The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

why should the rich pay more for the same benefits as others? I am hoping the democrats force many of their rich voters into the GOP with constant attacks on wealth. when that happens, game over

 

then the top one percent should get 90% of the votes

 

flat tax-everyone pays exactly the same rate
or everyone pays the same amount

those are the only two fair programs

 

Oddly enough the tax cuts went to people who are now loaning back the cuts at interest. Win-win for them.

 

this is completely wrong. and it is representative of class envy.

 

I have been on public assistance, food stamps, WIC, HUD, and anything else I could get. I used it to go to school, get a good job and have paid that back over and over. I've paid it many times over every year since. I understand the situation more than you think. Part of the problem is the system that keeps people down and that is due to the problems caused by the safety net system itself. For example, a landlord has a tenant that is trashing his house, is a junkie, and HUD pays her rent. The courts have forbade the landlord from kicking her out and even from going onto his own property. Finally after two years of going to court, he finally gets her out and she has destroyed the place with cement in the plumbing, severe water damage, cat feces everywhere. Now, he has new rules for his next tenants. No more HUD, high rent, big deposits, good credit rating. Who are the people that cannot rent his house now due to the system that gave this woman a safety net? People that don't have a lot of money, don't have good credit, are left with nowhere to go but a tent on the street. Then they can't get a job because they are homeless.

I'm all for safety nets but there needs to be some better rules for these safety nets. Drug tests would be a good start followed by a plan on how to get out from under and start contributing instead of just taking.

 

Ok, you want to do some math.
If the top 5% pays 65% of the taxes ($2.85T X .65 = $1.85T) and you want to raise their rate by some amount. The current rate for making over $578,126 (single) is 37%. Let's say you want to jack that up to 50%. You would see an increase of $240B. That's still a drop in the bucket for the current debt and still wouldn't cover the deficit. If you want to fix the debt problem, stop spending.

 

Income tax cuts will always have their biggest impact in the top half of the income distribution because that's where the taxes are. Lower half pays little or nothing anyway.

 

What do you mean by stop spending?

We’ve inherited a very fiscally responsible recipe from Gingrich & Co……increase spending at a rate below the inflation rate + population growth rate.

 

That would be an improvement on the current 100%...

You know, once upon a time, landowners paid all the taxes, and only landowners could vote. Problem is, the first thing those landowners voted for was to make someone else pay the taxes.

 

No, it is a fact, and I will thank you to remember it.

That is nothing but evil, disingenuous, ad hominem filth. One of the most evil acts a human being can commit is to accuse those who oppose injustice of envy for those who profit from it.

 

BWAHAHAHHAAAAA!!!

They don't get the same benefits, as you know very well. They get all the benefits, and taxpayers are forced to subsidize them. Everything government spends on desirable services and infrastructure -- education, health care, income support, roads, pensions, transportation facilities, water and sewer services, police and fire protection, etc. -- goes to landowners, because they are privileged to charge everyone else full market value for permission to access those benefits. Google "Henry George Theorem" and start reading. Who gets the benefit of government enforcement of IP monopoly privileges? Who gets the benefit of military spending? Who gets the benefit of bank bailouts?

You need to stop typing and start thinking.

 

Because that's the greatest good. The rich have more than they need on the one hand, but in some cases it's because they have much to offer (not in all cases, but we can assume some people are rich due to merit). They are rich, and in general benefit more, but we want them to continue to contribute, so we can't squeeze them so hard that they go elsewhere. Squeezing more money out of the middle class or poor does more harm than squeezing money out of the rich, at least until the point that the rich leave. There is also something to be said about minimizing tax dollars that are wasted, though.

I think wealthy people already know where they stand on gop vs democrat. The ones concerned about keeping every dollar they can are already with the gop. The ones who feel a social responsibility, that this social responsibility is better served by government than charities, have money but aren't obsessed with it, and/or believe strongly in liberal ideas are already with the democrats. In terms of actual voting numbers neither are a big faction but given terrible decisions like Citizens United their money can be used to influence many people.

 

Which changes not a twit what said.

 

What you are describing is the go-to modern solution to the problem of privilege: countervailing privilege. But the problem of privilege can't be solved by countervailing privilege. Countervailing privilege just piles privilege on privilege. The problem of privilege can only be solved by justice.

The problem with safety nets is that some people will always try to use them as a hammock. If we had justice, ~90% of the hammock dwellers would be supporting themselves. The remaining 10% are those unable to support themselves. For them, I would propose supervised living facilities, never just giving them money.

 

The greater the accumulation of private wealth, the lower the probability that any significant portion of it was earned by commensurate contributions to wealth production.

 

It varies. Some people are rich because they inherited it. Some are rich because of an unusual talent others find entertaining. Some are rich because they claimed ownership of something at the right time. Some had an amazing idea and put in hard work to develop it. The utility of each of these things for the wider society varies considerably. The goal of policy is to find what causes the greatest good but also respects rights. Conservatives seem to overemphasize the individual role and ownership of private wealth. Like, they earned it "all on their own" so they have the right to it all. That's just not how society really works, though.

 

There is about the way we get the revenue to do so.

 

Hah! You didn't even look, because it wasn't #57

It was addressed in #56:

Wealth includes money. Earning wealth by just sitting on it, while it accrues in value, is a tax avoiding technique. It's legal, but this is why there are proposals to tax wealth, for this very reason. The dynasties of America accrue wealth at the expense of the poor, whose savings lose value due to inflation, enriching the rich even more.

The wealth tax posits, in my view, that accruals faster than the rate of inflation are 'income'. Now, I don't know if Warren puts it that way, but I do. Anyway, She has 14 legal scholars saying her tax is constitutional.

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Constitutionality Letters.pdf

Poverty is it's own tax. This idea that the wealth pay the most tax, given the above, is misleading, they really pay very little, if you factor in wealth accrual via dynasty-ism. Looking it in terms of 'income' doesn't see the forest. This is the flaw in the flat tax, or conservative/libertarianism/neoliberalism, and why a progressive taxation system including wealth taxation is the only way (I can think of) to attempt to close the inequality gap and curtail runaway dynasty-ism and thwart the tendency for capitalism to cause power and wealth to coagulate in fewer and fewer hands.

In my view, for individuals to have as much wealth and power as some nations, that should be illegal for any individual to have that much power. That it is allowed is INSANE, and it is due to the neoliberal/conservative/libertarian policies of the right that it is allowed. This policy will, if left unchecked, lead to revolution, because it results in a country that exploits the poor, and when you exploit the poor, hard enough, long enough, it always results in the rise of demagogues and then pitch forks.

 

I have clearly said HIGH EARNERS. That being dsid the left refers to them as the rich.

That is why your INCOME is taxed and it required a constitutional amendmemt to get that. And it took over 100 years to get that and it was done as an emergency measure which like most government ergencies never go away.

YES what the hell do you think ee are talkimg about when we are talking FEDERAL TAXATION AND WHAT BIDEN IS RUNNHNG ON??? What do you believe the tax rates are he is talking about?

They are also the biggest earners do you not think Warren Buffet "works" for his earnings? It just mamcally happens?

Under WHATEVER SYSTEM give me the percentage each group should pay if the required taxation to fund the federal government. What woukd be "fair"

You have done nothing but speciously obfuscated the issue..........AS WAS EXPECTED AND PREDICTED.

 

I define 'income' as either taxable dollars earned, or unearned, or the monetary value of long term held assets accruing in value faster than the rate of inflation, above the prior year. That's how I define it.

I would hope the government puts it to good use. Thing is, one man's spending bill is another man's gripe. Everyone in society had a gripe about taxes, so, welcome to the club, the one called 'democracy'.

So, arguing about how it should be spent is really another topic, under budgets and government spending, if there is such a forum for that.

I don't know what you are suggesting, but 'taking wealth' doesn't mean confiscation of property, it means paying taxes in dollars, or the value of assets in dollars. That might require liquidation, but only dollars are collected. It does occur, form time to time, with the rich having to liquidate assets in order to pay a tax, this is not an unusual thing.

 

Proverty as measured how?

What is the labor provided is not worth that much money.

All flat tax and NST's hage standard deductions or prebates to cover that.

Why? What if the cost of living falls?

 

We DONT TAX WEALTH AND NEVER WILL. It doesn't work so stop with the canard and dodge.

But whether income or wealth or combination

Give me the "fair share" of each group.

 

with a more liberal court, this will change.

 

Really, we don't tax the rich and never will. It doesn't work?

In 1965 the top marginal tax rate for individuals was 70% for couples earning over 200,000 a year (100,000 for singles).
In 1965 we had a strong middle class
In 1965 the average CEO to Employee pay ratio was 15 to 1, today it is over 300 to 1

It doesn't take a real genius to see where the problem is.

Every dollar over 200,000 that a married man made, 70% of it was paid in taxes. There is not much of an incentive to make that extra money...there IS an incentive to return that money to the employees (in the form of wages)

But now that these people get to keep 70% of every dollar earned over the top bracket...there is no reason NOT to keep the money rolling in and just pay the employees less.