What I will say is the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 3%.
To me that is disproportionate, and proof of the redistribution of wealth already in place. Yet, it's not enough to the liberals. Go figure.......
Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:
Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.
Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.
Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."
The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.
What's happening in your scenario is no different.
If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.
Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.
My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.
By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.
Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.
1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.
Each are taxed at exactly 20%.
First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.
Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid
94% of the total tax burden last year!"
Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They
were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.
Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a
lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.
