Middle Class--Not the Rich or the Poor--Pay Majority of Federal Taxes, Says CBO Data

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on how you want to look at it.

The top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 59% pay 1.15% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 40% pay 0.13% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The top earners are a little low. Idealy (IMO) the top 1% should pay somewhere between 30-35%.

Really?

Your numbers add up to 101.05% revenue. Where are those numbers from?

[Wild Cobra]

I understand that the whole "majority of people pay the majority of taxes" sounds right, but (and I don't know the numbers here), it is only right if there is a proportional distribution of wealth.

If you tax wealth rather than consumption or productivity, then nobody can gain assets over their life.

if the top 1% hold 60% of the wealth, then they should pay 60% of the taxes. etc.

No, they should pay an equal share of what the earn or buy.

I don't know how to accomplish this, but it also means that those at the bottom who hold say 10% of the wealth should pay 10% of the taxes (i.e. it should work both ways)

The fair Tax

Would the flat tax fix this?

Not by your consideration of assets. What would you do? tax 20% every year of someone's $400,000 house? That would be $80,000 a year, and some people make less than that that live in such houses.

[Winehole23]

You mean, like this ? From the CBC:



From the Daily Mail (UK)

I thought underwater cavitating missiles rendered all that sort of stuff moot. Is that what you're talking about?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm supposed to be afraid of Putin because his nuclear bombs are newer and shiner?

There is a reason the US has focused on developed new tactical weaponry while sticking with the old nuclear : An old dull nuclear bomb still pretty much levels what its supposed to.

Besides, nuclear weapons are political tools more than military tools. If they are ever used then we're likely all already ed and there are only losers.

[Wild Cobra]

I thought underwater cavitating missiles rendered all that sort of stuff moot. Is that what you're talking about?

Cool...

Did they get that technology down? Now, if they can just do it for submarines...

[Winehole23]

Cool...

Did they get that technology down? Now, if they can just do it for submarines...

Whoa. I'm not at all sure about that WC, but the vague phrasing of the provided link did not inspire confidence.

[Wild Cobra]

Whoa. I'm not at all sure about that WC, but the vague phrasing of the provided link did not inspire confidence.

Hmm....

Do you not know the relevance of "underwater cavitating missiles?"

[Winehole23]

Maybe you could shed some light on it, profe. I just overheard something about it at a party.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you could shed some light on it, profe. I just overheard something about it at a party.

It's really outside the scope of this thread. When cavitation can properly be done at the nose of a missile, the drag of the water is not there. The drag is reduced by a factor of about 1000. In theory, you can do supersonic speeds underwater.

[Winehole23]

And the missile breaches so close to the shore of the target as to render launch detection practically moot.

[Wild Cobra]

And the missile breaches so close to the shore of the target as to render launch detection practically moot.

Exactly. You cannot detect a missile underwater with SONAR when it travels faster than SONAR.

Sorry that I missed it if that was your point. I try not to mix my geek side with my political side. The more prominent one came out without seeing the connection.

[Drachen]

If you tax wealth rather than consumption or productivity, then nobody can gain assets over their life.

No, they should pay an equal share of what the earn or buy.

The fair Tax

Not by your consideration of assets. What would you do? tax 20% every year of someone's $400,000 house? That would be $80,000 a year, and some people make less than that that live in such houses.

ok, I knew my thinking was bass ackwards on this. LOL
Fair Tax is the national sales tax, correct? I am ok with either this or the flat tax, though I see issues with either.

[Wild Cobra]

ok, I knew my thinking was bass ackwards on this. LOL
Fair Tax is the national sales tax, correct? I am ok with either this or the flat tax, though I see issues with either.

Sure, any change will have issues. Someone will end up paying more than before. Anyway, most states already have in place a sales tax. The system will be relatively cheap to implement, and almost eliminate the need for the IRS.

[Drachen]

I don't know, I think maybe a flat tax on income would be better. No deductions. A rich person is far more able to save a great deal of their income than a poor person. Therefore you may have a rich person who only pays taxes on 50% of what they make and every poor person pays taxes on 98% of what they make. How do you resolve that?

[fyatuk]

Really?

Your numbers add up to 101.05% revenue. Where are those numbers from?

Rounding issues. All numbers are from this article and algebra. They don't come out nice and neat.

[boutons_deux]

"meaning the overall tax burden was shifting away from that class of Americans making less than $74,700 per year in 2007 toward those earning more."

well frickin duh. With increased concentration of income and wealth in the top 10%, of course that quintile will be paying more. But I bet as a percentage of income, that quintile pays less than the middle quintiles. Warren Buffet's famous 17% typifying their tax rate.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know, I think maybe a flat tax on income would be better. No deductions. A rich person is far more able to save a great deal of their income than a poor person. Therefore you may have a rich person who only pays taxes on 50% of what they make and every poor person pays taxes on 98% of what they make. How do you resolve that?

Why does it matter? That money will be spent eventually. The invested money is available for others to borrow from. Besides, some people will spend more rather than save under the new system.

[Drachen]

Why does it matter? That money will be spent eventually. The invested money is available for others to borrow from. Besides, some people will spend more rather than save under the new system.

I think, and maybe I am wrong and not following this to its conclusion, but it seems that this would lead to further concentration of wealth at the top, no? If this happens, then greater amounts of money would be idled, meaning lower tax revenues, which would lead to increased taxes rates which would shift more money upwards . . . in perpetuity.

I think a flat tax would be better. Level playing field, no deductions, and no exemptions.

[Wild Cobra]

I think, and maybe I am wrong and not following this to its conclusion, but it seems that this would lead to further concentration of wealth at the top, no? If this happens, then greater amounts of money would be idled, meaning lower tax revenues, which would lead to increased taxes rates which would shift more money upwards . . . in perpetuity.

I think a flat tax would be better. Level playing field, no deductions, and no exemptions.

I would 100% agree to a flat tax with no exemptions at all, but businesses must be excluded. I don't see that ever getting past those who will cry how it hurts the poor.

Overall, I think a consumption tax is the way to go for a system that has a chance of being implemented.

[Drachen]

I would 100% agree to a flat tax with no exemptions at all, but businesses must be excluded. I don't see that ever getting past those who will cry how it hurts the poor.

Overall, I think a consumption tax is the way to go for a system that has a chance of being implemented.

Businesses being excluded? Are you suggesting no income tax on businesses or to keep the current system for businesses?

As to its chance of being implemented, I couldn't possibly see that happening since it disproportionately punishes the poor, whereas with a flat tax, the poor are treated equally.

I know it won't pass either, but at least it is fair.

[Wild Cobra]

Businesses being excluded? Are you suggesting no income tax on businesses or to keep the current system for businesses?

As to its chance of being implemented, I couldn't possibly see that happening since it disproportionately punishes the poor, whereas with a flat tax, the poor are treated equally.

I know it won't pass either, but at least it is fair.

Yes, I think businesses need exclusion from taxation to compete in the global market we have. That's why I prefer a consumption tax.

[Winehole23]

I would 100% agree to a flat tax with no exemptions at all, but businesses must be excluded.

A semantic quibble: I would call that a straightforward exemption. Businesses must be exempt, according to you.

[EVAY]

Notice that heads of states from other countries like oh..Canada..have come to the US recently for health care or that our military spending per GDP ranks 25th in the world at 4.3 GDP. We are numba 1 in spending on health care at 16% of GDP. US corporations pay the second highest, behind Japan, corporate taxes in the world. 22 US states have higher corporate tax rates than Japan. Conversely, Americans enjoy some of the lowest personal tax rates in the world. Citizens of France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Finland...pay anywhere from 45% to 55% in personal income tax. The US tax table taps out at 35% for those making over $371,000/yr. 'Working people', as you call them, in the US pay either zero or 25% tops under 85k. It depends on your definition of 'working people'. 50% pay no income tax at all in the US. Zip. Depends on various factors but the fact is, Americans..ALL Americans..enjoy some of the lowest taxes on the globe and it drives you left wang nutters MAD even though you benefit from it.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here, Word.

Some folks would quote your statistic on health care spending as proof that we are paying too much in this country for health care. Your anecdotal evidence regarding some folks coming here for extraordinary care does not address that at all.

Your statistics on how low personal income taxes are in this country does NOT seem to me to support a position that says that "left wang (sic) nutters" are angry about that. I thought that 'left wang (sic) nutters' wanted HIGHER income tax rates.

Corporate tax rates and actual paid corporate taxes are very, very different. If not, more companies would be leaving the U.S. for more tax-friendly countries. Most U.S. companies pay nowhere near the stated tax rate for their income.

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly. You cannot detect a missile underwater with SONAR when it travels faster than SONAR.

Sorry that I missed it if that was your point. I try not to mix my geek side with my political side. The more prominent one came out without seeing the connection.

Are you ing stupid? Of course you can. This is like saying you can't hear a plane that is super sonic when you obviously can.

[MannyIsGod]

And the missile breaches so close to the shore of the target as to render launch detection practically moot.

Eh we don't need the technology WC is talking about to do this. We just launch from close to the shore and they still have for time to detect and stop the missiles we've had for 40 years.