How do you figure?
And they do pay taxes. Some people don’t pay income tax. That’s been pointed out probably ten times.
HAHAHA Yes, as a percentage of income. You need to look at the column before that. If you just go from that table (I’m currently looking for the real number) you’ll see tax revenue of $41,376. The group at the bottom contributes 3.5% and the group at the top contributes 52%, I don’t consider that “pretty close to even.”
What was the comment during the election: 5% of income earners pay 95% of the taxes.
*it should also be noted that the chart includes taxes from tobacco and alcohol sales.
eta: http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/top-1-pays-more-in-taxes-than-bottom-95 I have no idea if that’s valid, it was linked from a conservative website so I assume…
Yeah, why is that not fair?
Consider:
(not happy with that source but I have seen it before and am sure I can back it up if you want).
If you have more you pay more. We do this all the time. If you buy a Rolls Royce and I buy a Hyundai I will pay less taxes, you’ll pay more and no one fusses about that. Seems straightforward and fair to me and as noted as a percentage of income all groups are actually pretty close all things considered.
I wasn’t aware that was a condition for posting on this board. Now that I know, I will gladly remind future posts.
My solution:
1.) Establish the rule that adding to federal income tax is a matter of absolute last resort. Save it for the things that actually impact everyone equally. Note that I’m not saying never add, just leave it as the last option once all others have at least been considered. (technically I’d like deficit spending to be the last resort but let’s be realistic here)
2.) Before the addition of any new tax, establish those that “directly” benefit, then establish those that indirectly benefit. Then ask if there is a more direct way to tax those that benefit directly. If you want to improve libraries, start by asking if there is a way to get more revenue from the people that actually use the library. You don’t have to steal from them, that would be theft. I’d like us to start by asking if there is a direct way. Failing that, circle outwards, moving through the list of people that benefit.
Example: It makes little sense to have a federal tax to fund one local library in the middle of no where. Sure everyone benefits a little, and the cost would be like $0.00437 a year. But the users of the library are the direct beneficiaries, with the town being second, county third, state fourth… If it’s unreasonable to ask the users of the library to pay $500 a year (assuming 10 users and a $5000 expansion), is it reasonable for the town of 100 to pay $50? Or each person in the county to pay $5.
3.) Establish who this will harm, and what negative consequences are likely to result. Consider this the law of unintended consequences. Will funding the library first take spending money from residents, and secondly impede operations of the local book stores? (Is the library predominantly books about creationism, kidding) This can also ask if it unfairly targets the poor. A $5 user fee may seem like peanuts to the rest of us, but if the people using the library lack $5 we’ve lost the benefits listed in (2).
4.) Is the government spending being used to buy votes directly or indirectly? Who has the no-bid contract? stuff like that.
5.) Is there something in the budget that could be cut, so that we remain revenue neutral?
Then go through the rest of the budget and ask these questions.
Summary: First ask if there is a more direct way to tax those that benefit directly.
It comes from comments like this:
Percentage of income is irrelevant as far as contributions are concerned. If the bottom 1% paid 100% of their income it still wouldn’t pay for even a fraction of what is offered. If you want to know how much "poor people’ contribute you need to look at the actual revenue they generate. It’s actually one of the reasons why taxing them is pointless to begin with. We don’t buy aircraft carriers with percentages.
The military and police are protecting Bill Gates from losing $50 billion if we were invaded and the victors took all our stuff. From me, not nearly so much.
Bill Gates may not personally use the roads more than I do but Microsoft sure benefits from them sending shipments of their products all over the country. Microsoft makes massively more use of our highways than I do. I could get by with the Feds building one road for me to get to work (or none actually since I take the train and pay to ride it). Bill Gates needs a national highway system I barely use.
Of course here are some things Bill Gates makes no use of such as welfare. Not sure how you’d add it all up but I’d say the wealthy prosper the way they do specifically because the we setup this society to work this way. Look to Somalia to see the reverse and tell me which is the better deal.
Let’s try an example:
You own an apple orchard. I work for you and get paid two apples a year with which I feed my family of four.
You have a thousand apples per year with which to feed your family of four.
By your reckoning the fairest thing would be for the government to take one apple from you and one apple from me.
That makes sense to you?
Fine, you want to go down this road:
So you reckon the fairest thing would be for the government to take all by one of my apples, and all but one of your apples? Then give a bunch of apples to people that didn’t bother showing up to pick. And because it has extra apples, has to dump them on the market lowering the price of apples for all the other growers.
That makes sense to you?
Arguing at extremes gets us no where.
The other answer to your example is:
“if the government makes it unprofitable for me to own an orchard, I’ll stop farming, and you’ll be out of a job. I’ve got enough apples to last the rest of my life, do you?”
“next, because you’ve created a system where the government is hostile towards business, more orchards close (or move to mexico) and fewer new ones open.”
“now where is the government going to get apples from?”
Come on, you have to bring more to the party than chips and salsa.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/ Here are corporations that are safe from the theft. Makes me feel good knowing they are free from theft. it is not like they use any American services or roads or have police protecting them or anything like that.
Dude, you pile up more straw men in this thread than Straw Earth. He never said any such thing, that is your false invention and false attribution.
The real world tax equivalent would be to say that the guy with two apples pays NO apples in taxes, while the guy with 1,000 of them can certain afford to pay more than two of them.
It’s all he has. I tried to find more, but couldn’t.
Dude, you’ve got a strawman there, I never said any such thing, that is your false invention and false attribution. I apologize for not stating that sooner.
Never any such thing? What would fair taxation be, then? Wouldn’t it be to take an equal share from all citizens, in this case one apple from the worker and one from the orchard owner?
Assuming, of course, each of them draws equally from government services and uses the same roads in roughly the same amount, etc.
Not only doe Bill Gates pay a fortune in taxes, he also took the risk to start his own company. That company pays even more in taxes. Then his company provides employment, so other people can be taxed.
I’d say he’s paid his fair share at this point, and we should be thankful to him for continuing to stay in the country and starting a rather substantial charity. At some point he’ll be better off on his own private island, and then we all lose out on the golden goose.
Holy fuck guys, I know you have a lot of preconceptions about libertarians and teapartiers but check that shit at the door. As I said before, I’m sorry I don’t accuse you of creating strawmen sooner. My bad.
And in case the previous two examples didn’t get through:
My corporate entity has thousands of apples, but pays me only 1 each year, making you richer than me.
Looks like you’ll need to come up with something else if you want to make a pie.
Then I honestly don’t know what you mean by an equal share tax. Eight pages in, I’d’a thought your basic premise, at least, would be clearly defined.
You know what makes sense to me? Figure out how many kids I can support, then have that many kids.
You know what doesn’t make sense, expecting to have more apples just because you can’t keep it in your pants.
Hmmm, this apple metaphor has suddenly become about being fruitful and multiplying.
I looked through my thread, and haven’t found where I mentioned “equal share tax.”
So for now, I’m going to decline your invitation to dance with a strawman.
And in the future when someone says, “Kinda wondering where the notion of all the poor people sponging off those who work comes from.” I will respectfully ignore them and not even bother mentioning the strawman.
Well, whatever the label, I thought the point was that each person would be taxed fairly in accordance with their use of infrastructure and services. If the orchard worker and orchard owner use these services comparably, then taking an apple from each is fair, isn’t it, regardless of how many apples each starts with.
I dunno if a misunderstanding counts as a strawman, but it can be clarified easily enough.