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.
Try googling "regressive tax" and you might learn something.
A national sales tax isn't regressive. Make it a fixed percentage on new retail purchases and it consumes the same percentage of everyone's income, no matter what their income is.
It's insane that we make half of the wage earning population, who get little in terms social assistance payments, fund the other half who pay nearly nothing yet consume nearly all social assistance payments. It has created a situation that politicians constantly abuse for political purposes. It's destructive as hell.
A national sales tax isn't regressive. Make it a fixed percentage on new retail purchases and it consumes the same percentage of everyone's income, no matter what their income is.
It's insane that we make half of the wage earning population, who get little in terms social assistance payments, fund the other half who pay nearly nothing yet consume nearly all social assistance payments. It has created a situation that politicians constantly abuse for political purposes. It's destructive as hell.
Like I said, google it because per your post, you clearly do not understand what a regressive tax is.
The most recent data they have is from 2014 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14in11si.xls): Table 1.1. All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2014 (Filing Year 2015).
I used columns N, O, P (columns 13, 14 and 15), which covered income tax after credits. If I read it correctly, those columns show dollar amount after deductions.
Anyway, here's some interesting stuff for 2014 filings:
96,531,271 returns were filed; and the median number of returns filed is 48,265,635. The median falls into the $50,000 to $75,000 adjusted gross income (AGI) range; probably around $58,000 AGI.
Tax returns with an AGI ranging from $50,000 to above $10,000,000 paid 94.32% of the taxes after credits. In broad terms, half of the taxpayers paid over 94% of the taxes.
If we start at the $100,000 AGI level and higher, they represent the top 25% of the tax returns; and that group paid 79.45% of the taxes.
Looking at the "Millionaire's Club" (everyone with an AGI greater than $1,000,000), they represent less than one half of one percent (0.423%) of the tax returns. That tiny percentage paid 26.87% of the taxes.
At the bottom of the scale, the lower 23% of the tax returns represent an AGI between $1 and $30,000. This group accounted for only 1.52% of the taxes paid.
So, to summarize:
AGI of $1 to $30,000: 23.18% of the returns, 1.52% of the taxes.
AGI of $30,001 to $50,000: 20.59% of the returns, 4.16% of the taxes.
AGI of $50,001 to $100,000: 31.80% of the returns, 14.86% of the taxes.
AGI of $100,001 to over $10,000,000: 24.43% of the returns, 79.45% of the taxes.
When we refer to those "rich folk that ain't paying their fair share of taxes", think about what 'rich' actually means in this day and age. Depending of what you call wealthy, there's a real good chance they're your neighbors, or the family down the street driving a custom minivan.
Remember, 24% of our taxpayers are paying 79% of our taxes.
If those 24% of the taxpayers makes most of the money and the rest don't.... wouldn't that be the case also?
What you're seeing is income inequality. 75% of people don't make a middle class income, 25% makes the highest incomes in this country...
I would be quite pleased if those over the 90th percentile paid ALL of the operating costs of the government they have bribed and the country they own.
Could we walk around subjugating the useless masses? If we pay we own it and you! That what you want?
The most recent data they have is from 2014 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14in11si.xls): Table 1.1. All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items, by Size and Accumulated Size of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2014 (Filing Year 2015).
I used columns N, O, P (columns 13, 14 and 15), which covered income tax after credits. If I read it correctly, those columns show dollar amount after deductions.
Anyway, here's some interesting stuff for 2014 filings:
96,531,271 returns were filed; and the median number of returns filed is 48,265,635. The median falls into the $50,000 to $75,000 adjusted gross income (AGI) range; probably around $58,000 AGI.
Tax returns with an AGI ranging from $50,000 to above $10,000,000 paid 94.32% of the taxes after credits. In broad terms, half of the taxpayers paid over 94% of the taxes.
If we start at the $100,000 AGI level and higher, they represent the top 25% of the tax returns; and that group paid 79.45% of the taxes.
Looking at the "Millionaire's Club" (everyone with an AGI greater than $1,000,000), they represent less than one half of one percent (0.423%) of the tax returns. That tiny percentage paid 26.87% of the taxes.
At the bottom of the scale, the lower 23% of the tax returns represent an AGI between $1 and $30,000. This group accounted for only 1.52% of the taxes paid.
So, to summarize:
AGI of $1 to $30,000: 23.18% of the returns, 1.52% of the taxes.
AGI of $30,001 to $50,000: 20.59% of the returns, 4.16% of the taxes.
AGI of $50,001 to $100,000: 31.80% of the returns, 14.86% of the taxes.
AGI of $100,001 to over $10,000,000: 24.43% of the returns, 79.45% of the taxes.
When we refer to those "rich folk that ain't paying their fair share of taxes", think about what 'rich' actually means in this day and age. Depending of what you call wealthy, there's a real good chance they're your neighbors, or the family down the street driving a custom minivan.
Remember, 24% of our taxpayers are paying 79% of our taxes.
Stick with me here...
People making between 100k a year and 1 mil a year paid... per your figures...
52.58% of our taxes.
That's the 79.45% (100k to over 10 mil) subtract the 26.87% (1 mil to over 10 mil) to get at what people making between 100k and 1 mil pay...
52.58%
Those are the people who earn a good chunk of income via W2 jobs and small businesses.
They are the ones who get hit like a hammer by the AMT every year.
The people making over 1mil (and definitely over 10 mil) are paying a good chunk of money, but they are also not as likely to be "regular" workers or small/medium-sized business owners.
Ever see how most of the ones who do work for regular corporations get paid? Low wages and huge stock offerings.
Tax avoidance.
The real story here is that those of us in the 100k to 1 mil bracket are carrying everyone, including the multimillionaires.
So, yeah... that's why people say "the rich" should pay their fair share.
You just pointed out who "the rich" really are.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I don't consider someone making a $100,000/year to be "rich." It's "well to do" in low COL areas, and barely middle class in Boston, SF, LA, NYC, DC, and Seattle.
I'd say >$10,000,000/year is "rich." But even that person is probably not rich enough to buy a senator or congressman, so I'm not too worried.
The dangerous people are the "super rich"; the billionaires who have enough money to buy politicians.
The "super rich" don't pay taxes, silly.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I would think a progressive tax has been a part of the US income tax right along. Basically you go where the money is and take a greater percentage of those with the higher income. The top 1% pay about a 27% tax rate. That is about twice the average rate. Progressive but not terribly so. I see no harm to progressive tax rates. I would put a limit...ie no one pays more than 50% incrementally...you always keep at least half.
One might adopt a national sales or value added tax for some particular purpose like universal health care.
Like I said, google it because per your post, you clearly do not understand what a regressive tax is.
I know exactly what a regressive tax is... the poor spend proportionally more on necessities than the wealthy, therefore a sales tax has more impact on them. That is your argument. But they also receive the lions share of social handouts. Any regressive effect is offset by this.
If we implemented the Fair Tax they would also receive a check each month covering the tax costs on necessities such as food and clothing.
Our current system is completely insane and should be thrown onto the ash heap of history.
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.
