.6%, more like 14% as was publicly reported.
I understand all that. I thought you personally made 14 mil a year. LOL It is all good, I understand fully how deduction works. I missed the word "NET".
What do you mean "it just really doesn't work that way?" Are you trying to suggest that income earned from capital gains, dividends and interest is not taxed at a lower rate than average income for most Americans?
Yes, and that IS in fact true. Capital gains are taxed at 15% or 20%. The top 90-95% is paying an average effective federal income tax rate of 9% (see the chart I posted earlier, below) and the income groups below that are paying an average effective federal income tax rate even lower than 9%.
FACTS matter.
Quote:
I make $14 million in one year (like Romney reported he made that one year his returns were made public). I pay a NET tax rate of about 14% (as he was reported to pay), which leaves me about $12 million after taxes, to add to my net worth of $200 million (as his net worth was reported then too).
As such, you're paying a HIGHER effective income tax rate than 95% of US tax filers.
Quote:
Please explain to me what is "fair" and what is not. Then, tell me how that matters given what federal expenses we have -- not even discretionary -- and what sources of tax revenue can be had from the economy.
Completely fair is a capitation tax. Everyone shares the costs equally. That way we don't have one person paying millions of dollars in taxes each year for access to the same government services and benefits for which another person pays a few thousands or even hundreds, which doesn't meet the equal protections clause of the Constitution.
Considerably less fair is a flat tax. That would still violate the equal protects clause, though, because some would still be paying millions of dollars in taxes each year for access to the same government services and benefits for which another person pays a few thousands or even hundreds.
European and Scandinavian countries have MUCH flatter income tax rates AND have a 20-25% VAT tax. That's how they've addressed their tax revenue needs and it WORKS for them:
"Sweden’s top marginal tax rate of 56.9 percent applies to all income over 1.5 times the average income in Sweden. Norway’s top marginal tax rate of 39 percent applies to all income over 1.6 times the average Norwegian income.
Compare this to The United States. The top marginal tax rate of 46.8 percent (state average and federal combined rates) kicks in at 8.5 times the average U.S. income (around $400,000). Comparatively, few taxpayers in the United States face the top marginal rate."
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.
