Oh, so you're talking about all those "rich people" that provide all the jobs and benefits and careers to everyone else. Yeah. Those (*)(*)(*)(*)ed "rich people."

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Exactly. I'd like to know that as well.

I'm a CPA and have done lots of taxes. And I don't know of ONE rich person who pays only 1% in taxes on their total income. Like Bush and Cheney, they pay LOTS of money in federal taxes. A lot more in total and a lot more in percentages than the poor. In fact, the truly poor in this country pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

I've been poor and I've been rich. And believe me, I can tell you from personal experience, I paid a LOT more in taxes.....both total and percentage.....when I was rich.

Plus, the more you make, they begin to take away most of your itemized deductions, all your personal exemptions, and the ability to contribute to an IRA. It's called "taking from the rich and giving to the poor." It's also called, "redistribution of wealth."

What it doesn't consider is this: while my husband and I were studying, making the sacrifices to put ourselves through college, NOT starting a family before we could afford it, NOT buying a new car every three years, and NOT taking nice vacations., and living within our means.......we get penalized for that; while another couple who did all those things.....didn't save and didn't plan.....are given a lower tax rate and are actually given some of my money.

Where's the fairness in that?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

And liberals like you are continually trying to confuse the discussion when the discussion is about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Compare apples to apples and stop trying to deflect. Because I can guarantee you that the rich pay MORE in sales taxes as well.....as they buy more.

Look, I'm not against the progressive tax system. I appreciated it when I was at the lower levels. And I was never jealous of those at the top when I was at the bottom. All I'm saying is STOP demonizing people for making a succsss of themselves. And STOP acting as if the rich don't pay their "fair share." They pay FAR MORE than their fair share. Always have and always will.

Bush and Cheney are perfect examples.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

liberals point out the deliberate effort of conservatives to distort the tax by talking about one and only one tax which happens to be progressive and ignoring every single other tax most of which are highly regressive. Thus they give the entirely false impression that its elites who are being badly abused by the tax system which an absolute and total lie when one looks at the overal, not just one tax picture.

Rich people do pay more taxes than the poor. They earn a heck of a lot more money than the poor. If I earn a hundred millon dollars one would expect I would pay more than if I earn 15,000 although apparently this is an alien concept to conservatives who are shocked by the unfairness of that...

I thought my example (I said it was an example not the actual tax rate several times) was pretty clear. But I will simply it some more. Consumption taxes, like sales taxes or the proposed conservative alternative to the income tax the consumption tax, is highly regressive that is you pay a higher percentage of your income as you earn less money. A signficant number of taxes in the US, the ones conservatives never bring up, are highly regressive.

Indeed the only taxes conservatives ever bring up among the vast number in the US are those few such as estate, capital gains, income taxes and dividend taxes that are progressive. They virtually never talk about sales, exise or other taxes that are highly regressive. What an amazing concidence for a group more tyed to the wealthy than any movement in a century. Only talk about taxes that are progressive, focus on cutting them, ignore all the others.

Bush could have signficantly increased the standard deduction or eliminated federal exise taxes which would have helped median and middle income wage earners. Instead he focused on taxes on elites such as estate taxes, higher end income taxes, capital gains dividend taxes etc. Who here thinks its concidental that a conservative did such.


Bad news for conservatives. Most Americans dont think its the wealthy who are getting the shaft by the tax system or that elite based taxes are where the problem with the tax system is...

And they are right, Americans pay one of the least fair tax systems on earth, to benefit elites. When we start getting rid of Republicans over the next decade we can fix that problem - when we start for the first time in a generation focusing on the problems of people who dont earn six figure salaries.

http://tinyurl.com/my5lb

But you have a serious flaw in your logic. You wouldn't analyze that by the percentage of people in each category, but by the percentage contribution from income to taxes. The ratio or percentage of people in the category is secondary.

What I mean is, some group earns (for example) 60% of the income and pays 60% of the taxes. The fact that the group constitutes (say) 10% of the population is food for another discussion, but not this one.

Personally, I am in favor of a flat tax. The overabundance of schemes in the present system creates inefficiencies and waste (which Force and Java were just discussing). This system is needlessly complicated. And while JP5 is correct that this system has some designs that are based on redistribution of wealth, what is actually the case is the middle class (lower and upper) shoulders more of the burden than has been represented here.

A lot of upper middle class people think that they are rich. If you're actually rich, you sell some of your restricted stock to pay your taxes. If you're actually rich, you have enough depreciation to cancel out most of your liability anyway. I don't think of my aunt and uncle as being "rich" (in the Donald Trump sense), though I would say they're closer to what the Cheney's made than what Bush made. When I was visiting them last year, they commented on their harsh tax burden... it was less than what I paid , yet my income is no where near theirs - though my taxable net income is apparently greater. Odd how they can buy a $500K house and a Land Rover for their son (cash for the SUV) and I'm sweating bullets everytime mortgage rates go up an 1/8th.

Life ain't fair, and it never will be. You're always better off near the top than at the bottom. But the tax system could be unshuffled and system made MUCH more transparent and simple... and efficient.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

This is an example not actual numbers of why a flat tax is not very good for most Americans. Its particularly true today when income disparity is so high and its the middle and lower income groups not elites who really are struggling.

I earn 100,000. I have to have 30,000 of that to pay my neccessities (things like food, clothing, housing, power etc you need to survive). I have 70,000 left which is not required essentially this is fat. I pay a 20 percent flat tax (the last estimate I saw said that to generate the same revenue as the income tax the flat tax rate would be about 23 percent but this is easier to do the math on for my example). SO I pay 20,000 in taxes have 50,000 in discretionary spending left.

Now I earn 25,000 which is close to the median. In reality virtually everything there is non-discretionary for most families but for sake of observation we will say they have 2,000 in discretionary income after the absolute neccessities are taken care of. I have 2,000 in discretionary income. I pay 5,000 in a flat tax. Not only is all my discretionary income gone, part of my income for neccessities is gone as well.

A flat tax would flatten many Americans and signficantly shift the tax burden from those most able to pay it, to those that are least able to pay it. This would occur even as disparity is at the highest point since the early 1900's and when much of the US public (but not elites) are just hanging on by their fingertips.

If they want to make the system fairer they can simple get rid of the deductions and stll have a progressive system.

...depreciation on items bought for your business, or business related improvements, not personal items.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

You do realize that you are only refering to the income taxes. Not all federal taxes. Even the poorest pay 7.65% social security and medicare. And you do know that the social security tax revenue is not used for social security, but for the general spending of the government. So in reality the poor still pay 7.65% federal taxes for general spending.

Well, I'll tell ya what Noetsi.....I'll trade you my tax bill with YOUR tax bill this year; sight unseen.

Deal?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007