Huffington Post Accidentally Admits Rich Pay More than 'Fair Share'

[Tehon]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

Good question. Show where the drop in unemployment coincided with a lowering of the tax rate.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do what Jesus would do and pay more, the IRS gladly takes donations

I wish I were able to afford more. If I were in a higher tax bracket I wouldn't be whining.

What's stopping you..


.

I don't owe you an explanation of anything.

Then quit crying about it.

Who's crying? The OP maybe. Like I said, I paid my taxes. I didn't come here and whine about it.

Ah, Dude? You just confirmed that you're in a tax bracket where you don't pay a lot in taxes and then declared that in YOUR opinion people in higher tax brackets need to pay more! That's you whining about it!

I'm sorry but it's rather obvious that you're really NOT paying a lot in taxes which means you already GOT your tax break!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Show where the drop in unemployment coincided with a lowering of the tax rate.

Someone just the other day posted an excellent chart that depicted the trend in unemployment rates and the rise and fall in the effective tax rates. I wish I could find that post, but I cannot.

 

[Muhammed]

Republicans love to spend money on war, well you want to got to war, stop kicking the costs down the road and start paying for your wars, and that includes the VA to take care of the battered and the broken for the rest of their lives.

Do you live in oppositeland or are you just incredibly ignorant of US history?

Ronald Reagan said "Deficits don't matter" and Republicans have been living that line ever since, except of course when Democrats are in power when deficits seriously matter.

As for Republican wars: Ike had Korea, and he got the ball rolling in Viet Nam. Nixon lost Viet Nam and he had Cambodia, even if Congress didn't know. Reagan invaded Granada (why, I do not know), Bush 41 had the Gulf War, and of course, W had Afghanistan and Iraq.

The VA was expected to deal with the WWII injured and not designed to care for a steady steam of war wounded. It's now way underfunded and overwhelmed.

You are delusional. Democrats got us into WWI, WWII, the Korean war and the Vietnam war. And not only that, they re-instituted slavery in the US to fight these wars. And none of those wars had anything to do with US national security. They were all about profiting the military industrial complex.

 

[xband]

Republicans love to spend money on war, well you want to got to war, stop kicking the costs down the road and start paying for your wars, and that includes the VA to take care of the battered and the broken for the rest of their lives.

Do you live in oppositeland or are you just incredibly ignorant of US history?

Ronald Reagan said "Deficits don't matter" and Republicans have been living that line ever since, except of course when Democrats are in power when deficits seriously matter.

As for Republican wars: Ike had Korea, and he got the ball rolling in Viet Nam. Nixon lost Viet Nam and he had Cambodia, even if Congress didn't know. Reagan invaded Granada (why, I do not know), Bush 41 had the Gulf War, and of course, W had Afghanistan and Iraq.

The VA was expected to deal with the WWII injured and not designed to care for a steady steam of war wounded. It's now way underfunded and overwhelmed.

You are delusional. Democrats got us into WWI, WWII, the Korean war and the Vietnam war. And not only that, they re-instituted slavery in the US to fight these wars. And none of those wars had anything to do with US national security. They were all about profiting the military industrial complex.

The Navy starts the war and the Army has to finish it. The Naval blockade of Charleston Harbor started the Civil War. The sinking of the Lusitania got America started in WW1. The sinking of ships in Pearl Harbor started America in WW2. MacArthur's Inchon invasion started the Korean war and the Tonkin Gulf incident started the Vietnam War.