Tax discrimination

Nope. While wealth and income are certainly correlated for the reasons you give above, income varies much more year by year. So when you look at the "rich" by income in any given year, they are often different people the next year, while if you look at wealth, they are pretty much the same people year after year. This has a huge effect on the statistical relation between wealth and income taxes paid, because people who are wealthy and have chronically high income learn how to avoid paying tax on it, while those who have one good year generally have not prepared for it, and really get soaked. The upshot is that the high-income non-rich pay the lion's share of the income tax in any given year, not the rich, and the following year a different set of high-income non-rich get soaked while the real rich pay very little income tax.

No, your chart says nothing whatever about income. It simply describes how over time, the richest have got richer, while the bottom 80% has got poorer. If the chart separated out the top 0.1%, the top 0.01%, etc., it would be even more obvious that the super-duper uber-rich have become immensely wealthier at the expense of productive working people in the bottom 80%.

Please tell us where it says "income."

When they talk about the rich, and defining "rich" by income, they are lying.

See above for why that correlation is misleading when talking about who bears the income tax burden.

 

I would prefer a flat tax, one where everyone pays the same % for every dollar they earn over the poverty line, it is the only fair system, for both rich and poor and everyone in-between alike

all income needs to be treated as income, no caps, everyone pays the same 35% across the board for every dollar earned over the poverty line

 

you would find that the guys at the lowest end of the upper 1%, the ones who's income is barely a couple hundred grand above the median, and who are many orders of magnitude below the wealthy, are hit the hardest by income tax

 

You cannot claim it is a form of Capitalism if funded through nationalized and socialized income transfers via the power to Tax.

 

I would like to thank those of the opposing view for ceding the point and argument they didn't have regarding progressive forms of taxation in any political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable.

 

so what are you trying to say, that under the republican plan the payer making $40K gets a tax cut double that of the guy making $500K ? That's what your chart shows.

 

The idea that the government should take any share of what I make, rather than ask me to pay for what it gives me, is not fair. Considering the level of entitlement American's have voted themselves, a level that means most of us cannot pay our own way, well... it might be necessary. But in way is it fair.​

 

You would inspire more confidence in your sincerity if you were calling for the abolition of the drug war instead of other social spending that actually provides more for the general welfare.

 

The chart says right on it that it's wealth class.

Of course. But as explained, that does NOT mean they pay the bulk of the income tax. Almost all income tax is paid by mid- to high-income WORKING people, not the rich, and the great majority of all other taxes except property tax and estate tax is paid by the middle class.

How would such a graph be constructed? Income is for a given year, and often varies substantially. Wealth is measurable only at a given moment, but is much more constant over time.

 

"Make"? Does that mean "earn," through commensurate contributions to production, or does it include what government gives you, as a welfare subsidy giveaway in return for nothing, through the unjust privileges you own?

You have seen the proof that government gives the rich the great majority of all their wealth; and the richer someone is, the more likely it is that most of their wealth has not been earned -- at least, not by them.

It is absurd to claim that most Americans cannot pay their own way. Most ARE paying their own way, and are also paying the way of the rich. Their rightful earnings are simply being taken from them by force and given to the rich.

 

What on earth is "fair" about taxing people for what they contribute to the wealth of society, rather than taxing what society contributes to their wealth? As every economics textbook will inform you, the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy are "ability to pay," and "beneficiary pay." Those principles imply that the tax burden should be borne almost exclusively by those who own assets (which confer ability to pay) that get their value from government and society (beneficiary pay) rather than their owners, especially land titles (including mineral rights), IP monopolies, broadcast spectrum allocations, and private banks' issuance of debt money.

What a remarkably unjust and economically disastrous notion.

WHY SHOULD PEOPLE BE TAXED ON WHAT THEY EARN, INSTEAD OF ON WHAT GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY GIVE THEM?

 

I think it's a silly point to offer if you're not considering the type of discrimination we're discussing. Especially when considering the subjective nature of the word 'bad.'​

 

In the same way the person who made my bicycle may dictate how far I ride it?​

 

I would really prefer you used a criteria other than 'good' and 'bad' -- but I'd be happy to concede that recognizing and understanding the difference between two things can occur without regard to that understanding being "just" or "fair." I can discriminate between carrots and peas without being unfair or unjust to either (imho).

dis·crim·i·na·tion /disˌkriməˈnāSHən/ (noun)
Definition of DISCRIMINATION

1: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
2: Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.​

 

this is such an easy concept, yet few understand.

 

Your arguments seem based on who owns an item, not who made it.​

 

When I offered to concede the point, I used the criteria of fair and just. I had thought that was what you might have meant by 'good' anyway. Did you read my response?​

Since the OP introduced the word in the context of racial discrimination and also used the phrase "discriminate against", I would have assumed the former. Which definition do you believe he meant?​

 

Your understand the government taxes income, without regard to it's currency?​