$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[dcraelin]

remember in Forest Gump where Forest and Captain Dan go out in a storm with the shrimp boat?

they come back in and turns out their the only boat left....makes Forest a rich man

I wonder if he went on to whine about his high tax burden.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If everybody paid the exact same tax rate it would be fair.

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

why is it good for a society to have a tax structure that punishes success and rewards failure?

The reasons I support a progressive tax structure is previously posted here (including in the post you quoted).

So is there a real question here or did you just want to post your opinion that a progressive tax structure rewards failure and penalizes success in the form of a question for some reason?

 

[nodoginnafight]

It wouldn't even be felt.

People live on their net not their gross.

If you make 500 a week and took home 450 you would live on the 450.

Your opinion that "it wouldn't even be felt" has no basis in reality.

$150 less per month - for someone who is living at that level is a HUGE bite. I respect your right to your opinion, but I believe it is absurd. And I think the vast majority of Americans would agree. But I guess we will see - let me know when they start taxing 10% on the very poorest Americans.

Are you against treating everybody equally and exactly the same? I'm not.
It's fair to treat everybody equally and exactly the same.

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

 

[Redfish]

Yes it is

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

Wish what you wish, but if the majority want the feds to help care for the hungary and disabled, then it's the feds' job.

NO, it is not the feds JOB, it is society's job. Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to provide food, shelter, clothing, cell phones, and flat screen TVs to the poor?

what happened to churches, charities, states, cities, counties, neighborhoods ?

why do you libs want DC controlling every aspect of your lives?

 

[alan1]

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

Majority of voters and their WISH does not matter, as long as there is the rule of law.... which is how we are SUPPOSED to run.. to protect against the tyranny of the majority, which you advocate

Very true. It is the Constitutionaly elected representatives of the people who write that law

If you want to pass a law banning the feeding of the hungry....you are welcome to try

Nobody is advocating for the banning of feeding hungry people. Your statement is ridiculous.
Forcing me to support your cause to feed hungry people is merely you using the government as a weapon.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

Wish what you wish, but if the majority want the feds to help care for the hungary and disabled, then it's the feds' job.

NO, it is not the feds JOB, it is society's job. Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to provide food, shelter, clothing, cell phones, and flat screen TVs to the poor?

what happened to churches, charities, states, cities, counties, neighborhoods ?

why do you libs want DC controlling every aspect of your lives?

You are defending the Madison interpretation of the "provide for the general welfare clause" the Hamilton interpretation is different. The courts have repeatedly upheld the Hamilton interpretation.

So legally - yes, the Constitution empowers the people of the United States - through their federal elected representatives - to provide assistance.

Don't like it - change the Constitution.

 

[alan1]

As long as a majority of people vote (as I will) to feed hungry children and the non-able-bodied - then it IS the role of government. The role of government is NOT determined by your preferences. It is determined by the will of the people.

No.. it is determined by the rule of law.. if you knew anything about our government at all, you would know that

The food stamp program is the law.

Oddly enough, slavery used to be accepted law.

 

[bendog]

No.. it is determined by the rule of law.. if you knew anything about our government at all, you would know that

The food stamp program is the law.

Oddly enough, slavery used to be accepted law.

Now there's an equivalency.

 

[edthecynic]

It wouldn't even be felt.

People live on their net not their gross.

If you make 500 a week and took home 450 you would live on the 450.

And if a millionaire paid an extra 10% it wouldn't be felt either, they would just live on $15,000 a week instead of $17,000 a week.

Using that same logic, you don't mind if a person making $20k pays 10% more than somebody making $5k. Or do you have some magical number where the ten percent increase a difference?

You mean using Skull's logic.

My problem with the OP is it claims the one and only progressive tax is unfair because it taxes one group more than another but has no problem with all the other taxes which are regressive and tax one group more than another!!!!! Regressive taxes that tax some more than others, fine and dandy. A progressive tax that taxes one more than another, the most despicable tax ever invented.

I think the poor need relief from the many regressive taxes before the wealthy need relief from the one progressive tax.

 

[rightwinger]

If everybody paid the exact same tax rate it would be fair.

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

why is it good for a society to have a tax structure that punishes success and rewards failure?

You are not being punished

You are being expected to contribute to the society that allows you to gain that success

 

[alan1]

stupid godamn big government lefties forget that it continues after the word welfare

They have also re-defined 'welfare' as to what it meant in the 1700's.

 

[bendog]

starving people in the streets proved to be very unsettling for equity and credit markets.

 

[rightwinger]

Majority of voters and their WISH does not matter, as long as there is the rule of law.... which is how we are SUPPOSED to run.. to protect against the tyranny of the majority, which you advocate

Very true. It is the Constitutionaly elected representatives of the people who write that law

If you want to pass a law banning the feeding of the hungry....you are welcome to try

Nobody is advocating for the banning of feeding hungry people. Your statement is ridiculous.
Forcing me to support your cause to feed hungry people is merely you using the government as a weapon.

No more so than "forcing" you to support an unpopular war, or forcing you to pay for a road you do not use or forcing you to pay for a police force

 

[edthecynic]

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

Wish what you wish, but if the majority want the feds to help care for the hungary and disabled, then it's the feds' job.

NO, it is not the feds JOB, it is society's job. Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to provide food, shelter, clothing, cell phones, and flat screen TVs to the poor?

what happened to churches, charities, states, cities, counties, neighborhoods ?

why do you libs want DC controlling every aspect of your lives?

What happened is they are not up for a task that monumental and the federal government is there for the tasks that are beyond the local ability.

 

[alan1]

It is an "income" tax

Those who have the most "income" pay the most tax

No one is disputing that reality. The debate is the notion of "fair share". What is one's fair share? 72 percent sounds more than fair.

Are you advocating that everybody should pay a 72% tax rate? Everybody?

 

[bendog]

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

Wish what you wish, but if the majority want the feds to help care for the hungary and disabled, then it's the feds' job.

NO, it is not the feds JOB, it is society's job. Where in the constitution does it say that the federal government is supposed to provide food, shelter, clothing, cell phones, and flat screen TVs to the poor?

what happened to churches, charities, states, cities, counties, neighborhoods ?

why do you libs want DC controlling every aspect of your lives?

Why is it you have a need to tell others what they believe? My point is you appear to have a view that govt may only do what the constitution explicitly provided. If we took as restrictive view of provide for the common defense as you do of regulate commerce, we'd not have a standing army.

See how easy it is to say someone has their head up their ass by simply putting words in their mouths.

Don't have a nice easter.

 

[edthecynic]

It is an "income" tax

Those who have the most "income" pay the most tax

No one is disputing that reality. The debate is the notion of "fair share". What is one's fair share? 72 percent sounds more than fair.

Are you advocating that everybody should pay a 72% tax rate? Everybody?

The tax RATE is NOT 72%, learn to read.

 

[alan1]

Do you have children? A mortgage?

Yes to both. (Please note that I answered your questions)
My children are grown, and pay taxes.
My mortgage is small, it gives me no tax deduction, nor should it.
You obviously think that the mere act of having children or financing a house is worthy of a tax deduction. It seems kind of foolish to hold that opinion.
I answered your questions, will you answer mine?
If I borrow money to buy a luxury car should that be tax deductible, the same as a mortgage? What if I live in the car, does that make it different?
If I adopt homeless dogs (or cats or snakes or some other critter) should that be a tax deduction equal to adopting homeless children?

I suspect rightwinger won't answer my questions.

You have a standard deduction at the very least.

Me and everybody else.
That makes it equal.

 

[alan1]

If everybody paid the exact same tax rate it would be fair.

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

Your analogies are kind of idiotic.
Lets take the ham sandwich one to show just how foolish you are. If my religion says to only pay tax at 1% and your religion makes no reference to tax, then I guess the government can tax you more on the same income. See how foolish your argument is?

 

[bendog]

imo, a tax scheme has to be fashioned on more than fairness. You can certainly make the argument that people who make less spend more of their income; and economically speaking we actually have more than enough capital (as a result of Reagan) and not enough consumption.