I would like to see these numbers without the “luxury” taxes. I’ll see if I can dig up anything. It shouldn’t be too hard, since they cite where they get the alcohol and tobacco numbers. I’ll see what I can come up with.
I also wonder how the numbers look with or without capital gains. The linked jpeg doesn’t saw if they’re included or not.
Glad all this got posted. Making me think.
And magellan01, I think every other poster understands the point you were trying to make with the 33% thing, which still stands even if the numbers aren’t correct (and they aren’t, but whatever), so I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
Okay, that helps. Now I see your problem. I assumed you held that belief. That was wrong for me to do. My apologies. I should have said “Do you believe…” and then asked why. So, I’ll do so now. Do you? And, if so, why?
I’ve said repeatedly that is was a simplistic formulation. I think you go to far though in saying it in “no way” reflects U.S. income tax reality. I hope you realize that my point had nothing to do with the degree to which hypothetical 33% income tax rate results in a third of one’s efforts going to the government. If not, I’ll ask you to read my posts over with a macro lens.
I have no idea what your problem is here. You seem hell bent in not discussing the philosophical question posted in the OP. And using a great deal of words and rancor to do it. I clicked on this thread because i found the OP interesting. If YOU want to discuss something else, start a new thread and stop trying to derail this one.
You confuse yourself with the OP. And your ability to read with your ability to comprehend. Have a nice day.
Thanks. I can’t believe he can’t see that what the actual numbers are do not matter to the point I was making. He does seem intent in not having the OP discussed. Strange that.
And I’ve repeatedly said that my objection isn’t concerning your larger point. I just want simple confirmation that you know that it is impossible for someone in the so-called “33% tax bracket” to pay 33% of their income in income taxes, as any earned income under that cutoff is taxed at a lower rate. That’s why it “in no way” reflects reality, because it is impossible.
And just to move things along and satisfy your quenching desire to discuss that actual point… drumroll… I don’t know. I have been presented with no information as to whether income tax paid has any effect on demand for government expenditures. I’ve got a gut feeling, but that isn’t really worth anything on a message board and I don’t care to do the research myself. Apparently, no one else cares enough either.
Glad we got that straightened out. I really didn’t understand specifically what the problem was.
Sheeze! No, someone who is in the 33% tax bracket will not be paying 33% of their income to the government. I can’t believe you’re so hung up on this. It’s got nothing to do with my point. And I maintain that your “no way” is way to strong.
But don’t you have a point of view? Can’t you make a philosophical offering, with the understanding that your position might change as data and evidence might shed light?Make believe you’re one of the framers, and there is no data on which to build a position. What do you think is right, fair?
I’m stressing this point because it’s a very simple aspect of the tax system. If you don’t understand very simple arguments, there is no reason to proceed to rather complex arguments, like the merits of the EITC and its effects on the overall government.
Of what value is a point of view without supporting evidence? Why do you care so much what I think when you should be looking to support your own opinion and convince others of its value? Thus far we have data on who pays how much in taxes, and then we have some time-traveling speculation of fairness and justice with no definitions. No one has connected the two.
How do the Bush tax cuts work under this so-called ratchet?
When do the poor vote for new services again? That would be our elected representatives, who might see the poor every 2 or 6 years, but see their friendly neighborhood lobbyists a lot more often than that. I don’t think we have to worry about the rich not getting their voices heard, do you?
However, I’m all in favor of the poor paying more in taxes, absolutely, as long as it is the result of an increase in their pay putting them into a higher bracket. I’m sure you’re not recommending the heartless and cruel policy of taking more from people who have so little. This has nothing to do with small government or big government, just equity.
This is really the point. The rich pay an increasing share of taxes because they have an increasing share of the wealth. The minimum wage is low compared to it’s historical value and the difference between the top execs and average worker has never been so high.