Quote:
Originally Posted by noetsi";p="
I am Joe Doe. I earn 30 thousand a year. I spend 20 thousand of that on required consumption expenses (things like housing, clothes, food etc that are not discretionary). This is a very low number of what actually would be spent by such an income earner but I do it to give the consumption tax types a decent break. I pay ten percent of that 20k in consumption taxes 2000 dollars. I pay 6.6 percent roughly of my total income in taxes far more than Joe Rich guy.
But the reality is even worse. The real bit from taxes is not on total income but on discretionary income that which you dont need to survive. Joe Rich guy has 900,000 he does not have to spend (even with very generous definitions of that term which assumes he "needs" to have very fancy digs, cars etc compared to others). Only about 1 percent of that is touched by taxes. Joe Doe has 10k in discretionary spending (which is way high for real Americans who need to spend most of their income to get by these days). He pays 20 percent of his discretionary income in taxes. Many state and federal exise taxes are done exactly this way now (as are local taxes).
Quite a concidence n'est ce pas mes amis?
|
So are you saying because a person has more discretionary income than that is a reason for them to pay even more taxes than they do? That is screwed up logic. As it is right now a family with 2 kids that make 50k or less pay no federal taxes thanks to Bush.
I paid $1600 from 70k gross and a few of my friends paid 15k from 120k gross. I think people do pay their share and then some. It is funny how everyone wants more from the people who do not use any of the benefits and the ones who use all the benefits pay mostly no taxes.
How about that rich guy who gave jobs to 50 employees? You can say he is supporting 200 plus Americans and still you complain about his taxes. This is so wrong...