That's pretty damning. We spend too goddamn much money.
We know who's taxes will go down (with a National sales tax).
Buffett's will drop a Billion alone as his spending is Neglible compared to his income.
Goldman Sachs/Disney/GE CEOs.. all WAY down as these people spend very little of their income to live.
Their Taxes will go from 38% to 3.8% and someone is going to pay for that.
Who do y'all thinlk that will be?
Do y'all think you are frugal and will buy less [enough] to lower yo taxes and make "Them" pay?
That the authors are liberal doesn't make their analysis wrong or under suspicion. A rate of 50% will create a black market.
The problem is that we spend too much money at the federal level. We ought to shift all entitlement programs to the states. That would cut the federal budget by more than half.
Guess who became president in 1980, and what he did?
Can you say Reagan and his drastic tax cuts for the rich? Bush continued with further tax cuts for the rich.
"From 2003 to 2005, the average household income of the top 1 percent grew at a much faster rate than the the four lowest quintiles."
"Few economists would dispute that US society is becoming increasingly unequal. National income is being redistributed away from the majority earning the least to the privileged owners and controllers of capital. Legislative policies authored by and for the super-rich have, over the last 25 years, led to the systematic transfer of tax burden off the richest 5% onto working people.
President Bush makes no bones about whose interests he represents, hence his statement at a dinner fundraiser of the rich and wealthy… ‘"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
It’s growing: the gap between rich and poor
Exactly right mbig!
Since lower income families spend almost every penny they earn on subsistence items, they would pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes.
That's NOT what it looks like to me,
The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates.
The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2007 ranges from around 3 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.45 percent for the top 1 percent. Since 2001, the average tax rate has fallen from 4.09 percent to 2.99 percent for the bottom 50 percent, and it has fallen from 28.20 percent to 21.46 percent for the top 0.1 percent and 27.5 percent to 22.45 percent for the top 1 percent. This large drop-off for the very top is largely due to the reduction in capital gains and dividends taxes, as well as the drop in ordinary tax rates.
nor have you even now claimed other things such as the gutting the Estate tax.
NOR, even if true, Does it mitigate the Burden Shift I pointed out by the HALVING of the Capital Gains/Div taxs...
NOR mitigate those tax Cuts for the Rich under Bush were Financed by Borrowing/Deficits.... Causing a Large Hidden Tax/Inflation on All.. especially those who spend 80% or more of their income to live. (the bottom 50% and more).
Top Marginal rates are near All time LOWS in historical terms.
Throughout the 50s to early 80's it was 70-90%.... you remember!
When we were a "communist country" and we actually had a larger percent Middle Class Because of that higher Progressivity. (and less greed)
This whole Idiocy with a 'Pay Czar' is ridiculous and unneeded. If you just boost the top marginal rate it doesn't matter if someone makes a $30 mil bonus.. he'll pay $20 mil to the govt, so they can bail his greedy Bank/Brokerage firm out next time they push it too hard/next bust cycle.
Can't do that the states don't have the money and can't run a deficit like the feds.
:rofl
The states would have to increase taxes to pay for entitlements. They would have to plan for those costs in their budgets, since they can't run a deficit. Entitlements shouldn't be paid for with a deficit anyway. Only emergencies should result in deficit spending.
States could decide which entitlements they want to continue paying for.
"Rising inequality isn't new. The gap between rich and poor started growing before Ronald Reagan took office, and it continued to widen through the Clinton years. But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth — and they know it."
Paul Krugman on the Great Wealth Transfer : Rolling Stone
That is why the public kicked out the bums in 2006 and 2008 and elected representatives that promised to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
So laugh on funny boys! Carry on with your pipe dream of a regressive tax to make the corporate millionaires even more wealthy.
The American public is not going to be terribly sympathetic to those that received billions in bailouts with our tax dollars with their (and your) desires for less taxes on the record profits we enabled.
What are they going to tax. People are already leaving New york and California because they are over taxed. You need to think before posting.
Do you really think the dems in congress will release that power?
There would have to be a period of transition. The fed will have to give money to the states for awhile, 100%X for a couple of years, then 80%X for a couple then 60%X, 40%X, 20%X then 0. Meanwhile, the fed will decrease the tax rate while the states increase their tax rate. That New York and Cali are overtaxed is their problem. They need to sort it out.
Oh yeah...bite me.
Nice dodge on what I posted.
How do you propose to get congress to give up their power to say nothing of the control freak president.
Same to you my friend! The progressive tax system in this country has endured through 96 years, good times and bad, under both Democratic and Republican control.
Thinking the American public that has recently suffered under the widest gap in incomes between the rich and the lower classes since the Great Depression, I consider the push now to make our system even more regressive and favorable for the rich to be a non-starter.
In that regard, who are the National politicians that are proposing a consumption tax????
"Rising inequality isn't new. The gap between rich and poor started growing before Ronald Reagan took office, and it continued to widen through the Clinton years. But what is happening under Bush is something entirely unprecedented: For the first time in our history, so much growth is being siphoned off to a small, wealthy minority that most Americans are failing to gain ground even during a time of economic growth — and they know it."
Paul Krugman on the Great Wealth Transfer : Rolling Stone
That is why the public kicked out the bums in 2006 and 2008 and elected representatives that promised to eliminate the Bush tax cuts.
So laugh on funny boys! Carry on with your pipe dream of a regressive tax
to make the corporate millionaires even more wealthy.
The American public is not going to be terribly sympathetic to those that received billions in bailouts with our tax dollars with their (and your) desires for less taxes on the record profits we enabled.
Numbers to back this up?
If you really think that the elections of 2006 and 2008 had anything to do with the Bush tax cuts at all, you are not very well informed.
Do you even know what a regressive tax is? Hint: nobody here is advocating it.
Boo-hoo, rich people getting richer. Wait, why is this bad?
Except this thread has nothing to do with the bailouts.
From my posts you can of course tell I agree.
As I said, the 'proof of the pudding' even before the recession went into full bloom was the govt stimulous checks. Wholeheartedly approved by Both parties and well needed.
The fact is, it was (and still is) So bad, even the GOP realized they had to give out some moola because the little guy didn't even have enough money to spend on Cars/Computers/etc that it was hurting the Big guys stocks!
And now they want to Sales or Flat tax the small guy even more with these Schemes!!!
You'll note all these tax "simplifications" are TOP Down.
The rich benefit far more- and not just becase the pay more- but because they ant to shift the burden Down.
It's not only Unfair (Fair is irrelevant if you're trying to get blood from a stone).. but IMPOSSIBLE.
How about a "Tax simplification" with NO taxes for anyone under 30k, eliminating Tens of Millions of returns and small potates receipts?
Good idea but you can't get Lobbyists to work for the under 30k crowd and the have no money to bribe the 97 senators who are Millionaires with.
The Biggest Dupes being Low income 'conservatives' who are really just doing their rich masters dirty work in the name of 'principal', but suffering just as bad as the 'welfare crowd' they think they're choking.
Me Too!I like NO TAX – down with the IRS!
I’d go with a National Sales Tax; I like what the people at FAIRTAX.ORG are doing.