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

[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.

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.

Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth, rest going to hell. See sig PP1

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....

looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy

...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....

the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.

When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?

 

[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.

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?

That's very kind of you to respond to that absurd remark. I sure hope the member appreciates that you did.

 

[jc456]

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.

they do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth, rest going to hell. See sig PP1

Dude, if you want to discuss/debate the regressivity of the tax code, then say so, but stop conflating disparate aspects of and pertaining to tax, taxation, income, wealth, income inequality, etc. Put some real rigor into your remarks. You'll know when that happens...You will not feel that you are defending something and the nature of your posts will become merely informative. Also, the refutations people offer will be extraneous, frivolous, and inapposite.

I suspect you and I agree on matters of taxation. I'd be happy to say so, corroborate and amplify your accurately and precisely made claims. I can't and won't do that when you conflate and confound your points and the subject matter itself.

Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth

NEWS FLASH!!!
Tax rates and taxes paid are not the same things as receiving wealth.

See sig PP1

I don't know what that means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

And?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....

looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy

...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....

the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.

When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?

Because I was responding to a liberal idiot, but then I repeat myself.

 

[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.

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.

Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth, rest going to hell. See sig PP1

Dude, if you want to discuss/debate the regressivity of the tax code, then say so, but stop conflating disparate aspects of and pertaining to tax, taxation, income, wealth, income inequality, etc. Put some real rigor into your remarks. You'll know when that happens...You will not feel that you are defending something and the nature of your posts will become merely informative. Also, the refutations people offer will be extraneous, frivolous, and inapposite.

I suspect you and I agree on matters of taxation. I'd be happy to say so, corroborate and amplify your accurately and precisely made claims. I can't and won't do that when you conflate and confound your points and the subject matter itself.

Close to flat tax= Top 1% now getting basically getting all the new wealth

NEWS FLASH!!!
Tax rates and taxes paid are not the same things as receiving wealth.

See sig PP1

I don't know what that means.

Probably.

See signature, paragraph 1:
After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!

 

[francoHFW]

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

And?

GOP injustice/bs and the ruin of the nonrich and the country is all, dupe...

 

[francoHFW]

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.

You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....

looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy

...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....

the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.

When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?

Because I was responding to a liberal idiot, but then I repeat myself.

We could say the same about you, but we'd be right, dupe.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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


In general govt can do, what you can do.

Taking more from the people who earn more, is simple theft.

Whether it's govt doing it or you doing it.

 

[keepitreal]

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.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change. And remember, the US is the most generous people in the entire world. We give more of our money to the so-called poor than anybody, and it's not those Wal-Mart people that are giving, it's those greedy millionaires you speak of.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay over 70% of the collected income taxes in this country. If that's not enough, then how much more should they pay? 75%? 80%? 95%?

About 45% of our population pays no income tax at all. Maybe it's about time those on the bottom start paying their fare share for a change

Hey Ray

Agree...I think it's about time people pay their fare share.
Not by raising anyone's taxes but, by freeing up lost revenue.

I used to work at a salvage store....
discontinued, damaged, out of code,
inventories from stores that closed...etc

I can't tell you how many customers
would use tax exemptions, issued to
the Chicago BoE, the Catholic Archdiocese,
local/neighborhood worship centers,
fast food restaurants, day care centers...

buying shampoo, pads, make up, soda, snacks
shower curtains, picture frames..you get it

Tell me how the schools are using these items...they're not
And, I'm sure those using tax exemptions for personal use
could get fired from the BoE, or any other large organization
that has tax exempt status and distributes exemption papers
to the entire staff and work force, on a large scale, ex. BoE

That was an example of lost revenue from 2 sources
Those who are exempt from paying taxes on purchases
And, the companies that wrote off the damaged,
discontinued, expired and entire inventories, as a loss on their taxes

No one and no company, business, enterprise, etc..
should be allowed to be exempt from paying taxes
or be spared from the risks of running a business
or the consequences of mismanaging a business!

If someone loses $10,000 gambling
they can't write it off as a loss on their taxes...
so, if a business had throw away $10,000
in expired, damaged merchandise....why is that a loss?

Separation of church and state
wasn't intended to be a means to avoid paying taxes...
even Jesus, when tested and asked, by the spies,
sent out by the scribes and chief priests...

Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?
Jesus answered, Render therefore to Caesar
the things that are Caesar's, and to God
the things that are God's

Which brings me to...
Why the hell are charitable contributions tax write-offs?
They shouldn't be!...more lost taxable revenue

Why should link(food stamps) purchases
be exempt from taxes...wtf, they should pay the taxes!
Food taxes are low and they're not having to pay for the food!

Being able to write off shit for anything in conjunction with
a responsibility you took on, is ridiculous!
You wanted a house, so you bought a house
Whether or not you wanted children, you have them
Whatever the case may be... responsibility shouldn't be an exemption!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

And?

GOP injustice/bs and the ruin of the nonrich and the country is all, dupe...

8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama and things are worse than ever, eh comrade?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

You almost had a really strong, hard-hitting post, but now you don't because rather than writing....

looking at a single year change of income or wealth, after a huge stock market collapse, is...idiocy

...and stopping there, you instead impugned your own objectivity, thus integrity, by tacking this on the end....

the kind of idiocy liberals are known for.

When one's case/point is strong and patently so on it's own, why diminish its strength and the author's (one's own) legitimacy with partisan jabs?

Because I was responding to a liberal idiot, but then I repeat myself.

We could say the same about you, but we'd be right, dupe.

You could call me a liberal idiot. You liberal idiots are often confused.

 

[xyz]

8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama and things are worse than ever, eh comrade?

Yeah, it's amazing what one month of Trump can do.

 

[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.

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.

is that your current propaganda and rhetoric, so i can remind you next time you start, "blaming the poor" for not paying income taxes, but getting social service benefits.

 

[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?

I hope you wrote that just to try to be cute and that you didn't ask that question with serious intent.

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

1. Donald Trump is a wealthy person. He is not "rich people" nor is he "the rich." He is a member of those groups, not the entirety of those groups.
2. How do you know what Trump paid in personal income taxes? I haven't seen is tax returns, so I don't know. I can make some pretty good inferences about what he may have paid, but that's about it. I recall the news about his nearly one billion dollar net operating loss, but I don't know to what tax years he elected to roll it forward or backward. Do you?

nothing but diversion? or, do you prefer to, "blame the poor" for not paying income taxes.

seems like a, "conflict of interest" if he wants to lower taxes, for the rich.

 

[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.

They should pay until they aren't wealthy any more.

is it, immoral to tax the rich into Heaven, by solving simple poverty?

 

[danielpalos]

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

No.

 

[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.

Evidence?

Should we ask, wikileaks?