Top 3% of Taxpayers paid majority of income taxes in 2016.

Maybe because the OP makes sense and your position doesn't.

 

You do realize you didn't respond to my argument, right? And your second sentence makes no sense. You have a second chance : "So you have a problem when I use % of wealth instead of % of income to talk about tax fairness, but you have no problem when someone uses % of people? Funny considering that wealth is more correlated to income. I agree with you, income is what is taxed, therefore using people and saying 10% are paying 70% is the wrong way to argue about fairness, which was my original point."

 

Says the guy who can't argue his point. If it doesn't make sense, it should be easy to argue against it, something you didn't do.

 

In 2015 45% of Americans paid zero income taxes, 0.00%. How many people do the 1% need to foot the bill for 75% or 80%? Serious question.

 

They should pay proportionally to the amount of income they earn. If they earn as much as the bottom 75% or 80% then yes they should pay that.

The real problem here though, is how do we justify 1 or 2 people earning what 150 million Americans earn in a year - combined.
———
A simple hypothetical: If 100 people are in a room - total income of that room is $100
One person earns $43 ($43.00 each)
Four people split $28 ($7.00 each)
Five people split $12 ($2.40 each)
Ten people split $11 ($1.10 each)
80 people split $9 ($0.11 each)

Who should pay the most here? How much should we take from the people earning 11 cents?
That’s our current system on a very simple basis.

For wealth holdings it’s even more stark:

 

Tablet typing......

But actually I did respond to you argument. We do not tax wealth except for the miniscule inheritance tax which is a one time tax on the estate OF A DEAD CITIZEN, and that may go away entirely as it should.

We tax income, YOU have the problem when you talk % of wealth instead of % of income.

The top 10% of income earners paying 80% of income taxes is precisely the correct way to talk about this fairness the left harps about. Not their wealth.

And as I argued

A middle aged very successful working person makes lots of income but has little wealth yet. The retired older person has little income anymore but has accumulated lots of wealth.

Wealth and income are not the same thing.

But say we do what you want and start taxing wealth. How would you do it?

 

I don't argue against nonsense.

Sorry.

 

What does wealth holding have to do with tax system? I could have 2000 acres of land worth a lot of wealth but work at McDonald's and have very little income.

 

It's called Capitalism and it works. It works on a business level, development level and it works for the masses. All of your fancy charts and graphs and notions of what you "think" the United States should do will not change the fact that Capitalism is a better system than socialism.

The wealthy already pay the most taxes and support a lot of the people that don't pay anything. If you are upset about, go make so money and become rich. In this country, it's possible.

 

I answered your question, you chose to dodge mine and go on a rant.

I am not interested in rants - but rather discussion. If you are unable to do so, feel free not to respond to me in the future. Thanks

 

Why do we have to "justify it"?

 

I didn't ask a question, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of punishing the wealthy by trying to make them pay even more or to try and separate them from their money.

"It's not fair" that they are wealthy is not a fair stance to take. It's not a rant, it's pointing out that your level of discussion is going to eventually include you deciding how much in taxes everyone pays and you redistributing everyone's money to fit your notion of what a society would be. Most Communists think this way and guess, what? It's doesn't work.

It's not my aim to insult you, but these discussions go around and around in circles forever and they almost always end up the same way. IMO, the government doesn't do enough to put more money in the hands of the people who earn it and they throw taxpayers money down the toilet for useless things. But, you take the good with the bad and hope the people you elect are working on your behalf.

But in the end, you choose your own level of wealth based on the decisions you make throughout your life.

 

Well with the current distribution of income (wealth is a greater issue but this topic is income) we will eventually hit a wall. The very wealthy are amassing huge gains in income while the middle class is all but disappearing and the very poor are stagnant.

You, yourself, don’t have to do anything. But anyone looking at this through an impartial lease and trying to find a solution that benefits the country as a whole should definitely question how these systems are functioning and if they are sustainable.

 

Which is why I am an advocate for a proportional tax structure.
Everyone’s total taxes should equal their proportional wealth. Under our current structure most of wealthy (those that don’t use loopholes to dodge it anyway) pay much more in income tax - as a percentage - than those at the bottom but those at the bottom pay much more in consumption taxes and sales taxes - again, as a percentage of their wealth - than those at the top.

Our politicians are not working for us - they are working for their respective party.

 

The middle class is not disappearing and anyone who wants to go out and work can, we have RECORD numbers of open jobs, and can save and accumulate wealth. What benefits the country is capital formation used to grow and expand the economy and the government keeping out of it with income and wealth redistribution schemes and using the tax code to try and accomplish it.

 

I will have to simply disagree:
If you have some additional information that illustrates the notion that the middle clas is not contracting I would be very interested in reading it.

Forbes: The Middle Class Might Nearly Disappear In The Next Decade
Investopedia: America's Slowly Disappearing Middle Class
Inc.com: Why the American Middle Class Is Disappearing (and What It Will Mean for the Economy)

 

How do you measure "proportional wealth"? Who assess every person in country's wealth? And wealth at what point in time, the value of a person's wealth is in constant flux. And you are conflating excise and use taxes with general revenue taxes and THEN conflating state and local taxes with federal taxes. Why on earth would you propose tax a persons income based on their wealth, do you realize that a LOT of higher earners with no wealth would pay little while lots of people with wealth but little income would pay LOTS. You know like retired people.

 

"“In part, the shift out of the middle class is a sign of economic progress, irrespective of changes in household incomes overall,” author Rakesh Kochhar, the center’s associate director for research, noted in the report. “This is because the outward shift is accompanied by a move up the income ladder, into the upper-income tier, in all countries with a shrinking middle class.”

Read more: America's Slowly Disappearing Middle Class | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/insights/americas-slowly-disappearing-middle-class/#ixzz5U8OkBoGG
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook"

What's you beef with that?

Automation is CREATING JOBS and better jobs. We have RECORD job openings and record jobs available to those seeking jobs.

Go back to message #176

 

It would be difficult if not impossible to do this.
Which is why a simplified, proportional and progressive income tax structure with little exemptions and no loopholes would be the most efficient. All income sources should be taxed the same from inheritance (after a progressive exemption amount) to capital gains.

 

How much more did they make ? The right keeps acting like them paying more taxes is an outrage, when they arent factoring in the income differential.

You realize that EVERYONE pays the same taxes dollar for dollar right ?

 

Honesly the automation event is terrifying to me. I am just not seeing how our system will survive once all most all transportation sector jobs are lost. Currently 18% of all jobs are transportation biased and I just don’t see that many jobs being created.

We are going to have to rethink everything once robotics and AI become mainstream.

 

Bush was selling “the american dream of homeownership” also.

Democrats weren’t the only ones selling it.

 

Why does that need to be justified to anyone?

 

While those at the bottom pay more as a percentage for consumption, cost of living and sales taxes, the wealthy out spends them at about every single level pouring more and more money back into the economy.

The more you tax the rich, the more effect at has on the lower income earners as well. Especially business owners.

 

So your entire reasoning is a failed economic principle, trickle down economics? We’ve tried that.

The very wealthy mostly invest - their contributions do far less than people buying base goods and services.