Claiming that any limited use of socialism lowers the standard of living of the poor is completely untrue. If this was true then having the government hand out bread to starving people would somehow make them more hungry. Your claim that limited wealth redistribution "lowers everyone's standard of living" is so outlandish that I doubt you could find a single economist in the United States that would agree with you. You have absolutely no support for your argument.

I appreciate your elaboration. However it sounds like we are talking about apples and oranges here. You are discussing the the percentage of a rich person's income that they are paying out in taxes. What I believe has actually been brought up is the percentage of all government income that is being paid by different income groups, which is something entirely different:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/


To put things in the simplest of terms, let's say that after everyone in the country has paid their income taxes and the total amount of taxes that the government took in was $100. This would be the breakdown based upon 2001 numbers:

The top 1% of income earners sent the government $29

The top 5% of income earners sent the government $53

The top 50% of income earners sent the government $96

The bottom 50% of income earners sent the government $4


You are correct in that this is only a discussion of Federal Income Tax.

Keeping the ratio between rich and poor constant does not discourage the rich from producing and certainly encourages the poor as the economy progresses. Allowing the gap to expand simply creates excess wealth for those who have not worked harder than their predecessors. By keeping the ratio constant, the wealthy are not punished. Your last question is a false dichotomy based on poor assumptions.

America has been a combination of capitalism/socialism with a rising socialism component since FDR. Societies work best when the 2 are combined. Our country is now much better off for it.

My mistake. You are correct.

These sorts of figures are misleading when talking about tax fairness, in part because it excludes more regressive taxes. Also, it's mathematically impossible for the bottom 50% to make up 50% of the total taxes paid, which is what is implied should happen when these numbers are presented.

The bottom 50% figure is a bit misleading also, since many returns are filed by retirees who have nothing more than a little passive income.

What you guys need is two figures for each income level you want to look out: share of total income, and share of total taxes.

The numbers are available, and have been kicked around on here before, but I don't have time to dig them up.

What they tend to show is what you'd expect to find in a mildly progressive tax system like ours: the rich pay a little bit more than their share of income, the middle class pay a smaller bit more, the poor pay a little bit less.

__________________
Man up.

Actually I think it's a term reflective of democrat strategy.

The statement is correct. Your contention is that it doesn't take AGI into account. And you make an assumption that you don't even know to be true. AMT cuts into those deductions many times for starters. And even after AGI the rich pay a larger percentage than the poor or middle class by a healthy margin.

That's because it isn't necessary for every tax to be progressive. The largest tax we pay is income tax and that is progressive. Good enough. There are also taxes on luxury goods that will affect the rich more than the poor that you fail to include. The rich pay an even larger % of property taxes on a $ basis.

The poor already have a very low tax burden. If you are poor you are unlikely to have a house so no property tax. You also likely pay no federal income tax. On top of that you are likely to receive federal aid from welfare to unemployment. The poor have more than a fair chance to advance, they are not being burdened with taxes by any stretch.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

A mixed economy is indeed best as laissez faire and socialism are both pipe dreams which cause more damage trying to implement than their actual utility as systems. But there is question as to how much is too much on each side.
I believe minimal socialism is key, but more importantly well-aimed social programs that treat social problems rather than throwing money at them blindly.
There is no doubt that in the short-run capitalism offers the best all around quality of life. But more capitalism provides more growth which increases the size of the economy. I'm all for switching to socialism whenever we reach, if it's possible, that point where we have reached maximum growth... but that's not in our life times... and keep in mind there's a whole world out there to be grown.

My point is that, yes, a mixed economy is best. But it's more complicated than that. Not all mixed economies are equal. I suppose its best to look at it like investment. Think of socialism as bonds and capitalism as stocks.
It would be stupid to invest 100% in stocks but equally dumb to invest it all in low-growth stable bonds. In today's growing world economy, an aggressive strategy makes sense. We won't be at that retirement point (Utopia) anytime soon.
But even once you've decided say 80% stocks, 20% bonds, it would be silly to just think that's enough. Are these programs aimed at the right people. Do you have brokers you can really trust?

But remember also that all mixed economies still operate essentially as capitalist and the framework... until all nations get to maximum efficiency... is always capitalist.

What's most important is that we can be flexible in economic legislation to jump any hurdles.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Oh..
And as for the questioned stat about CEO vs. worker pay... never seen that.
But I've seen similar data showing growth in CEO pay as FAR outpacing inflation, with workers barely keeping up.
And as of the last time I looked at data of the type (a year ago or so), the middle class has been slowly but steadily shrinking with the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer since the '80s. This is relative money... not actual quality of life.
But it is important to ensure that America has a vibrant middle class. The middle class has several important functions in a democracy, including to act as a buffer between the possibly oppressive rich and potentially revolutionary poor.

One of the funny things about the economic news is that both sides tend to be right.
Yes, the economy is growing.
But the average worker is not feeling it.
And the growth difference between workers and CEOs is the most extreme example of why.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

capitalism with a safety net.

The disparity in CEO pay really began under Clinton (FYI, I'm not saying it's his fault) when the internet exploded. Why? Because exec pay is often tied to stock price as it should be. They make most of their money based upon how the stock performs so when stocks skyrocketed so did their pay.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.