If you really don't think that the rich pay a really high portion of the taxes as it is, you aren't very well informed.Tax the millionaires.
Only in the minds of class-envying socialists.But the class war goes on
This is a bad thing... why?and the rich keep getting richer.
This is very, very, horribly incorrect for reasons that have nothing to do with the thread topic so I won't even get into.We are now at a point where our nation will collapse financially without massive Government spending that will create jobs.
Or maybe - gasp! - people can pay for their own stuff.We can not continue to assume that no one has to pay for anything and the free market will provide for all. This is simply not true. Someone must pay. How it should be should be based on who has the ability to pay.
What a novel idea!
What burden on the lower brackets? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of the taxes.Therefore, I propose a Millionaires tax, as well as a fundamental progressive shift in our tax code which shifts the burden off the lower brackets by creating new, higher brackets.
Secondly, to have a point where there's a sudden jump from no taxes to the same tax as everyone else is a bad idea and a huge incentive for people who would normally be just past that point to be less productive so as to be on the no-tax side.
They pay a higher portion of the taxes because they make a higher portion of the income.If you really don't think that the rich pay a really high portion of the taxes as it is, you aren't very well informed.
Great you can pay for the the two optional wars, a military budget almost as large as the rest of the planet combined, and the tax breaks for the rich?Or maybe - gasp! - people can pay for their own stuff.
What a novel idea!
That is because they own less than 3 % of the wealth.What burden on the lower brackets? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of the taxes.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
It depends on several things.Secondly, to have a point where there's a sudden jump from no taxes to the same tax as everyone else is a bad idea and a huge incentive for people who would normally be just past that point to be less productive so as to be on the no-tax side.
The lower the tax rate, the more incentive there is to move into the next tax bracket.
The lower the exemption threshold, the more incentive there is to move into the next bracket.
Also important, there are only two tax brackets. Once you're paying taxes, you don't have to worry about another increase, so you can just keep making more and more money for yourself. That seems like a huge incentive for people above the threshold to continue being as productive as possible.
You also neglect the fact that the poor would still be paying a sales tax, so it's not like they're paying nothing.
Should there be compassion for the poor? Of course. Should there be safety nets? Yes, but these should be administered at the state or local level and preferably by the private sector.
But if tax increases do not affect the lower income as well as the higher income, you cannot help but initiate class warfare and build automatic inequity into the system. It is not a healthy thing.
You are talking about countries with homogenous populations and size approximating one of our states. A social contract can be competently sustained in such a society, but even those societies cannot perpetually sustain huge entitlements or encourage poverty. That's why I strongly advocate that the Federal government focus on its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and leave everything else to the states and local communities as the Founders intended, and why I think as much of the safety net be left to the private sector as possible.And yet, some of the developed countries with the most progressive tax structures (e.g. Norway, Denmark) have some of the lowest levels of poverty, whereas the United States has an extremely high amount of poverty for a country as developed as we are. Hmm.
I have no problem with taxes covering necessary expenses. I have huge problems with taxes being collected to buy favors, votes, power, prestige, and increase personal wealth of those who collect them.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
Only partially true.They pay a higher portion of the taxes because they make a higher portion of the income.
Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%)Afghanistan is not an optional war, though you could make the case for Iraq. The military budget is only about 19% of government spending. And nobody pays for tax breaks for the rich, since by definition you need to buy something in order to pay for it.Great you can pay for the the two optional wars, a military budget almost as large as the rest of the planet combined, and the tax breaks for the rich?
True. But they don't earn less than 3% of the income, as shown above, and it is income that is taxed, not wealth.That is because they own less than 3 % of the wealth.