ThinkCritically
Open to opinion
SO which third world hellhole do you plan to move to?The "we" have become parasitic and I'll have nothing to do with any of them and all that enslaving evilness.
Costa Rica or New Zealand sound nice
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SO which third world hellhole do you plan to move to?The "we" have become parasitic and I'll have nothing to do with any of them and all that enslaving evilness.
.
The correct statistic to use is what percentage of people's income is paid in taxes, not what percentage of total taxes people of a given income bracket pay.
That is certainly how a communist looks at it.
There is nothing 'correct' about your statement.
if so, then Demand for domestic Labor has declined, led by losses in manufacturingThe decline in real wages, the loss of good manufacturing jobs, the increase in the unemployment rate even in times of growth
As wealth grows, income generated by that wealth grows.
.
The correct statistic to use is what percentage of people's income is paid in taxes, not what percentage of total taxes people of a given income bracket pay.
That is certainly how a communist looks at it.
There is nothing 'correct' about your statement.
Pretty weak rebuttal there sniper. Perhaps you'd like to expound.
Let's say that in Country A, the rich are 25% of the population and the end up paying half (or 7%) of the total tax.
In Country B, the rich are 15% of the population and they also end up paying half of the total tax.
Sound the same right? Wrong.
Same countries. In A, the rich pay an average of 10% of their income and the middle class pays an average of 20%.
Does this seem equitible to you?
This is what the author in the OP is trying to ignore and what Dragon points out.
I know this is a tad more complex than just writing "You're an idiot nazi dog molester!" but if you (or anyone else agreeing with the premise in the OP) care to actually debate, I would cordially invite a well-reasoned rebuttal.
Regarding the misleading use of statistics in regard to taxes, I give you two hypotheticals.
Hypothetical 1: A town of 100 people. 1 person makes $1 million. The other 99 make $10,000. Taxes are a flat 10%, no deductibles. Everyone pays 10% of his income in taxes. The millionaire pays half of all taxes paid.
Hypothetical 2: The following year, all of the poor people get a 100% raise and make $20k, while the millionaire's income stays the same. Taxes remain a flat 10%, no deductibles. The millionaire pays the exact same percentage of his income in taxes, and the same dollar amount as well, but he now pays only 33.5% of the total taxes.
Have his taxes gone down? No. Has his tax rate gone down? No. All that's happened is that he takes home a smaller share of the total income.
Same thing happens in reverse. The share of total taxes paid by any income group is an inherently misleading and useless statistic -- useless, that is, unless what you want is to lie with it.
What do the liberals want? For the rich to pay MOST of the money to the government so that everyone's take-home pay is the same.
What do the liberals want? For the rich to pay MOST of the money to the government so that everyone's take-home pay is the same.
If you're going to make up some shit to answer your own question with, why ask it in the first place?
Did you see Obama's taxes? Effective rate of only 20.5%, but he had a huge deduction for chariable contributions amounting to 22% of his gross!
Well we've never gotten a straight answer from you about just how much you think rich people should pay