Why does the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax?

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

It has been shown that the middle class pays the most crippling amount of income taxes and the middle class is relatively small. Crippling means that the ratio of living expenses to income tax makes it so that despite one’s increased income, the standard of living has not gone up much and there is still significant hardship. It is clear that most making above $250,000 are not crippled by income tax and instead cannot wrap their minds around the concept of progressive taxation (even though the wealthiest find loopholes out of such taxation). So, why is this the case? Why does the middle class shoulder the largest relative tax burden?

tessaesque · Aug 22, 2011

Hyperbole, you haz it.

tessaesque · Aug 22, 2011

And to address the general question, "Why are their so many damned taxes?", the answer would be because we expect a inordinately high number of services, protections, entitlements, and involvements from the government on our behalf, and the money's gotta come from somewhere. Perhaps if we demanded less from the government we'd see less in taxation...but let's be honest here. If we lowered the "middle class" tax rate to 10% flat and then charged all of the "rich" at 100% we'd still run budget deficits. We'd still run deficits if we took 100% of the income from the "rich" and increased the "middle class" tax rate to 50%. Our path is unsustainable and we're honestly lucky that we haven't seen our tax obligations increase across the board. Many countries take upwards of 60% of earned income in taxes.

Gipper · Aug 22, 2011

The middle class is shouldering the largest amount of tax burden?

Excuse me for a second.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!

Anyway, back on subject - you're wrong. You're just so entirely, utterly, unequivocally, astronomically wrong. This is a rant-about-the-rich post. Nothing more.

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

tessaesque said:
And to address the general question, "Why are their so many damned taxes?"

While this may be your question, it is not necessarily mine. While I think the government could use revenues more effectively, I am not convinced that this would necessarily mean that less overall taxes is the solution; this is mainly because I am not well versed on every single detail of the budget.

tessaesque said:
the answer would be because we expect a inordinately high number of services, protections, entitlements, and involvements from the government on our behalf, and the money's gotta come from somewhere.

Are you saying that citizens shouldn't push for the best country they can?

tessaesque said:
If we lowered the "middle class" tax rate to 10% flat and then charged all of the "rich" at 100% we'd still run budget deficits.

Perhaps .. I am of the opinion that if the wealthy were taxed at 100% (which is obviously a gross exaggeration on your part, lol!) we would have a very large government ... it power would rival that of the current corporations.

tessaesque said:
Many countries take upwards of 60% of earned income in taxes.

So, using your reasoning, we should continue to allow the middle class to shoulder the tax burden simply because other countries are immoral? Please tell me this is not what you are saying ...

mike2810 · Aug 22, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
It has been shown that the middle class pays the most crippling amount of income taxes and the middle class is relatively small. Crippling means that the ratio of living expenses to income tax makes it so that despite one’s increased income, the standard of living has not gone up much and there is still significant hardship. It is clear that most making above $250,000 are not crippled by income tax and instead cannot wrap their minds around the concept of progressive taxation (even though the wealthiest find loopholes out of such taxation). So, why is this the case? Why does the middle class shoulder the largest relative tax burden?[/QUOTE]

if you believe news sources like msnbc, it may be because 46% of Americans pay no federal income tax. That leaves the "middle class" and the "rich" to pay for all the programs not covered by other taxes.
Where to do get the fact that the "middle class" is relatively small? Can you provide data sources for some of the statements, or is it you opinion?

tessaesque · Aug 22, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
While this may be your question, it is not necessarily mine. While I think the government could use revenues more effectively, I am not convinced that this would necessarily mean that less overall taxes is the solution; this is mainly because I am not well versed on every single detail of the budget.

Are you saying that citizens shouldn't push for the best country they can?

Perhaps .. I am of the opinion that if the wealthy were taxed at 100% (which is obviously a gross exaggeration on your part, lol!) we would have a very large government ... it power would rival that of the current corporations.

So, using your reasoning, we should continue to allow the middle class to shoulder the tax burden simply because other countries are immoral? Please tell me this is not what you are saying ...

I fail to see how "pushing for the best country we can" must automatically involved an increase in government dependency on the part of the people. I don't buy into the class warfare tax finger pointing, so my presence in this thread can't answer to a problem I don't believe exists; I hope you'll understand. My point in my last statement is that for what we receive from the government, everybody's taxes are extremely low. We don't collect enough to provide the services we demand, so we have $1 trillion + deficits every year for the next x-number of years. Realistically, everybody's taxes should be considerably higher...but there is no possible distribution in which the "middle class" would be paying a small enough amount to satisfy those lined up for battle in the class war....especially if we got realistic on the true cost of government spending.

Every single recognized member of the U.S. population (seniors and children included) would have to contribute over $36k this year to cover projected spending and prevent a deficit. The "rich" make up 1% of the population, and their combined income is only about half of the total expected spending. So if took everything they earned (hypothetically), and then looked to the rest of the population for the rest we'd still be looking at $18k+ per person to fund the government's spending for one year.

But when the average family's obligation is less than $6k and they receive a good chunk of that back....well...yeah...

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

mike2810 said:
if you believe news sources like msnbc, it may be because 46% of Americans pay no federal income tax. That leaves the "middle class" and the "rich" to pay for all the programs not covered by other taxes. Where to do get the fact that the "middle class" is relatively small? Can you provide data sources for some of the statements, or is it you opinion?

This has been well supported throughout the threads where sources have been sited several times (although people disagree as to what middle-class means). Of course under all the petty arguments and sources meant to justify one's own opinion, its still all opinions ...

Do you actually believe that the middle-class is burgeoning?

Are you also one of those magical thinkers that thinks blood can be squeezed from a turnip?

mike2810 · Aug 22, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
This has been well supported throughout the threads where sources have been sited several times (although people disagree as to what middle-class means). Of course under all the petty arguments and sources meant to justify one's own opinion, its still all opinions ...

Do you actually believe that the middle-class is burgeoning?

Are you also one of those magical thinkers that thinks blood can be squeezed from a turnip?

what? I was pointing out 46% do not pay federal income tax. That leaves the rest of us. That answers the OP question on why the middle class is taxed as it is.
Blood no, turnip juice yes.
I personally believe everyone should pay the same %,

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

mike2810 said:
what? I was pointing out 46% do not pay federal income tax. That leaves the rest of us. That answers the OP question on why the middle class is taxed as it is.
Blood no, turnip juice yes.
I personally believe everyone should pay the same %,

Well if you were to believe that everyone should pay the same % of income tax, then you would be supporting the wealthier paying in more taxes.

Why do you feel the wealthy should pay the more taxes?

Your likely response is that as long as everyone is paying the same percentage then it is fair. Which means you support the wealthy paying more total dollars in taxes and consider this to be fair.

While you are headed in the right direction, I do not believe you have a complete understanding of what fair means.

I will demonstrate what I am talking about as so many seem to be lost on the point.

Lets look at a low income individual or family:

Lets assume the lowest figures for living expenses are, on average, as follows:

Rent = $600/mo, $7,200/yr
Food = $200/mo, $2,400/yr

Total of $9,600 per year (this is a very low estimate and only includes food and shelter)

Lets assume that the lowest figures for income is as follows:

$5/hr at 35 hours per week = $175/wk = 9,100 per year (this is also a low estimate and assumes that the individual or family has a job for a whole year)

Now lets apply a tax rate of 15% (also a low percentage considering that everyone is at the same tax rate) and we have a net income of $7,735

Now if we deduct expenses we have a total loss of: $1,865 per year (that's -24% of their net income)

Now lets look at a wealthy individual or household:

Again, lets assume the lowest figures for living expenses are, on average, as follows:

Rent = $600/mo, $7,200/yr
Food = $200/mo, $2,400/yr

Total of $9,600 per year (this is a very low estimate and only includes food and shelter)

Lets assume that the figures for income is as follows:

$1,000,000 per year

Now lets apply a tax rate of 15% (also a low percentage considering that everyone is at the same tax rate) and we have a net income of $850,000

Now if we deduct expenses we have a total surplus of: $840,400 per year (99% of their net income)

Here we see that relative to living expenses, this individual or household still maintains close to 100% of their net income (after income tax and living expenses), while the lowest income family or individual was actually not able to pay their living expense and went into a debt of 24% of their net income (after income tax and living expenses).

So who is actually being hurt more here by a flat tax, the low income household or the high income household? Somehow I do not even see turnip juice being sucked out of the low income individual or family ... I dunno maybe I'm missing something ? ? ? How would everyone benefit from this scenario again? ? ? If the low income family is not able to live, there is no-one to do the richy's dirty work.

such a flat tax would be clearly unfair; a fair tax would be better based on how one's income compares to the lowest average living expenses .. any other way is tyranny (I believe this is why 46% of our country does not pay income tax ... there's nothing to tax! Anyone can see this.) Explain to me how this is not fair again? It never ceases to amaze me when people miss this obvious point. It boggles my mind when people think that a flat tax is somehow fair ... wow .... really? ... wow ...

tessaesque · Aug 22, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
Well if you were to believe that everyone should pay the same % of income tax, then you would be supporting the wealthier paying in more taxes.

Why do you feel the wealthy should pay the more taxes?

Your likely response is that as long as everyone is paying the same percentage then it is fair. Which means you support the wealthy paying more total dollars in taxes and consider this to be fair.

While you are headed in the right direction, I do not believe you have a complete understanding of what fair means.

I will demonstrate what I am talking about as so many seem to be lost on the point.

Lets look at a low income individual or family:

Lets assume the lowest figures for living expenses are, on average, as follows:

Rent = $600/mo, $7,200/yr
Food = $200/mo, $2,400/yr

Total of $9,600 per year (this is a very low estimate and only includes food and shelter)

Lets assume that the lowest figures for income is as follows:

$5/hr at 35 hours per week = $175/wk = 9,100 per year (this is also a low estimate and assumes that the individual or family has a job for a whole year)

Now lets apply a tax rate of 15% (also a low percentage considering that everyone is at the same tax rate) and we have a net income of $7,735

Now if we deduct expenses we have a total loss of: $1,865 per year (that's -24% of their net income)

Now lets look at a wealthy individual or household:

Again, lets assume the lowest figures for living expenses are, on average, as follows:

Rent = $600/mo, $7,200/yr
Food = $200/mo, $2,400/yr

Total of $9,600 per year (this is a very low estimate and only includes food and shelter)

Lets assume that the figures for income is as follows:

$1,000,000 per year

Now lets apply a tax rate of 15% (also a low percentage considering that everyone is at the same tax rate) and we have a net income of $850,000

Now if we deduct expenses we have a total surplus of: $840,400 per year (99% of their net income)

Here we see that relative to living expenses, this individual or household still maintains close to 100% of their net income (after income tax and living expenses), while the lowest income family or individual was actually not able to pay their living expense and went into a debt of 24% of their net income (after income tax and living expenses).

So who is actually being hurt more here by a flat tax, the low income household or the high income household? Somehow I do not even see turnip juice being sucked out of the low income individual or family ... I dunno maybe I'm missing something ? ? ? How would everyone benefit from this scenario again? ? ? If the low income family is not able to live, there is no-one to do the richy's dirty work.

such a flat tax would be clearly unfair; a fair tax would be better based on how one's income compares to the lowest average living expenses .. any other way is tyranny (I believe this is why 46% of our country does not pay income tax ... there's nothing to tax! Anyone can see this.) Explain to me how this is not fair again? It never ceases to amaze me when people miss this obvious point. It boggles my mind when people think that a flat tax is somehow fair ... wow .... really? ... wow ...

Your analogy sucks for a few reasons:

1. Minimum wage is above $5.
2. Anybody below 10,200 (last check) is below povery level and would qualify for government assistance in the form of discount housing, welfare, food stamps, and other programs (including utility subsidies and even free cell phones).
3. Cost of living is significant to determining "wealth". A 500 sq. ft in Dallas can run you about $430 a month, but in New York City you're looking at about $1200. A man making $30k in Dallas would be much better off financially than a man making $30k in New York City.
4. A person making $9100 a year would get almost all of their tax contribution back (SS and FICA excepted).

Catawba · Aug 22, 2011

Gipper said:
The middle class is shouldering the largest amount of tax burden?

Yes, and burden was defined in the question - "Crippling means that the ratio of living expenses to income tax"

Reading is fundamental! :sun

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

tessaesque said:
Your analogy sucks for a few reasons:

Classy way to start your argument .. 5 points added .. yeah!

tessaesque said:
1. Minimum wage is above $5.

Ooops you're right, forgot it was changed add a few bucks:

$7.25/hr - This still wouldn't change the point especially since I was being generous to your argument with living expenses (the picture would probably be a lot worse than I portrayed it with a flat tax).

tessaesque said:
2. Anybody below 10,200 (last check) is below povery level and would qualify for government assistance in the form of discount housing, welfare, food stamps, and other programs (including utility subsidies and even free cell phones).

OK .. so let me see your logic here ... tax the poor and then give that money and more back to them via "discount housing, welfare, food stamps and other programs (including utility subsidies and even free cell phones)"

What was the point of taking the money from them in the first place if it was just going to be given right back? It's that kind of logic that creates inefficient government policies that wastes everyone's time and money .. you've gotta do better than that my friend for arguments sake

tessaesque said:
3. Cost of living is significant to determining "wealth". A 500 sq. ft in Dallas can run you about $430 a month, but in New York City you're looking at about $1200. A man making $30k in Dallas would be much better off financially than a man making $30k in New York City.

I don't think you understood, I believe I said average low living expenses .. a v e r a g e

tessaesque said:
4. A person making $9100 a year would get almost all of their tax contribution back (SS and FICA excepted).

Right ... so again .. what was the purpose of taking it to begin with? Your not helping your case here

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

Here is the demonstration with the updated minimum wage (with realistic hour per week average) and more realistic average low cost expenses (hey you asked for it):

Lets look at a low income individual or family:

Lets assume the lowest figures for living expenses are, on average, as follows:

Rent = $600/mo, $7,200/yr
Food = $200/mo, $2,400/yr
Medical = $10/mo, $100/yr
Clothing = $10/mo, $100/yr
Heat = $25/mo, $300/yr
Transportation & Misc. = $14/wk, $728/yr

Total of $10,828 per year (this is a very low estimate and only includes food and shelter)

Lets assume that the lowest figures for income is as follows:

$7.25/hr at 30 hours per week = $175/wk = $11,310 per year (this is also a low estimate and assumes that the individual or family has a job for a whole year)

Now lets apply a tax rate of 15% (also a low percentage considering that everyone is at the same tax rate) and we have a net income of $9,613.5

Now if we deduct expenses we have a total loss of: $1,214.5 per year (that's -13% of their net income)

Now lets look at a wealthy individual or household:

Again, lets assume the lowest figures for living expenses are, on average, as follows:

Rent = $600/mo, $7,200/yr
Food = $200/mo, $2,400/yr
Medical = $10/mo, $100/yr
Clothing = $10/mo, $100/yr
Heat = $25/mo, $300/yr
Transportation & Misc. = $14/wk, $728/yr

Total of $10,828 per year (this is a very low estimate and only includes food and shelter)

Lets assume that the figures for income is as follows:

$1,000,000 per year

Now lets apply a tax rate of 15% (also a low percentage considering that everyone is at the same tax rate) and we have a net income of $850,000

Now if we deduct expenses we have a total surplus of: $839,172 per year (still 99% of their net income .. this hasn't changed pointless really to quibble over chump change, but oh well)

Here we see that relative to living expenses, this individual or household still maintains close to 100% of their net income (after income tax and living expenses), while the lowest income family or individual was actually not able to pay their living expense and went into a debt of 13% of their net income (after income tax and living expenses).

So who is actually being hurt more here by a flat tax, the low income household or the high income household? Somehow I do not even see turnip juice being sucked out of the low income individual or family ... I dunno maybe I'm missing something ? ? ? How would everyone benefit from this scenario again? ? ? If the low income family is not able to live, there is no-one to do the richy's dirty work.

such a flat tax would be clearly unfair; a fair tax would be better based on how one's income compares to the lowest average living expenses .. any other way is tyranny (I believe this is why 46% of our country does not pay income tax ... there's nothing to tax! Anyone can see this.) Explain to me how this is not fair again? It never ceases to amaze me when people miss this obvious point. It boggles my mind when people think that a flat tax is somehow fair ... wow .... really? ... wow ...

tessaesque · Aug 22, 2011

MusicAdventurer said:
Classy way to start your argument .. 5 points added .. yeah!

Ooops you're right, forgot it was changed add a few bucks:

$7.25/hr - This still wouldn't change the point especially since I was being generous to your argument with living expenses (the picture would probably be a lot worse than I portrayed it with a flat tax).

OK .. so let me see your logic here ... tax the poor and then give that money and more back to them via "discount housing, welfare, food stamps and other programs (including utility subsidies and even free cell phones)"

What was the point of taking the money from them in the first place if it was just going to be given right back? It's that kind of logic that creates inefficient government policies that wastes everyone's time and money .. you've gotta do better than that my friend for arguments sake

I don't think you understood, I believe I said average low living expenses .. a v e r a g e

Right ... so again .. what was the purpose of taking it to begin with? Your not helping your case here

I didn't create the policy, I'm just stating what it is. If you want to ask why such a stupid system exists you should ask the legislators and presidents who have fostered it since the 70s.

Creating any policy based on "averages" is a bad idea. Just like arbitrarily saying $250k is the cut off between "suffering middle class" and "rich" is a bad idea. Our country is too big and too diverse to make stupid decisions on "averages". $250K in New York state would have you living the same life as somebody making about $70k-80K in Texas. Yet under your broad reaching, poorly constructed philosophy on taxation, you would go ahead and tax the **** out of the guy in New York State simply because of an arbitrary quantifier. It makes no sense to exclude all factors for the sake of making an argument, no matter how right you want to be. At the end of the day, being "right" in your own mind might be the difference between royally screwing over people who would very neatly qualify as the victims in your little view of the world (if it weren't for that damned income divide, of course).

digsbe · Aug 22, 2011

Want the middle class to pay less taxes? Spend less, not tax the wealthy even more. I find it disgusting that people want to look at someone else's wealth and say that they should pay more because they have it to pay despite our dangerous spending.

Catawba · Aug 22, 2011

digsbe said:
Want the middle class to pay less taxes? Spend less, not tax the wealthy even more. I find it disgusting that people want to look at someone else's wealth and say that they should pay more because they have it to pay despite our dangerous spending.

Our spending is a whole lot less dangerous and wasteful then it was when we started two optional unfunded wars and then at the same time cut our revenues by making "temporary" tax cuts. It took both wasteful spending and cutting revenues to create our debt and it will take the reverse to correct our debt problem. When in history have we ever cut taxes during a war, much less during two simultaneous wars?

The failed trickle down economics has transferred more wealth to the top and is pushing more and more middle class into poverty. Eliminating the temporary cuts from our progressive tax system, will get us back on track for upper mobility again rather than the downward mobility we have seen from the last decade of trickle down economics.

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

tessaesque said:
I didn't create the policy, I'm just stating what it is. If you want to ask why such a stupid system exists you should ask the legislators and presidents who have fostered it since the 70s.

Then why would you use it as a way to support your argument?

tessaesque said:
Creating any policy based on "averages" is a bad idea. Just like arbitrarily saying $250k is the cut off between "suffering middle class" and "rich" is a bad idea. Our country is too big and too diverse to make stupid decisions on "averages".

O.K., you are saying that using averages are a " b a d i d e a " and " s t u p i d ." .. does your argument have any more depth .. how is it a bad idea? how is it stupid? My point is, one neeeds to explain themselves in order to be seen as having a valid point .. words and phrases like "bad idea" and "stupid" are not a basis for an argument.

tessaesque said:
$250K in New York state would have you living the same life as somebody making about $70k-80K in Texas. Yet under your broad reaching, poorly constructed philosophy on taxation, you would go ahead and tax the **** out of the guy in New York State simply because of an arbitrary quantifier.

It's called a principle .. a philosophy .. one need not define the exact specifics so long as the logic is sound .. you understood (or maybe you didn't, but I don't see how you couldn't) what that underlying principle was

In my post I said exactly the following:

MusicAdventurer said:
flat tax would be clearly unfair; a fair tax would be better based on how one's income compares to the lowest average living expenses

I used the word phrase "b a s e d o n" - this does not mean geographical differences may not be considered .. however, you are talking chump change now and it would be more problematic to squeeze a few more cents from the poor ... in terms of percentages, the beauty of averages is that it makes a pretty good estimation of things ... but, I know there are other statistical measurements that could be used .. please, if you have another statistical reference you would like to use .. name it already! This is getting off topic as you are diverting away from the principle of the matter ... tax should be based on ratios of low end living expenses to income (this is the principle of the matter, we can argue about what measurements to use some other time or in some other post)

MusicAdventurer said:
It makes no sense to exclude all factors for the sake of making an argument, no matter how right you want to be. At the end of the day, being "right" in your own mind might be the difference between royally screwing over people who would very neatly qualify as the victims in your little view of the world (if it weren't for that damned income divide, of course).

Again, you clearly are not paying attention to the principle of the matter .. if you were you would be suggesting how we could use this principle and what measurements and factors should be given and taken into consideration by giving specific examples yourself .. draw out a scenario if you like using mathematics as I did, instead of criticizing, add, help, contribute .. you following me?

Gipper · Aug 22, 2011

Catawba said:
Yes, and burden was defined in the question - "Crippling means that the ratio of living expenses to income tax"

Reading is fundamental!

So is spin, apparently.

So basically what the OP is whining about is that well-to-do people have more disposable income. The rest is just jealous banter. Using buzzwords like "crippling" just makes his point go from moot to laughable.

You can buy into the liberal propaganda if you want, which you will...other threads have proven this to be true. I'll ignore it.

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

digsbe said:
Want the middle class to pay less taxes? Spend less, not tax the wealthy even more. I find it disgusting that people want to look at someone else's wealth and say that they should pay more because they have it to pay despite our dangerous spending.

Want the U.S. to get out of debt? Stop giving the wealthy unfair tax loopholes (tax cuts) .. they don't need them and it is unfair by principle. Spending is only dangerous if it is guided by the greedy hands of the wealthy and corporations.

Gipper · Aug 22, 2011

The fewer people who realize that loopholes exist to incentivize positive externalities, the worse position we will be in.

God forbid liberals take an econ course here or there. Must be why they have time to sit around and bitch.

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

Gipper said:
So is spin, apparently.

So basically what the OP is whining about is that well-to-do people have more disposable income. The rest is just jealous banter. Using buzzwords like "crippling" just makes his point go from moot to laughable.

You can buy into the liberal propaganda if you want, which you will...other threads have proven this to be true. I'll ignore it.

Yet you still have done nothing but make accusations and buzzwords yourself, i.e. "liberal propaganda" - you have not provided any mathematical or situational proof for your position, your argument is a joke

your only point is that you think people are "whining about is that well-to-do people have more disposable income" - which clearly shows your level of understanding

we are talking about relative damage due to taxes - imposing tax debt on low income citizens only creates debt, not revenue - if you ask me .. if anything is propaganda, its your way of twisting the facts without backing theory/evidence

I'm not sure it matters anyway because certain groups of people only care about being right and if they can throw a few catch phrases around that their buddies can cheer at ... they must be right .. right ?

hey, don't hate the messenger

MusicAdventurer · Aug 22, 2011

Gipper said:
The fewer people who realize that loopholes exist to incentivize positive externalities, the worse position we will be in.

God forbid liberals take an econ course here or there. Must be why they have time to sit around and bitch.

Very classy words

However, as someone who has taken econ courses and who has had experience working with those who use said loopholes .. the uses are a joke usually .. often individuals do the equivalent of fraud and or invest in wasteful endeavors that do not prosper and thus do not help society .. I cannot count how many losses and debts I've seen accrue due to a richie trying to evade taxes - some spend more time and money trying to avoid taxes than they would had they just paid up .. sad really

In the end, if despite all the bad debt, said loopholes are actually good for the economy, then good for them

However, if these loopholes are as good for the economy as you say they are ... why aren't things looking so much better? Hey .. if they actually worked and did what they were intended to do (stimulate the economy) I'd have no problem with it .. however, sometimes the government has a little bit too much faith in the integrity of the richies as a group (I have met some that are honest and generous)

Still, if we are going to allow tax loopholes and they actually stimulate the economy, the tax percentages in the higher brackets would need to be increased to adjust for the loss to tax loopholes in order to help the debt problem.

Catawba · Aug 22, 2011

Gipper said:
So basically what the OP is whining about is that well-to-do people have more disposable income. The rest is just jealous banter. Using buzzwords like "crippling" just makes his point go from moot to laughable.

The rich have more disposable income than the middle class, that is correct and is the focus of the thread. By George, I think you've got it! It is less of a burden for them to give up their temporary 3% tax cut on income over $250,000 than it would be for the middle class to have further cuts in SS and Medicare at a time when more and more of the middle class are being forced into poverty.

Of course, revenues are just half of the equation, we will also need to end our optional ME wars and get our military spending back to defense only levels.

Morality Games · Aug 22, 2011

Gipper said:
The fewer people who realize that loopholes exist to incentivize positive externalities, the worse position we will be in.

God forbid liberals take an econ course here or there. Must be why they have time to sit around and bitch.

People shouldn't come to debate forums if they feel their opinions are above debate.

Why does the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax?

Why is the middle class the most crippled by income tax? Select all that apply

Allowing many people to have a shot at being uber-wealthy is dangerous

Making the uber-wealthy share the load would be bad for the economy

The middle class do not have as much of an influence on politics as the wealthy do

The idea that the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax is a myth

A few wealthy, a few more middle class and many lower class citizens is best

Bring us a shrubbery!

Bring us a shrubbery!

Bring us a shrubbery!

Bring us a shrubbery!

Disappointed Evolutionist

Bring us a shrubbery!

Truth will set you free

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist