GOP Tax Policy Shifts Burden to Working and Middle Class Americans

[AllieBaba]

The percentage is meaningless if it doesn't pan out to mean more per individual, oh brilliant one.

What percentage does a poor person pay in taxes overall, compared to taxes a rich person pays?

A much smaller percentage. Period.

You don't get to penalize people for having initiative, particularly when they already pay a disproportionate chunk of the bill.

 

[Care4all]

The percentage is meaningless if it doesn't pan out to mean more per individual, oh brilliant one.

What percentage does a poor person pay in taxes overall, compared to taxes a rich person pays?

A much smaller percentage. Period.

You don't get to penalize people for having initiative, particularly when they already pay a disproportionate chunk of the bill.

the WORKING POOR do pay less in income taxes, but they do pay....through sales taxes, and state income taxes, through property taxes if they do own an abode, through cigarette taxes, through gas taxes, through buying lottery tickets....that's all tax revenues....through telephone taxes, through license fees, through payroll taxes of ss and medicare for their entire salary etc....so to claim they do not pay their fair share in taxes is absurd, considering they aready to not earn enough for necessities unless extremely frugal.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it's absurd to punish those who make money by requiring them to pay an increased portion of their income in taxes. It's economically very bad policy and at the root of most of our economic woes.

Take a class in economics, genius.

 

[Dogger]

And the result is.........................................

Top 5% of the citizens pay 50% of the taxes.......
Top 20% of the citizens pay 80% of the taxes.....

Compare the percentage paid as income tax with the percentage of wealth controlled by those at the top:

If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).
Taxation in the United States - Tax Distribution

Because the analysis overlooks payroll taxes, which are heaviest for those at the bottom, it presents a picture of fairness that is illusory and incomplete. But even that skewed picture destroys the argument that the wealthy are overtaxed.

 

[Care4all]

No, it's absurd to punish those who make money by requiring them to pay an increased portion of their income in taxes. It's economically very bad policy and at the root of most of our economic woes.

Take a class in economics, genius.

you are a male, aren't you? be truthful! my intuition is wayyyyyyy off if you are not, and i apologize!

care

 

[Care4all]

Compare the percentage paid as income tax with the percentage of wealth controlled by those at the top:


Because the analysis overlooks payroll taxes, which are heaviest for those at the bottom, it presents a picture of fairness that is illusory and incomplete. But even that skewed picture destroys the argument that the wealthy are overtaxed.

precisely dogger!

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm a 43-year-old woman. I have four children, three boys and one girl, ages from 22-4. I have one granddaughter, one daughter-in-law who's in the Army and one who is Hispanic and at home with her baby until June, when she will return to work at Wal-Mart.

I wasn't abused as a child, nor was I raised in a religious (or even believing) home. I'm a case worker now. I've worked as a journalist, a jail cook, a substance abuse counselor, a program manager for group homes for sex offenders, and as a detention worker and tracker for juvenile.

Happy?

 

[jillian]

I'm a 43-year-old woman. I have four children, three boys and one girl, ages from 22-4. I have one granddaughter, one daughter-in-law who's in the Army and one who is Hispanic and at home with her baby until June, when she will return to work at Wal-Mart.

I wasn't abused as a child, nor was I raised in a religious (or even believing) home. I'm a case worker now. I've worked as a journalist, a jail cook, a substance abuse counselor, a program manager for group homes for sex offenders, and as a detention worker and tracker for juvenile.

Happy?

Really? What happened to those abusive "libs" who raised you? Another one of your stories?

 

[AllieBaba]

The lie is yours, Jillian. I've never said my upbringing was abusive. In fact,when Care4all harped on it previously and said "I knew it, you were abused!" I said nothing could be further from the truth.
But go ahead and keep up the lies. People do notice, you know.

 

[Care4all]

I'm a 43-year-old woman. I have four children, three boys and one girl, ages from 22-4. I have one granddaughter, one daughter-in-law who's in the Army and one who is Hispanic and at home with her baby until June, when she will return to work at Wal-Mart.

I wasn't abused as a child, nor was I raised in a religious (or even believing) home. I'm a case worker now. I've worked as a journalist, a jail cook, a substance abuse counselor, a program manager for group homes for sex offenders, and as a detention worker and tracker for juvenile.

Happy?

ok then, i owe you an apology!

care

 

[AllieBaba]

No problem...

 

[Gunny]

That is so nice for you. If you were the only person in the country, that would be a legitimate basis for setting national policy.

Whatever benefit you enjoyed under Reagan was not sustainable. You could have achieved the same thing by running up your credit card and not paying the bill.

My comment regarding my personal circumstances are nto subject to debate nor your what-if-ery. It was easily sustainable until my taxes got jacked in the 90s.

The fact that you think it's okay for people to suffer financially so you can balance some freakin' books somewhere is nice for you. Those books don't matter a damn to me when your answer to balancing the numbers is sticking your hand in MY wallet.

My comment on the topic which you did NOT address is that Clinton had 8years to reverse anything Reagan did and he did not, so don't act like things would be different with a Democrat President.

Clinton's tax policies came down on the middle class every bit as much as you are claiming Reagan's did.

When you want to talk about a solution that does not include breaking the backs of middle class America, let me know. Until then, you are just part of the problem, not an answer to it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Dem plan of capital gains, along with higher income taxes hurts the entrepreneur. And what the hell is a windfall profit tax?!?!

 

[Gunny]

The Dem plan of capital gains, along with higher income taxes hurts the entrepreneur. And what the hell is a windfall profit tax?!?!

I have no problem supporting closing tax loopholes for the wealthy. While I don't believe it is fair to tax them at a higher rate than anyone else, I also don't believe it is fair to allow them to actually pay less taxes than everyone else.

And I'm not speaking to total amounts either. I'm speaking to percentage of income that is paid as tax.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I have no problem supporting closing tax loopholes for the wealthy. While I don't believe it is fair to tax them at a higher rate than anyone else, I also don't believe it is fair to allow them to actually pay less taxes than everyone else.

And I'm not speaking to total amounts either. I'm speaking to percentage of income that is paid as tax.

I'm with you there on all points.

 

[Dogger]

The fact that you think it's okay for people to suffer financially so you can balance some freakin' books somewhere is nice for you. Those books don't matter a damn to me when your answer to balancing the numbers is sticking your hand in MY wallet.

Again, you distort my statement.

It's isn't just a matter of balancing some irrelevant set of books. It's a question of whether this generation shoulders it's own responsibility, or whether it spends the country into bankruptcy and hands the bill off to future generations.

A tax is a levy on current taxpayers. Deficit spending is a levy on future taxpayers. Borrow and spend Republicans do not cut taxes; they simply defer them. And they weaken the dollar in the process.

Thanks to George W. Bush, every man, woman and child owes almost $30,000 for his or her share of the national debt, and pays around $1,000 annual interest on that debt. We have failed to maintain the infrastructure we inherited, so the real debt has to be adjusted upward to include the deferred repairs that were our responsibility.

Ours will be the first generation to leave our kids a country that is worse off than the one our parents gave us. How will future generations deal with their own problems if they are saddled with the debt that we ran up and the problems that we just kicked down the road?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Again, you distort my statement.

It's isn't just a matter of balancing some irrelevant set of books. It's a question of whether this generation shoulders it's own responsibility, or whether it spends the country into bankruptcy and hands the bill off to future generations.

A tax is a levy on current taxpayers. Deficit spending is a levy on future taxpayers. Borrow and spend Republicans do not cut taxes; they simply defer them. And they weaken the dollar in the process.

Thanks to George W. Bush, every man, woman and child owes almost $30,000 for his or her share of the national debt, and pays around $1,000 annual interest on that debt. We have failed to maintain the infrastructure we inherited, so the real debt has to be adjusted upward to include the deferred repairs that were our responsibility.

Ours will be the first generation to leave our kids a country that is worse off than the one our parents gave us. How will future generations deal with their own problems if they are saddled with the debt that we ran up and the problems that we just kicked down the road?

Again, the dem solution: tax. We could start by eliminating 10 percent of our overgrown govt.

 

[Dogger]

Again, the dem solution: tax. We could start by eliminating 10 percent of our overgrown govt.

That is the solution by BOTH parties. I just think it's more responsible to tax those that spend it, while Republicans are gung ho to tax future generations.

You should note that deficit spending actually promotes increased spending. It creates the illusion that we can have more government services without really paying for them.

If we curbed deficits (which are okay for capital improvements and emergencies), people would see the real cost of government, and that would create political pressure to contain spending. Without that pressure, politicians of both parties see personal reward for spending with no pressure to cut back.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not gung ho to tax future generations.

 

[Gunny]

Again, you distort my statement.

It's isn't just a matter of balancing some irrelevant set of books. It's a question of whether this generation shoulders it's own responsibility, or whether it spends the country into bankruptcy and hands the bill off to future generations.

A tax is a levy on current taxpayers. Deficit spending is a levy on future taxpayers. Borrow and spend Republicans do not cut taxes; they simply defer them. And they weaken the dollar in the process.

Thanks to George W. Bush, every man, woman and child owes almost $30,000 for his or her share of the national debt, and pays around $1,000 annual interest on that debt. We have failed to maintain the infrastructure we inherited, so the real debt has to be adjusted upward to include the deferred repairs that were our responsibility.

Ours will be the first generation to leave our kids a country that is worse off than the one our parents gave us. How will future generations deal with their own problems if they are saddled with the debt that we ran up and the problems that we just kicked down the road?

I distorted nothing, and while I see a lot of partisan editorializing and sermonmizing, I see no actual facts.

I don't give a damn who you want to hold responsible for what. If it includes adding more taxes to MY load, then I'm against it, and I'm voting against any politician trying to promote it.

There are more than enough dollars out there being flat-out wasted within and by this government -- and I did NOT say administration because that's bullshit -- to pay off the deficit without robbing our pockets again.

Tell me ... just how many people is it worth putting on the street to you just so you can feel all good about the books being perfectly balanced?

Just wondering because you liberals who claim to represent the common man -- the man in the street -- the blue collar guys talk out of both sides of your mouth on the issue when you turn around and tax that same guy until he bleeds.