Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Safety Dance

Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at the bottom of the form.

36. Re: Differences Jul 20, 2012, 23:05 shinchan0s
 
maleitch wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 19:33:
Sepharo wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 19:15:
Eliminating loopholes and exceptions is still seen as a tax increase. The "never raise my taxes ever for any reason" folks (and they're not just the ultra-wealthy) will fight any increase in the tax amount they pay regardless of where it comes from. In their mind the only direction taxes can go is down.

This gets so old. The evil McBain rich pay more in taxes than any other group. Quit pushing your childish morality on other people. You don't have a "right" to other people's income.

Funny how you never mention the "never touch my gubment benefits crowd" who actually call reductions in increases as cuts. When exactly are they going to be asked to pay their "fair share".

Oh and to this myth of wealth imbalance...Beamer you are going to try to tell me there was less disparity back in the days of Rockefeller and train barons.

Oh...in fact here is a story from today that blows your claim out of the water and it is even from CNBC so you can consider it legitimate:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611




Lower class and middle class people suffer a bigger tax burden than you think when you take into account payroll, property and sales taxes. Labor, just like capital gains, is also taxed twice (first through SS and Medicare then income) so the double taxation argument can go out the window (although you could still argue that the SS tax is really a bargain investment for a future dividends - still, the tax is capped at, I think, $106,400 so it's a bigger burden for the middle class and it's doubtful future payouts will be as good as they are today). The whole tax argument is not even taking into account the rapidly growing costs of healthcare and education. Throw in the decades long wage stagnation and that's why you see lower and middle class Americans complain about taxes... even when their federal taxes are at historic lows.

It's true that the rich pay a lot in taxes. Actually, I think the top 20% pays somewhere like 70% of all federal taxes. It's shocking, I know. But it's not all that surprising when you consider how fast the top 1%'s income has grown. The fact of the matter is that the rich are paying a disproportionate share of taxes because they're receiving a disproportionate share of income.

I have no idea where you got this crazy notion that the ever widening wealth disparity in the USA is a myth. I also have no idea why you linked that CNBC article to try to disprove it. The only thing that article shows is that the top quintile's income is extremely variable in relation to all the other groups. Which we know, duh. The stock market tanked so all their capital gains went bye-bye. It's also historically always been that way. The funny thing is that it also shows the top 20% having over half of all income. Gee... I wonder why then they end up paying over half of all income taxes?

This post from the Economist's blog shows us that the tax burden isn't as uneven as you might think. The blog's data is backed up by the CBO report linked by your CNBC article. The top 20% have an effective total federal tax rate of 25% while the solidly middle class have historically paid 15%. That's not taking into account state and local taxes which are mostly regressive sales and property taxes.

Really, all I'm trying to say is that while, yes, the rich do pay a lot of income taxes, the effective tax rates of the rich are NOT AS OBSCENE as their share of total federal taxes paid might lead you to believe. I think that stat is skewed. The reality is that the top 20% pay two times the tax rate as the middle while having over 4-5 times the income. So, no, I don't think the rich are paying their fair share. They can afford to give a little extra. What are they gonna lose? Another yacht or Mercedes?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
Subject
Comment
     
 
      ;)   ;)   :(   :(   :o   :o   %)   %)   :)   :)   :|   :|   ;P   ;P   X|   X|   :D   :D   More
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you have a signature set up, it will be automatically appended to your comment.
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 
          Email me when this topic is updated.
 

Special Codes

  • b[bold text]b
  • i[italic text]i
  • u[underline text]u
  • -[strikethrough text]-
  • c[code text]c
  • +[bullet point]+
  • q[quote text (indented)]q
  • [quote="Author"]quote text (indented)[/quote]
  • [url=Link]text[/url]
  • r{red text}r
  • g{green text}g
  • b{blue text}b
  • m{maroon text}m
  • s{secret text (shows in the background colour)}s

Forum Rules

  1. Disagree all you want but attacks of a personal nature will not be tolerated.
  2. Ethnic slurs and homophobic language will not be tolerated.
  3. Do not post spam, links to warez sites, or instructions on how to obtain pirated software.
  4. Abusing the forums in any manner that could be construed as 'griefing' will not be tolerated.


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo