The Rich Really Do Pay Higher Taxes Than You

"Loopholes" are "loopholes" and avoid taxes and even pay people to avoid them. The childcare credits at the least eliminated taxes due, a "loophole".

 

No we don't we go by share of taxes paid, we already know as I cited the highest earners pay HUGELY more as a percentage of income. Sales taxes are not income taxes and there is no federal sales tax.

"If you subtract these payments from federal taxes paid, the tax rate for the top 20% of households (including the top 1%) is unchanged, as those households don’t receive means-tested benefits. The tax rate for households in the middle 20% drops considerably, from 14% to 9%. And the rate for the bottom 20% of households plummets to minus 70%. Those households receive $49 in transfer payments for every $1 they pay in federal tax.""

If that is not fair what would be?

 

they do not pay more per dollar they earn then the middle class, trying to act like they pay more cause they pay taxes on more dollar is disingenuous

we saw Romeny's tax return and Trump told us him not paying taxes made him smart, it doesn't make rich people smart, rich people bought those laws cause they are greedy

 

You didn't factor in state and local taxes. But kudos for actually looking at more than just the income tax.

 

Because we are talking federal taxes, I don't care what your state taxes you it has nothing to do with me or the citizens of my state.

You didn't address the the facts and question asked.

"If you subtract these payments from federal taxes paid, the tax rate for the top 20% of households (including the top 1%) is unchanged, as those households don’t receive means-tested benefits. The tax rate for households in the middle 20% drops considerably, from 14% to 9%. And the rate for the bottom 20% of households plummets to minus 70%. Those households receive $49 in transfer payments for every $1 they pay in federal tax.""

If that is not fair what would be?

 

which puts the lie to the Right-wing claim that Cap Gains should be taxed at a lower rate because of the "risk" involved. Except there is no risk, if you lose money you get to deduct it from your taxable income.
When Tramp lost a billion dollars he got to deduct it and paid no taxes for 10 years. No risk whatsoever!

 

We should be considering what people are already paying in state taxes when setting federal taxes. If for example, the working class was paying 40% in state and local, but the rich were paying 0%, would it really make sense to give a flat 10% federal rate to everyone?

For most people, it really doesn't matter where the tax is going, what matters is that its a tax and its gone. To arbitrarily only look at certain categories of taxes in order to push a narrative is a little fallacious.

Individual taxes or even groups of taxes can often be unfair and disproportionately hit some individuals more than others. What matters is whether the overall tax system both federal, state, and local, is proportional, all combined.

 

They don't pay anything per dollar at the bottom read the facts.

What does that have to do with anything I posted? Don't try to derail now that you can't answer what was asked......

 

State and local taxation is an entirely different matter take it up with your state we can't discuss all 51 state/district/local tax rates. The numbers cited are ALL federal income taxes the subject of the OP. Please address and stop dodging.

"If you subtract these payments from federal taxes paid, the tax rate for the top 20% of households (including the top 1%) is unchanged, as those households don’t receive means-tested benefits. The tax rate for households in the middle 20% drops considerably, from 14% to 9%. And the rate for the bottom 20% of households plummets to minus 70%. Those households receive $49 in transfer payments for every $1 they pay in federal tax.""

If that is not fair what would be?

 

How so, yes there is risk involved and fiscal conservatives believe capgains rates should be set at the rate which least affects the economy and produces the highest realizations and the highest tax revenues. Fiscal liberals just want to tax a higher percent because they are envious and think they are REALLY REALLY REALLY sticking it to those evil successful people.

Like any business you can only write off losses against profits and that is why we have loss carryovers, if you don't have enough profits to write off the year of the loss you can carry over some of those losses to the next year and write off against those profits, it was nothing unique to Trump and an important concept in our tax system and economy.

 

I understand that state and local taxes are different from federal. But real people care about their total tax burden not their partial tax burden. Just because some taxes in isolation are imbalanced doesn't mean their total tax burden is unfair. When crafting a federal tax burden, you should consider the impact of state and local so as not to overburden one group over another.

So yes, the wealthy pay a lot more in federal taxes. And that isn't surprising or shocking to me.

 

So are federal taxes progressive enough?

"If you subtract these payments from federal taxes paid, the tax rate for the top 20% of households (including the top 1%) is unchanged, as those households don’t receive means-tested benefits. The tax rate for households in the middle 20% drops considerably, from 14% to 9%. And the rate for the bottom 20% of households plummets to minus 70%. Those households receive $49 in transfer payments for every $1 they pay in federal tax.""

If that is not fair what would be?

 

were not talking about people so poor they do not pay any federal taxes, the rich get that same tax cut too, everyone does, you and the rich do not pay tax under a certain amount either - I think no American rich or poor should pay any tax on any dollar under the poverty limit, you pay tax on dollars earned over that

 

I don't think we should take fairness into account because fairness is so subjective and can be defined so many ways. I'd try to figure out which tax rate is best for the country as a whole and look at state and local taxes to ensure we aren't overburdening one group.

 

Progressive or not, we need more revenues.

I'm a top 5%, and I never asked/needed a tax cut, thus, Uncle Sam should raise the top 2 income tax rates, and/or lower the brackets. and then, use the additional revenues to improve our infrastructure report card from a D- to a B+.

 

We differ on what a loophole is. You think it is anything in the tax code that can reduce someone's taxes -- like the standard deduction I suppose. You are not alone with this thinking but I prefer the standard definition that says a loophole is an inadvertent or overlooked tax law that allows someone to take an advantage that was not intended.

 

Well that is the entire Democrat/Prog/Left argument. Again is what we have now progressive enough?

You are free to do that at you state and local level but AS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION you cannot have different federal tax rates for different parts of the country.

Define over burdening. If the top 1% paying 40% of income taxes is not over burdening what would be? If the bottom getting back $49 for every dollar they pay in is over burdening what would not be?

 

Like what?

 

I dunno.

 

We're talking people in the bottom 50%. Do you think half the country should pay little if any federal income tax?
If the system is not progressive enough what would be?

""If you subtract these payments from federal taxes paid, the tax rate for the top 20% of households (including the top 1%) is unchanged, as those households don’t receive means-tested benefits. The tax rate for households in the middle 20% drops considerably, from 14% to 9%. And the rate for the bottom 20% of households plummets to minus 70%. Those households receive $49 in transfer payments for every $1 they pay in federal tax."""
Adjust those numbers to what they should be to be progressive enough.

 

You are free to send in the additional money. You assume that adjusting those rates would increase the revenues, that is not always the case. After the Gingrich/Kasich and Bush43 tax rate cuts tax revenues exploded and helped produce the budget surpluses and paltry deficits.

And progressive or conservative we need to cut spending or at least slow the growth in spending.

 

Why do you complain that people pay higher tax rates than you? Do you feel this is unfair?

 

I don't think we should be completely focused on whether taxes are progressive enough or not. Rather, when we need to increase taxes we should ask which group can afford it the best. Also when we deliver a tax cut, ask which group needs it the most.

I meant different income groups.

Lets say that the top 1% paid 100% of the XYZ tax. But if that tax is only $1 per person, then that is obviously not overburdening. You can't look at the percent of the tax paid but instead look at the percent of income paid.

I'd define overburdening but how the tax impacts the person's quality of life.

 

Proving there is NO risk in capital gains.
Thank you.

 

Someone owes you something because they can afford it?

If tax receipts don't cover spending, ask yourself what spending you can do without