Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[danielpalos]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?

Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.

Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.

Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

 

[Papageorgio]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?

Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.

Trump paid what he was legally required to pay, just as most Americans do. Your issue is with your Congressman not Trump.

Only the national socialist right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to "blame the poor" for only paying the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.

Show me anything about me "blaming the poor", it seems I am blaming Congress who makes and passes laws that allow for huge loopholes that allow rich not to pay taxes. The poor as anyone need to pay the least they legally can. I don't fault people for using the laws to benefit themselves.

Seems you are the one wanting the poor to pay taxes, pretty petty and selfish of you.

 

[francoHFW]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

No. The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.

What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation. That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

• "Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage."

Now look at the chart below. If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups. Do you know what a quintile is? I don't think you do. What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate. Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.

 

[francoHFW]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

No. The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.

What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation. That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

• "Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage."

Now look at the chart below. If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups. Do you know what a quintile is? I don't think you do. What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate. Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.

Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

 

[jc456]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

why?

 

[jc456]

Of course they should, but they won't

Because those same rich are the ones who are buying the politicians to get even more tax cuts so they can create jobs....

But you already know that

why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

No. The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.

What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation. That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

• "Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage."

Now look at the chart below. If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups. Do you know what a quintile is? I don't think you do. What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate. Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.

Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,

Sure thing, bud.

 

[regent]

If we could see Trump's tax return maybe we could make a better decision.

 

[easyt65]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

'Tax them 'cause they got more'

What a wonderful, yet completely un-fair' Liberal philosophy.

A great reason to end the IRS as we know it and institute a FAIR or FLAT Tax.

 

[francoHFW]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

No. The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.

What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation. That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

• "Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage."

Now look at the chart below. If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups. Do you know what a quintile is? I don't think you do. What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate. Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.

Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,

Sure thing, bud.

The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

No. The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.

What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation. That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

• "Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage."

Now look at the chart below. If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups. Do you know what a quintile is? I don't think you do. What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate. Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.

Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,

Sure thing, bud.

The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...

First of all, America doesn't have wealth or income, individuals do.
And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.

FYI, both your links are dead.

 

[jc456]

If we could see Trump's tax return maybe we could make a better decision.

about?

 

[Deleted member 61768]

A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

No. The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.

What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation. That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

• "Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage."

Now look at the chart below. If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups. Do you know what a quintile is? I don't think you do. What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate. Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.

Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Your second table proves my point lol.

Do you truly not see that even my second chart subdivides the top quintile into smaller groups? If you reconstruct the top quintile to determine its total tax rate as a percentage of income, you'll find that rate is 32.725%. That is not the same as the next three quintiles pay. That was your assertion, not mine. I'm merely showing you that you were wrong.

Reminding you of what you wrote:

Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

Now tell me please whether 15.025% or 16.05% for the top quintile as depicted in the second chart I presented is the same as the rates shown there for the remaining three of the top four quintiles.

Even using the chart you provided from The Washington Post , one sees that the top quintile is again broken into four subdivisions. As before, one doesn't really need to do any math to see the invalidity of your claim. You claimed the top four quintiles pay at the same rate; however, looking at the rate captions of the bottom three quintiles, one sees they are not similar with regard to federal taxes, so there's no need to re-aggregate the segments of the top quintile. The figures for state taxes appear somewhat closer, but doing the math, one finds that for state taxes the top quintile's rate is 9.875%, which is not 11-anything-percent or 12-something-percent.

BTW, I think you just tossed an article at me rather than reading it carefully. The Washington Post chart you shared is nothing more than a graphic representation of the second chart I provided. You'd have known that had you read the article and linked content.

Also, here's the chart you didn't present from the article you did link. Look carefully at it....And read your own cited article while you're at it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?

If that isn't the question for which the OP wanted an answer, by what contrivance would the question you propose above be a better question? It seems to me your proposed question would be a pointless one to ask if opinions about whether "the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA" is not for what the OP seeks.

Where do you, people in general perhaps, "get off" telling someone what you have above? Is the hubris it takes to do so, and move to say so, measurable? If so, how much does it take?

 

[Slyhunter]

A better question is, should the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA?

If that isn't the question for which the OP wanted an answer, by what contrivance would the question you propose above be a better question? It seems to me your proposed question would be a pointless one to ask if opinions about whether "the average American be required to pay Federal Taxes in the USA" is not for what the OP seeks.

Where do you, people in general perhaps, "get off" telling someone what you have above? Is the hubris it takes to do so, and move to say so, measurable? If so, how much does it take?

The more you make the more you should pay. Those who get the most should pay the most.

 

[hadit]

Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more

Just how much more would you have rich people pay? Wealthy people already pay over half the total personal federal income taxes collected.

do they, actually pay that or does an, artificial person do it for them?

Mr. Trump did not pay any personal income taxes, recently.

Evidence?

 

[francoHFW]

I think the rich should ABSOLUTELY pay more because the majority of them are selfish and don't care about anybody but themselves! Trust me, if you are a millionaire, it is NOT going to hurt you if you just pay a little more in taxes. I believe that if you are a good and righteous person, you would want to help the poor or people that are less fortunate. It's as simple as that! People need to stop being so selfish.

'Tax them 'cause they got more'

What a wonderful, yet completely un-fair' Liberal philosophy.

A great reason to end the IRS as we know it and institute a FAIR or FLAT Tax.

No, dumbass dupe, tax them more because they're basically getting all the new wealth and the rest are going to hell.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest

 

[francoHFW]

Get off the GD fed income taxes bs RW propaganda, dupe. Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage.

No. The top 4 quintiles do not pay the same percentage.

What is very similar among taxpayers in the top quintile is the effective rate at which their income is taxed in aggregate, that is, across federal, state and local jurisdictions to which their income is subject to taxation. That's no surprise; they're all in the same quintile.

Be that as it may, that is not what you wrote. This is what you wrote:

• "Count ALL taxes and the top 4 quintiles pay the same percentage."

Now look at the chart below. If you are of a mind to talk about quintiles, you'll notice that the top quintile has been subdivided into four groups. Do you know what a quintile is? I don't think you do. What I know is that there isn't a credible source that's going to show that in the past lustrum the members of each quintile of taxpayers pay total taxes at the same effective or marginal tax rates.

There are some taxes whereof everyone does pay the same tax rate. Those taxes are what make the rates depicted in the last chart above be as close as they are.

Your second table proves my point lol. That's basically a flat tax system,patently unfair, with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth, and the non rich and the country going to hell...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiituWciqLSAhUh04MKHb2dCGYQFggtMAY&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/heres-why-the-47-percent-argument-is-an-abuse-of-tax-data/&usg=AFQjCNE_8LZl_VB-o4FAbNsJrxLxLCPy8g&sig2=Cj36bto8rX1hz7hzHI5FtQ

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

with the top 1% ending up with all the new wealth,

Sure thing, bud.

The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going ...
www.alternet.org/.../the_richest_1_have_captured_america's_wealth_--_what's_it_goi...
Feb 16, 2010 - The economic top one percent of the population now owns over ... Other than in the workplace, in almost all our costs of living the ... A huge percentage of our tax dollars ultimately end up in their pockets. ... Our nation's biggest state economies, like California and New York, are the ones in most trouble.
Bernie Sanders says 99 percent of 'new' income is going to top 1 ...
www.politifact.com/truth-o.../bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
Apr 19, 2015 - "99 percent of all new income today (is) going to the top 1 percent. ... the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of America — massive wealth and ... The problem is it only goes up to 2011, so we cannot compare it to the ...

First of all, America doesn't have wealth or income, individuals do.
And looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.

FYI, both your links are dead.

Right, dupe. And see sig PP 1.
http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...the-costs-of-inequality-the-rich-and-the-rest