- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,011
- Reaction score
- 5,438
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
the difference is we can prove that the rich
1) pay far more of the national tax burden than their share of the income. every group other than the top one or two percent pays less. So while "fair share" is a amorphous concept, we do know that the rich pay more than their share of the income-everyone else pays less.
2) we also know that the top one percent-when calculating the two progressive federal taxes-income and estate-pay more than 40% of the tax bill. the top 5% pay more than the rest of the country combined. The rich objectivly pay for services that benefit eeryone else. Everyone else is subsidized by the rich
Where are you getting this information? I'm curious how it's being calculated. For example, when they're counting income, is it only the tax definition of income? Or are they also counting income from investments which are taxed at a lower rate. And I'd also like to figure out what percentage of discretionary income the wealthy make compared to what percentage of taxes they pay.
So I am merely advocating people pay their share of what they use or what they want.
Which is still asking others to pay more taxes than they currently do so that you can pay less, something you vilify others for.
That is a huge difference from what you want-you want the rich to continue to subsidize your artificially low taxes so you can get stuff you don't pay for
Do you actually read the stuff I post? Because if you did, you'd know that I don't want to continue anything about the current tax system. On the contrary I want to make massive changes to nearly every part of the US tax code.
The only reason I keep harping on this particular point is because hypocrisy bugs the crap out of me and I rarely let it go without pointing it out.