...that lefty neo kommies will ignore. Their ultimate aim is to do away with "wealth" altogether. They don't want a world where there are "wealthy" people (their own leaders excepted). They want to tax away all the wealth of the wealthy so their political leaders can have that money to create Utopia. Once wealth is eradicated, then all The People can live in harmony with the rationed goods doled out by the central leadership of their Big Brother, Big Government.
Wish lefty neo kommies could experience this fantasy of theirs without this country becoming their vision of Utopia. Say, neo kommies, go live in Cuba, or Venezuela, or China - as a working resident or citizen, not as a visitor - for just one year. Then try to leave! See for yourselves what the reality is.
Anybody but Mr. B. Hussein! |
|
I feel like it shouldn't have to be pointed out, but without any figures as to the percentage of total income the top 10% recieves, any discussion about the percentage of total taxes the top 10% pays are woefully short on context.
Example: These are made up numbers, but if the top 10% earns 90% of total income, then paying 71% of total taxes would actually be less than their "share"
simply stating that the top 10th percentile of earners paid 70% of taxes is meaningless without more info as to the makeup of the top 10th percentile.
|
|
The wealthy are paying way more than their fair share! Wealth redistribution is what is unfair! Those in the top tended to get a good education, take risks, and work their tails off to make it to where they are.
Those who are paying little or no taxes are the ones who get the food stamps (link card whatever), welfare payments, Medicaid, etc. How is that fair? |
|
dskerman,
Your thought process is a very common one, albeit completely incorrect. The top 1% earned 22% of the total reported income for 2006 but paid over 39% of the taxes. |
|
These statistics directly correlate to the governments own statistics about who owns the top 25 percent and top 40 percent of the wealth in the US.
To wit, in Latin American countries, 95 percent of the wealth is owned by 5 percent of the population.
Soon to be America.
The middle class is shrinking, the wealthy are getting more wealthy to the tune of "no matter how much you cut taxes for the rich, they'll still be paying more in taxes than the middle class and poor combined because they make all the money."
I'm sure the wealthy people in Latin American countries also feel equally disgruntled that they have to pay all the taxes in their countries too.
|
|
dskerman,
Many people make the same assumptions as you, and they are wrong as well. As reported in the WSJ, http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/07/wsj-their- fair.html , the top 1% paid close to 40% of ALL income taxes while they earned only 22% of the total income. The top 5% earned only 36% but paid 60%.
Our current tax code is steeply progressive and please don't be blinded by your own assumptions to the contrary. |
|
Those are incorrect assumptions.
The middle class is shrinking, I agree. The thruth, however, is that the "top money makers" bar is lowering. If you ask a Liberal, anyone making $65k is rich.
Furthermore, look at the table. I'm in the top 10%. Barely. But I live in a heavily taxed city, I pay far more taxes than those below me and I'm not a private business owner, nor do I have children.
I pay more in taxes than the bottom 50% make for the year. Do the math. Who's getting hosed? Give me a break. My gross vs net is astounding to look at. |
|
Kimberly.
Read the table. Anyone making money can avoid taxes by taking simple steps. The lower 50% avoid more taxes, by % of income, than any other class.
And this "woe is me... I'm poor" garbage is BS. You can use me as an example. Join the US Army. Serve honorably. When you get out, use the GI bill and student loans to put yourself through college. Get a degree and work very hard.
Ta'da!!! You are in the top 50%! OH! MY! GOSH! How could you do such a thing and work hard and succeed!?!?!?!
Finally, earning money does not make your rich. Saving and investing makes your rich. A good place to start is by reading the book "The Millionaire Next Door". They also have an updated revision they released a few years back.
Or maybe a Liberal like you needs to start with "Personal Finances for Dummies". $14.95 at Amazon. |
|
|
Get a grip, woman. "The top 10 ENJOY 80% of the financial wealth"? THEY WORKED FOR IT. IT'S THEIRS, NOT YOURS, NOT MINE. |
|
I'm always puzzled by folks who don't question the concept underlying even a 'flat' income tax. Here I'm not referring to liberals such as Kimberly, but to folks who presumably have thought about this rationally.
My assumption was always that the fairest tax is a head tax. The primary benefit I get from the Federal government is that I'm protected from people who would do me harm, mostly from outside the country. [Protection from bad guys already here comes from state and local governments.]
So unless a poor person's life is worth less than a rich person's life, shouldn't they each pay the same tax for the 'protection' function of government*?
So I always start the discussion about tax 'fairness' with that assumption.
One could also ask about the cost of providing protection. If it costs less to protect me on the local level, shouldn't I pay a lower tax to the local government for that service?
In my neighborhood, we might get a drive-by by the sheriff about once a month - mostly, I suspect, so they can see if there has been any new construction. In the 22 years we've lived here, there was one arrest here. That was when a perp, after having evaded a chase, drove down the road only to find it was a dead end. [I never knew police dogs had strobes on their collars to avoid being shot by the police.] So I'm sure the cost of police protection here is much lower than in some very 'disadvantaged' neighborhoods, such as Seattle's Rainier Valley.
So tell me again why the rich should pay any more _dollars_ per year in taxes than the non-rich?
*If we agree that a rich person's life IS worth more than a poor person's life, I suspect there are a number of social policies that should be revisited. |
|