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.
Businesses never pay anywhere near that hypothetical figure though. They pay as low as they can get away with to maximize profit. There is a middle ground, where they can pay more and reduce profit, but still profit!
So, you want to put a cap on profits?
How very American of you.
And there may be some companies who can do what you're describing, such as Walmart and Amazon....
But that doesn't mean Joe's BBQ truck can.
Besides......even if businesses did "pay more" and "pay their fair share" in taxes, it would never be enough to satisfy you and the Left.
You will always complain and always want more.
Y'all seem to think that all business owners are rich fat cats who earn their money sitting on their asses while others do the work.
When in reality, just the opposite is true for the vast majority of small business owners in America.
Taxing 6 individuals will do nothing for that single mom burger flipper.
Raising taxes will not increase that burger flipper's salary.
That burger flipper might benefit from improved infrastructure. She might benefit from free community college tuition. She might benefit from subsidized child care.
She won't get any of those things unless the rich are taxed more.
That burger flipper might benefit from improved infrastructure. She might benefit from free community college tuition. She might benefit from subsidized child care.
She won't get any of those things unless the rich are taxed more.
The US already has one of the most progressive income tax structures in the world. What we don't have is a VAT, which is how the beloved social democracies of Europe fund their welfare states. The US has a more progressive tax system than Sweden. This fair share stuff is pure bull****. You know who doesn't pay their fair share? 50% of US citizens because we don't tax them much at all.
That burger flipper might benefit from improved infrastructure. She might benefit from free community college tuition. She might benefit from subsidized child care.
She won't get any of those things unless the rich are taxed more.
I was a burger flipper, I joined the military, I then became a contractor.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
You think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet wake up worried about burger flippers?
That burger flipper might benefit from improved infrastructure. She might benefit from free community college tuition. She might benefit from subsidized child care.
She won't get any of those things unless the rich are taxed more.
That burger flipper might benefit from improved infrastructure. She might benefit from free community college tuition. She might benefit from subsidized child care.
She won't get any of those things unless the rich are taxed more.
Actually, those social program benefits you mention (and others), much more available in European countries, are more successfully funded via regressive tax systems such as those in Europe:
Pay close attention to what that scatter plot chart at that link tells us... Note that the highest levels of redistribution including national health care are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values along the bottom axis, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes). And note where the USA falls on the graph. The USA has the most progressive tax system and therefore is least able to fund things like national health care because the US tax base is too narrow and overly dependent on the top.
"...the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do.'
That's very succinct, and as we can see from the research... true.
I would also advise you read the book recommended in the WaPo article, Growing Public, by Peter H Lindert, PhD. It, too, explains why it takes regressive taxation to develop, grow, and fund government social program spending programs to the point that effective redistribution actually takes place. Note that it does not in the US due to our overly progressive tax system.
My issue is that the 1% and corporations don't pay the tax rate we think they are paying.
So all of us can think it is terrible the rich have to pay more percentage of their income or corporations seem to have a higher tax rate in the USA.
Let's talk REAL tax rates. The rich and corporations/industries are quite clever at paying money to save money. They have people that create tax credits/loopholes to avoid paying taxes. So while they complain about how they are suppose to pay a higher percentage -- they never pay that percentage.
So yeah -- I get that the percentage shouldn't go up as the income goes up. But what should not happen,also, is that those folks get significant tax credits and deductions.
Actually, those social program benefits you mention (and others), much more available in European countries, are more successfully funded via regressive tax systems such as those in Europe:
Pay close attention to what that scatter plot chart at that link tells us... Note that the highest levels of redistribution including national health care are provided by countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium) in which taxes are flat (everyone pays the same tax rate) or regressive (shown as the negative values along the bottom axis, meaning a greater tax burden is placed on those with lower incomes). And note where the USA falls on the graph. The USA has the most progressive tax system and therefore is least able to fund things like national health care because the US tax base is too narrow and overly dependent on the top.
"...the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do.'
That's very succinct, and as we can see from the research... true.
I would also advise you read the book recommended in the WaPo article, Growing Public, by Peter H Lindert, PhD. It, too, explains why it takes regressive taxation to develop, grow, and fund government social program spending programs to the point that effective redistribution actually takes place. Note that it does not in the US due to our overly progressive tax system.
yep, the US has one of the most progressive tax systems of OECD countries. Our tax system is more progressive than Sweden's, the poster child of social democracy. That country has much flatter income taxes and most importantly a regressive VAT. Their generous social welfare benefits are derived from EVERYONE paying a lot. It's a shame the US poverty pimps refuse to acknowledge this.
The US already has one of the most progressive income tax structures in the world. What we don't have is a VAT, which is how the beloved social democracies of Europe fund their welfare states. The US has a more progressive tax system than Sweden. This fair share stuff is pure bull****. You know who doesn't pay their fair share? 50% of US citizens because we don't tax them much at all.
Bingo! That, and they have MUCH flatter income tax brackets. For example:
Threshold at which the top statutory personal income tax rate applies as a multiple of the country's average income:
Denmark: 1.3 times the average income
Sweden: 1.5
Norway: 1.6
United States: 9.3
In order for the US to shift more towards Euro-style government-provided social program benefits, the US would have to shift more towards Euro-style regressive taxation. Is that really what the US electorate wants? To shift the bulk of the tax burden off the top 10% and on to the middle class and low-income in exchange for more social program benefits? Think very carefully about that...
My issue is that the 1% and corporations don't pay the tax rate we think they are paying.
So all of us can think it is terrible the rich have to pay more percentage of their income or corporations seem to have a higher tax rate in the USA.
Let's talk REAL tax rates. The rich and corporations/industries are quite clever at paying money to save money. They have people that create tax credits/loopholes to avoid paying taxes. So while they complain about how they are suppose to pay a higher percentage -- they never pay that percentage.
So yeah -- I get that the percentage shouldn't go up as the income goes up. But what should not happen,also, is that those folks get significant tax credits and deductions.
Keep it simple. something like a flat tax rate.
I'm good with a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income.
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.
