What the OP is asking, and obviously doesn't fully understand is, liberals will NEVER be happy. With anything. They just aren't. Every person in the country that earns over $40,000 a year could give 95% of their income to the government and/or welfare recipients, and that still wouldn't be enough. Cause if that $40 grand a year earner has one possession that the liberal doesn't (a nicer house, car, toaster, anything), the liberal will do everything in their power to take it.
You>> 72% of the taxes, then the wealthy are underpaying relative to their wealth. We don't tax based on WEALTH. Some does lots doesn't. And that interest and those dividends are TAXED. It can and as you said the income is TAXED. The wealth that generates was derived from incomes that WAS TAXED, why should it be taxed again just because you still have it? Again my wife and I saved, sacrificed to do it and have lots of wealth, top 20%. My neighbor did not, spend it has he earned it and has little if any wealth. Why should I pay more tax than he? We're in the top 20% that pays 80% of income taxes, what is not fair about that? If our system is not progressive enough now what would be and be specific.
I was vice-president of the Teenage Republicans in a major Alabama city in 1968, I don't need to read anything about it I lived it. The shift to the Republican part was gradual especially at the state and local level and had nothing to do with the civil rights bills. Again why on earth would you think the racist segregationist ran to the party they had fought for decades and had finally defeated them? It was a shifting population to the South and the new generations such as myself that created the shift, not racist Democrats running to the Republican party.
And why don't we RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE so a whole lot more people will pay alot more taxes--perhaps not individually but in the aggregate!
Civil rights legislation opposition was largely due to geography. Nearly 100% of northern Democrats voted for it with a handful of Southern Democrats (~10%). ~85% of northern Republicans voted for it and no southern Republicans did. Since the civil rights era, party ID has followed this geographic pattern. The Republican Party capitalized on the larger split among Democrats (Southern Strategy). Do you have another reason why the South tends to vote Republican and the north tends to vote for Democrats ever since?
I'm actually okay with the tax rate/taxes I pay. What I'm not okay with is different tax rates dependent upon income type, nor am I thrilled with child tax credits and EIC's etc. I will take being in the top 13% any day of the week. Yeah I pay lots of taxes, but I also don't have ever worry about covering my monthly expenses anymore.
In my opinion, no country ever needs tax burden of more than 50%, in highest brackets. No matter how much of a welfare state you want, it can certainly be covered well from less than that. The only justification for even higher tax rates is either massive government systemic inefficiency, widespread corruption, or simply good old class warfare.
You shouldn't be taxed on wealth, and yes taxes for property is a state thing, but it is still a tax. So it still comes out of our pockets for "the government", which is basically one in the same. Nope? Are you kidding? The richest of the rich are the one's the tax code is written for. They use it too their advantage, and most of them make money off the government doing it. The difference between a poor person milking the government and a rich person milking it, is the rich person creates personal wealth by doing it while the poor person exists. At the end of the day the poor person is still in poverty with nothing to show for it, and each individual usually gets significantly less than their rich leach counter part. They (the richest of the rich) never pay the maximum and rarely pay half of the obligated suggested for prosperity on paper. None of them claim their entire income on income tax, and almost all of them use tax shelters written into their system (tax code) by their sock puppet politicians to keep from paying taxes on their entire income that is never fully disclosed. We also will never go to a flat tax system for that reason. It would cost much more for the richest of the rich than they pay now, if a flat tax with no exemptions, no write-offs, or no deductions were in place.
13% ONLY paying 72% of the tax burden! WOW!!! Greedy bastards need to be hung upside down and all their money stolen, confiscated.
Then effective tax rates are more accurate for discussion. So, people complaining about 50% tax rates are largely overstating tax burden for top earners by 250%.
Isn't it more important to look at the total amount earned in that group than to focus on the number of returns filed? As it is depicted, it's comparing apples to oranges.
You want fair? 16% across the board "INCOME" (as in when you draw it out of your portfolio from investments it's income), 10% goes to the state (relieving that burden on the feds), and the feds get 6%. All other taxes null and void, and balanced budget requirement except for times of need. Example; If we go to war, everybody goes to war, IOW everybody feels the burden, so if they are able bodied, or older but working, you do your share for the effort until it is resolved, and stop playing all these BS word games.
Correct. Income tax is based on income. The name of the tax is a clue. Yes, because they are income. Wealth you already have is not taxed. Only the income that wealth generates is taxed. Because you have more income. Income tax is a tax on income. Sounds right to me. Extremely progressive tax structures have been attempted, and they have never worked very well. The super rich either leave the country and become tax exiles, or use their wealth to purchase politicians who change the laws in ways that enable them to evade the taxes, or simply pay the tax collectors not to collect it. Conversely, regressive tax structures (sales tax is very regressive) tend to impoverish half the country, which must then be subsidized anyway. Finding the ideal structure is not trivial, because nobody likes to be taxed.
I didn't say that it did. I spoke about aligning ideological interests. I don't know what you're referring to here. The change in labels wasn't a racist change, it was a matter of ideological agreement.
Yes, we are. I'm trying to say that focusing SOLELY on federal income taxes presents a very slanted picture of what happens to your paycheck. Last year I didn't pay any federal income tax. But I DID pay quite a bit of state income tax, and I paid even MORE in sales taxes. If we ignore state and local taxes, it looks like I didn't pay any tax. And that is WAY wrong. I paid well over 10% of my income in taxes, and I am poor. When we're looking at tax structures, we should properly be looking at every penny of taxes, of all kinds, an individual pays to all entities. If we do not, we see wildly incorrect statements like "13% of taxpayers pay 72% of the tax burden." This is nonsense.
Yep, you got it. We're playing the game of "let's ignore nearly all of the taxes most people pay, and THEN complain that they don't pay taxes!"
I lived there too....for a small part of our career. And when I didn't have it; I didn't resent those who did. I was smart enough to realize that most of them got there not through inheritance like the Teddy Kennedy's of the world, but through playing by all the rules, studying hard, saving, making the right decisions.....and living responsibly. Generally speaking, it's those who get taken care of that have the mentality that someone owes them. That's why they never get any higher than where they are. Democrats are willing to keep subsidizing the deadbeats......as long as they continue to vote to keep them in power.
That works both ways. Those at the bottom who are getting credits instead of paying a dime in federal income tax......are actually paying a NEGATIVE effective tax rate.
so.... you can channel the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt and know somehow that what he said back then has no relevance to today? Does he come upon you unawares, or can you command his presence at your choosing?
It's a problem. Someone I know was very disappointed her tax refund wasn't nearly as big as it has been. Her and her husband made more $ so didn't qualify for the EIC, this year. They still had a zero federal tax liability and got all their withholding and $3,000 in child tax credits refunded... they've just been used to getting another $2-3K over and above that. I had a real hard time sympathizing with her. I don't have a real problem with them or others below a certain levels paying zero federal tax but jesus do we really need to have welfare built into our tax code.
Asian merchants in the hood make their whole years profit at tax refund time off Obama voters who can't wait to spend all that free money as fast as they can. Then later in the year the pawn shops buy the stuff back at .10 cents on the dollar when the same Obama voters need some cash to get their nails done,
Never said an income tax either, but it is a tax nonetheless. Specifically, it is a tranactional tax and it does affect living taxpayers. Or we could talk about the gift tax, another transactional tax The piont is that income burdens have shifted from a more balanced approach to a single payer apprach, namely indicudla, personal taxes. And since that time, it has created a bigger burden on lower income earners. I don't think you see how beneficial some tax deductions or credits are to various income groups, including your own and for obvious reasons. Second, as stated above, for lower income brackets, the tax code cost more in compliance. For instance, the EITC is one of the most complicated code sections for the lower income bracket with some 17 different rules that may be applied in determining. Compare that to IRC1035 where it is relatively simple, but exact to transfer directly one annuity to another. You don't see the benefit or the cost becasue it is "covered" in that fee you pay quarterly or annually. Nor do you see any fraud issues becasue the mega corporation knows that will be kept secret unless it goes to court. The higher incomes are not paying a disappropiate share. Using the economies of scale method does not make that argument. If you have more, you will pay more, control more, spend more, etc. But if you look at the percentage of tax they are paying, aka the effective tax rate, it really depends on ones facts and circumstances. They can pay at the same effective rate as a lower income bracket. That does not sound like they are being "disapproatiate" in the tax code. Even if you use a flat tax, the higher incomes will still be paying and the lower incomes, with those large deductions, will be paying less. It wo't change the oeverall struckure of who is paying and who is not.
Because simply transferring the money to someone else, especially someone who pays no federal taxes to begin with raise no revenue for the government. Create NEW jobs that pay more because they are worth more, do things to put people back to work not lose their jobs because of a government mandated minimum wage increase.
