Slashdot Mirror

45% of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. The richest 20% of Americans pay nearly 87% of all the federal income tax

Not entirely correct. Based on the 2014 tax year, it's the top 25% who pay the ~87% of all federal income tax.

Also, the top 50% pay for 97% of all federal income taxes collected. People making as little as $38,173 are part of that 50%.

while giving 90% of the benefit of tax cuts to people with the very highest income.

The top 20% of income earners pay 86% of all collected income taxes at the federal level, so why shouldn't they get 90% of the tax cuts?

I'll let you in on a little secret, it is the folks with "the very highest incomes" that pay the bulk of the taxes. The top 1% earns 20% of the income in America, yet pays 40% of the income taxes collected (at the federal level). Cutting taxes for folks that don't pay any taxes (and the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 3% of all federal income taxes collected) isn't a tax cut, it's a handout.

while giving 90% of the benefit of tax cuts to people with the very highest income.

The top 20% of income earners pay 86% of all collected income taxes at the federal level, so why shouldn't they get 90% of the tax cuts?

I'll let you in on a little secret, it is the folks with "the very highest incomes" that pay the bulk of the taxes. The top 1% earns 20% of the income in America, yet pays 40% of the income taxes collected (at the federal level). Cutting taxes for folks that don't pay any taxes (and the bottom 50% of taxpayers pay less than 3% of all federal income taxes collected) isn't a tax cut, it's a handout.

Lets not forget those endless tax breaks for the wealthiest 1%, and enough loopholes in the tax code so they can enjoy not paying taxes at all...

The Lower 47% enjoy their fair share of "endless tax breaks" - they actually PROFIT from the tax code, collecting standard deduction, dependent credits, earned income tax credits, etc., the sum effect of which is that more than 40% of tax filers "earn" refunds in excess of all monies withheld from their paychecks during the previous tax year.

The top 1% pay about 40% of all income taxes collected, the lowest 50% of taxpayers pay slightly less than 3% of all income taxes collected.

Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.

I think a lot of people didn't get the memo. From 1980 to 2013, the share of total income tax revenue paid by the top 5% of earners increased from 37% to 59%, while the share paid by the bottom 50% decreased from 7% to under 3%. More details here.

Good!

Didn't you get the memo? Only little people pay taxes.

I think a lot of people didn't get the memo. From 1980 to 2013, the share of total income tax revenue paid by the top 5% of earners increased from 37% to 59%, while the share paid by the bottom 50% decreased from 7% to under 3%. More details here.

Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.

But was the high level of stratification due to "trickle down" at all? Or, maybe, the policy does not really have anything to do with the wealth-consolidation you decry?

What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?

It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.

So, things were bad before the "trickle down" started? Is that what you are saying?

Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?

If it really was "the stated policy", where is your link to the statement?

the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.

Higher taxes on the rich mean their wealth growth rate is slowed, as the flow in is slowed.

Not necessarily — it depends on how those "higher taxes" are spent. If, for example, they are given back to them (think Solyndra or Tesla motors), it may be the exact opposite.

In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged?

So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?

Red-herring - the last several presidents can be shown to be both

It is not "red herring" because that's what this sub-thread is all about — when JDAustin pointed out, Obama failed to reign-in overly invasive police, an "insightful" AC countered with "trickle down economics" (which was a false "red herring" of its own, of course).

Because otherwise we'd have that paragon of politics Palin instead of Biden to make fun of?

Sarah Palin made no obvious mistakes — in fact, she anticipated Putin invasion into Crimea. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was beyond mockery from day one -1: when he claimed, that "we, along with France kicked Hezbolla out of Lebanon". Show me anything comparably stupid from Sarah Palin, I dare you...

Or perhaps that ever American loving Romney, as long as you're not 1 in 2 Americans?

I don't care, whether President loves me — I'd find it outright creepy if he did. I want him to effectively execute policy I find agreeable. Obama's only saving graces come from his failing to execute some of his disastrous plans.

Reps killed their own chances in 2008.

Whatever killed their chances (somehow vastly more people knew, what Palin spent on wardrobe than that Biden was once caught plagiarizing), it was to the detriment to the country.

Your statement contains no facts. I can call you ugly all day long, but unless I substantiate it, it means nothing. Here are some facts for you: http://taxfoundation.org/artic... http://www.ntu.org/foundation/... I supose I am a racist too since that is typically the last resort of somebody that can't think.

Eventually Obama is going to be a civilian again. If he pleases the right people, he (or his immediate family) can make tremendous amounts of money as a lobbyist, consultant, guest speaker, etc...

Without lifting a finger, after he leaves office, his family will make $221,700 a year for life: his presidential pension ($201,700) plus another $20,000 for Michelle. His family will receive free lifetime secret service protection. He will have a fund of $150,000 a year to pay for staff ("Here Malia, file these papers for Daddy, ok?") for the first 30 months, and $96,000 per year after that. ("Sharpen these pencils for Daddy, sweetheart...").

Just his pension alone will put him well into the top 5% of wage earners in this country according to 2009 data. Adding the staff money, where he can hire who he wants and pay them what he wants up to the limit, including children, would put his family in the top 1%.

I don't think he has to worry about pleasing anyone. And I don't think that those who helped fund his political career from the beginning will hesitate to hire him at those "tremendous amounts of money" rates for speeches, etc, no matter what he does now.

Government maintains the rule of law and the framework of commerce. Thus it provides far more value to the wealthy than to the indigent, and our current taxation is not nearly progressive enough. Favorable tax treatment of investment income compared to wages, the cap on social security tax, and the fact that middle income people spend a larger proportion of their income, which gets taxed again by sales tax, makes the overall tax percentage on middle income people higher than it is for those near the top.

Highest paid federal employees: http://xfinity.comcast.net/sli...

This gives mean wages instead of median, but still better than nothing. Software professional wages: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current...

I would guess people making more than 150K can be expected to answer email at off hours without additional compensation. Part of the job. But at some point below, may be below 100K or so, they should be compensated.

Stop being ignorant and filling your head with Internet lies and find the truth yourself. The top 5% pay for 57-60% of all the money the Feds collect through income tax every year. Source:IRS

If you have trouble with being able to google stuff yourself, or you can't work a calculator, here are the numbers for you in a nice simple table broken down by year: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/...

Most models show that a flat tax would result in the wealthiest (1%) paying more than they do now, who can afford the more exotic tax shelter methods. The flat tax would help the middle class the most. Note that at present, the top 5% of taxpayers in the US pay 58% of the taxes - a higher percentage than in the 'high tax' days of the 1960s with the notional 90% rate (that apparently noboby ever actually had to pay). The top 50% of taxpayers pay 97.75% of taxes, and the bottom 50% pay 2.25% of the taxes. Actually the bottom 50% receive about 9% more than they pay but that doesn't show up in the tax tables as the Earned Income Credit and other items show up under government expenditures, not taxes. See Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?.

But let's go farther on this topic. If the wealthiest 5% should pay the most, should that be restricted to the US? Fair is fair, and nowadays it's all about how the US should reject "exceptionalism". Maybe the top 5% of the world should pay the most. Well, the poverty line in 2013 for a family of four was $23,550 (excluding AK and HI). And that pay scale puts those people in the top 5% globally. So by this measure, essentially everyone in the US should pay the highest rate, at present 39.6% of AGI. Are you ready to give 40% of your income to the government?

The amount of poverty (or near-poverty) here compared to my home country (Australia) astounds me. Huge portions of the population barely getting by...the run-down infrastructure etc. Not to say there's not nice areas too ... but it's really inconsistent. You don't see that at home (due no doubt in part to a more progressive tax structure and universal medical/housing safety-nets)

In a word, bullshit. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, even more so than most of Western Europe, more so than Australia. Hell, half the country doesn't even pay taxes.

Unfortunately, the main function of government in the US has become the opposite of the original Lockean purpose of the social contract - i.e., separating citizens from their wealth and giving it to others, while taking a huge cut. We have 45 million fucking people on food stamps! TWICE the population of Australia!

And what have we gotten for it? One of our Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, said the worst thing you could do for the poor is to make them comfortable, lest they not want to escape it. Our "poor" in the US have cable TV and cellphones and are suffering from diabetes due to their obesity. Just enough to keep them voting for the Party of Handouts, exactly as planned...

And the fewer rich people who pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Tax year 2009, top 5% of AGI paid 58% of the income taxes (from here).

It's good to see this getting more visibility. I think there'll more and more pressure put on everyone to pull their weight, and the old myth of the rich getting a free ride on the backs of blue collar labour are slowly evaporating. I'd like to see the day where people talk less about how much their salary is and more about how much tax they contributed. For the record, I paid $35k income tax last year.

Oh wait, we already have welfare recipients with dozens of free Obama phones, paid for by the few middle class people that pay taxes.

And the fewer rich people who pay the majority of the taxes in the US. Tax year 2009, top 5% of AGI paid 58% of the income taxes (from here).

In a few years, every grade and high school student in the US will have a tablet of some kind, thanks to the local taxpayers. It's the wave of the future. Think of the children.

From here, for 2009 the top 1% by percentile paid 36.73% of the income taxes. The top 50% paid 97.75%.

That's not exactly what you said, so let's look here for 2010. From table 1, we see that the top 10% of filers earned 45% of the total income collectively and paid 71% of the income taxes. That's much more than your 40%/40% ratio.

The top 1% paid an average rate of 23.39%. Not 0%, not 15%. They had 18.9% of the total income but paid 37.4% of the income tax revenues. Almost double what a flat tax would have cost them. And even though they didn't make 40% of the wealth, they paid almost 40% of the taxes.

STFU about reported income taxes. The entire point is that they use their wealth to hide their income in exotic ways not available to the rest of us. Hidden income, and dodged taxes don't appear to the IRS, so they don't appear to any other resource you try to cite.

Additionally, I think the broader issue is that the entire system is upside-down on itself to prop up the ultra-rich. A working man is taxed much harder than a working dollar, which is totally fucked up. The taxes these shitheads do pay are less aggressive since it is investment income, and they still have the balls to try and hide it.

At some point the whole thing will come crashing down on them. At some point when an elite few have everything, and everyone else is fighting over scraps, the elite just start getting their heads chopped off. Honestly, I thought the 2008 financial crisis was going to be a catalyst for something like this to happen in our lifetimes.

My wife and I combined make close to 160k/yr. We fucking cringe at what it costs just to buy a few days groceries at publix. I'm amazed that people survive in 2013 on even 1/4 of what we earn, let alone the millions scraping by on minimum wage.. We don't even have kids. How anyone can argue on behalf of these greedy scumbags is beyond me.

If you are taking in 40% of the income of the entire nation, you should expect to pay 40% of the tax of that entire nation.

From here, for 2009 the top 1% by percentile paid 36.73% of the income taxes. The top 50% paid 97.75%.

That's not exactly what you said, so let's look here for 2010. From table 1, we see that the top 10% of filers earned 45% of the total income collectively and paid 71% of the income taxes. That's much more than your 40%/40% ratio.

The top 1% paid an average rate of 23.39%. Not 0%, not 15%. They had 18.9% of the total income but paid 37.4% of the income tax revenues. Almost double what a flat tax would have cost them. And even though they didn't make 40% of the wealth, they paid almost 40% of the taxes.

getting fucked in the ass by a government that takes more and more

Hey troll, tax rates are lower right now then they've been in a long long time. They were a good bit higher in Clinton's day, and it keeps on going higher when you go back a lot further. That's the problem. We are spending, but not paying for it.

Look how much we payed back in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's.

Ever since old Ronny took office, we've had low taxes, and been driving the deficit up and up because we aren't paying anywhere near what we used to.

Government taking more and more, what a laugh. You must get all your 'information' from FAUX news.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

By "dodging tax", you mean contributing nearly 40% of all federal income tax revenues? I'd hate to see what you call actually dodging tax.

Only humans can "pay" tax ... as a verb, it applies to humans only. Companies are not taxed, people only speak that way metaphorically ... what is actually happening when we speak of companies "paying tax", is that the humans that own those companies (and their customers indirectly) are being taxed through "corporate taxes". Also, those humans then also pay income tax whenever money is transferred out of a business and to them, in order to actually use the money for any personal self-enjoyment purposes

Uh, why do you think that's a lie? Because the top 5% really only pay 58% of the tax load? I guess that's kind of inaccurate, but could be considered a rounding error. Look it up here or any number of places where data is to be found.

Look this stuff up before you start calling people liars.

I think you have some facts wrong. 97% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top _50%_ of the people in the country. Still a lot, but nothing like what you were saying. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Yes, but science is stupid to cut. The long term survival of the country is in Science and engineering. If your society doesn't do that, then you are done as a civilized society.

How about we cut 1 bomber instead?

Pfft. Typical liberal educated elite liberal overanalytical liberal LIBERAL. Can't keep a grasp on the big picture, now, can you, young'un?

Here, let me explain: Back in the 50s and 60s, America was on top of the world.

1950-1963: Top tax bracket: 91-92%
1964-1969: Top tax bracket: 70-77%

Are those really the times you want to go back to?

Current top tax bracket: 35%

Source: National Taxpayers Union

So you should be all for a guy who is laser-focused on reducing the country's aggressive debt death-spiral. Because the poor and down-trodden who've been trained for decades to expect someone else to provide for them are going to have the worst of it when get to the point where several people are living off of the taxes being paid by only one or two people.

Yes, I'm voting for the guy who suggests we need to raise taxes on the top %2.

Yes, we do. We have a government that spends wildly more money than it takes through taxes. Taxing millionaires at a rate of 100% of their earnings wouldn't even pay the federal deficit through the first fiscal quarter of the year, let alone touch the debt and the choking interest service we're all passing along to future generations. You cannot tax the economy into prosperity, and you cannot continue to dole out vastly more borrowed money without economic prosperity to back it up.

That's a cute statistic. No one's suggesting we tax zillionaires at 100%. At most? 40 or 50. Also, proposals are to also reinstate multiple taxes including closing corporate tax loopholes.

As far as taxing the economy into prosperity, yes. We can. By taxing at 40~ ish percent. Which is what Obama wants to do. That with reducing medicare costs, the military budget and a few other cuts, should do the trick.

Paul Ryan voted for the massive Bush tax cuts. He also voted to go to war(Hillz also voted to go to war, but she also didn't vote for the Bush tax cut). He voted on a lot of things that totally buggered our national debt. Deficit hawk? Nope. Just chuck testa.

No, the joke is you perpetuating that nice little lefty lie. But you know it is, so I won't bother pointing out the actual details. The most important one, of course, is that medicare is already dead. Do the math. It's falling off a cliff. The people who actually, really need it - the sort of people you seem to want to claim you care about - are once again going to be the worst-off as that corrupt, nonsensical, and bankrupt program fails and chases doctors away from it as fast as they can back out of the paperwork.

Ryan and his idealogical partners can't kill something that's already dying. Only reducing the rate at which it grossly wastes money can help it, and that's something that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama have not only avoided doing, they crafted a law specifically to get around having to address it. But the math is unavoidable, and Ryan at least as the manners not to sugarcoat the issue and pretend - as you're doing, and as Joe Biden does whenever asked - that it doesn't exist.

No, Medicare's solvent for another decade to come, and if we close the donut hole and increase the ridiculously tiny amount we tax on it, it can be solvent in perpetuity. If we didn't raid Medicare and Social Security to pay for tax cuts for the rich, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Taxes are at an ALL TIME LOW. Defense spending is also at an ALL TIME HIGH. (see: this.).

Cut defense spending, increase taxes, close tax loopholes and maybe stop picking fights with third world countries in wars we can't win. Obama's not receptive to the first part, but everything else? I'll take it. Romney's not even close to listening and Ryan's budget plan *increases* defense spending.

These things are expensive. The 50-years-ago golden age (1950s-1970s) had the top income tax bracket between 70 and 90%.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Something to think about...

Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally.

Uhmm ... I disagree. The banks were forced to give out loans to people THEY KNEW could not pay it back. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ... and was reinforced by Clinton in 1994 - Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown.

They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money

And Banks did not want TARP ... because of the strings attached.

which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy.

Attacking the banks is a nice and tidy class-warfare position that may get some traction among those who are not informed, the real culprit in this case is the Federal Government. By interfering with the "invisible hand" of the economy, it places pressure to do the "wrong thing". Of course, it makes people feel good that they helped out a nice couple trying to buy a house for the first time, however, if it is KNOWN that the payments would not be able to be made ... it doesn't help anybody.

The issue is the double standard - if I am a rich bank, I can do whatever I want, and if I get into trouble, I get bailed out with taxpayer dollars, and if I am not a rich bank, then I'm screwed.

I would argue that it is with the Government that is at fault ... the Government can screw with the economy and nearly collapse it, yet the people just hear "it's the rich's fault ... they're not paying their fair share" ... the top 1% pay >36% of the taxes ...how much SHOULD they pay? And if they don't pay ... they get thrown in jail. So ... in essence, you're saying that the "top 1%" has to be our slaves and give us their money that they earned.

what they want is the government to spend its money helping its citizens in need rather than banks who deserve to fail for their incompetence.

That's assuming that the banks did it on their own. NOT under the threat of former Attorney General Janet Reno

Those of us who support raising taxes on the wealthy (a majority of Americans, by the way)

[citation required]

Am I feeding the troll?

For tax year 2008, the top 10% (Adjusted Gross Income) paid 69.94% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% paid 2.7% For more see here: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html The data comes from the IRS.

"Poverty, AFAIC, is created by government spending (and regulating/taxing/subsidizing) and wealth is created by the private sector investment. Government is not (or shouldn't be) here to invest. It's here with a specific spending function - protect liberties. That's all that all of the government must be concerned with."

Have you read the United States Constitution?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

General Welfare means social programs, they aren't theft, and the US began taxation programs during the Washington administration.

As for the statement that no one paid income tax in the 1950s, that is just ridiculous, there were accountants, there were ledgers and people went to prison for tax evasion.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-018.pdf
1952-53 - 22.2% on income above $4000.
92% at $400,000.
Average income was $4011
And the bulk of US households made more than $4000 a year.

If welfare is evil, does the US military-industrial complex strike you as evil? Lockheed Martin for example makes the vast majority of it's income from US government contracts, as does Northrop Grumman, General Dynamic Land Systems, TRW and many others.

so we spent our first 130 years of history without any dynamic changes (you know, before income tax)? It must have been.

I also hope you know that the top 0.1% and the top 10% pay more of the total federal income tax burden today than they did in your heyday of 91% marginal tax rates. So if anything, we have increased the progressiveness. (here is the current breakdown: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html). Hell, the top 1% pay more now than they did in 2000 with higher capital gains taxes, higher income taxes, and an economic boom going on. They paid more in 2005 after 2 bush tax cuts which everyone claims mainly went to the wealthy. If net/net, cutting taxes the way bush did increases the proportion of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest, I'd say it's anything but a "giveaway" and actually realized a bit more of the liberal dream.

I'm not sure about others, but in my small group I work with, I know many, many people would walk away from the job if the top rates went back to 91%. I definitely would. That just reduces economic output and removes top performers from a lot of jobs, making the economy less dynamic. Now if you want to get more equality in income by just discouraging people from earning >x, wouldn't it be easier to just say X is the limit of what anyone can be paid for doing anything?

Do you realize that the current President argued on the Senate floor in 2006 AGAINST raising the debt ceiling?

Do you realize that with the exception of the stupid tax on jet airplanes (remember how well that worked for yachts?) the Democratic party wants MORE money to solve the problem of OVER-spending by BOTH sides of the aisle?

How this is a "Tea Party" fucking with the budget is frankly tilting at windmills... convenient scapegoat because of their fringe (that you so acutely documented)...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Sorry this is from a fringe group:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

One of the things I love to mention, and this is from a great President (JFK)... he LOWERED the marginal rate for the top bracket and actually INCREASED revenue... because if you change the marginal rate upwards, you freeze the money over that amount into savings or bonds or something that doesn't generate revenue (he has a great speech about it somewhere... I forget where I read it.)

But let's be frank... people who complain there is a revenue problem because of lower tax rates forget the difference between MARGINAL and EFFECTIVE tax rates... It's a spending problem. It has been since the last years of the Carter Administration....

But never let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant...

"The point that AC was trying to make was that part of why we're only collecting $2.5T is that we hand out over-sized tax cuts to rich individuals (tax cuts that weren't necessary to drive the dot-com boom) as well as to many business not in need of such support or incentives (such as Big Oil)."

If the government collected TWICE the tax revenues from EVERY taxpayer, we'd ALMOST collect enough revenue to fund our current spending levels. Almost.

The top 1% pay 38% of income taxes, yet they collect a very small part of the benefits of the government (that 38% of taxes they pay is AFTER all the things you complain about are deducted, that is the actual share of the total income tax revenue collected each year SOURCE)

How much medicare does the top 1% of taxpayers recieve? Social Security? What percentage of the national roadways does the top 1% use?

The so-called "subsidies for Big Oil" are peanuts compared to other industries, and are common to all manufacturing industries - how many of those self-same subsidies does GM, Google, and Apple take advantage of? How about the movie industry? The perception is that these "subsidies" are specially created exclusively for "Big Oil" - they are not. There are many more profitable industries than "Big Oil", and somehow, removing these tax breaks shared with other industries will only serve to make oil MORE expensive, not less...

The problem I have with that appeal to history is that in no previous time in history has it been so easy for capital flight. Whereas in the 1930s if taxes went up you more or less had to simply grit your teeth and pay them, nowadays it's become commonplace for businesses to simply LEAVE as taxes rise. There's a reason that over half of America's Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware, the 5th-least populous state. Many of those companies were originally incorporated elsewhere, but re-incorporated later in Delaware for the various tax benefits.

Also, where are you getting your numbers? I checked two different locations (one more conservative, one more liberal), which both showed that those taxes on the highest bracket didn't really drop with any significant until the 1960s - I'm pretty sure that time frame invalidates any comparison between employment rates. You can't reasonably be saying that a drop in the top tax rate in 1964 gives data that relates to unemployment in 1936.

And tax breaks for the rich? They pay all the taxes (the top-5% pays almost 68% of the taxes!), so they are likely candidates for tax breaks.

A quick search reveals statistics that the top 5% also have about 60% of the total wealth - and while that figure may be somewhat inaccurate and the merits of using wealth vs. income are also debatable, I think that indicates that within an order of magnitude the top 5% are pretty much just paying what they should be paying in a linear tax system relative to their wealth.
And that's before we start discussing progressive tax systems, the cost necessities, cost of living, etc.. Those might not be up your economic-political street but if you're trying to find the ephemeral "fair" balance should be considered.
Remark though that I personally, as a citizen of the Commie Pinko European Union, believe that nomatter how much the lower 95% would like to get their hands on more of the top 5%'s money, they'll never get it without bloodshed (and even then they might lose), because that top 5% has access to any and all means of keeping their money away from the masses. Most of those means are perfectly legal, but even if the legal means do not suffice that top 5% has the best chance of pulling the more nebulous ways off with impunity.

Reality: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Now farm subsidies are a Republican fetish? Since when? It's both sides of the aisle pandering to the Iowa caucuses that keep farm subsidies alive.

As for DoD, well that's what the Constitution actually says Congress is supposed to spend money on. I'd prefer not to imagine the world without 11 Nimitz-class carriers floating about.

And tax breaks for the rich? They pay all the taxes (the top-5% pays almost 68% of the taxes!), so they are likely candidates for tax breaks.

Top 10% pay only 70% of tax.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

I can't find an irs link, but you didn't provide one either.

If the top 10% fled the country, their incomes would be given to other americans, who would then pay the same taxes.

In reality, business bailouts mostly take the form of loans which governments expect to be paid back at a profit.

And in reality, there are two problems with the above statement. First, expectation of payment is not actual payment. Second, there's at least one government (the US) playing huge shell games with bailout loans.

So we should go back to the high taxes on rich folks like we had before Reagan? Yea, the 70s were really productive years for the US.

Perhaps we should find a balance, and understand that most people making $250k to $500k a year actually earn it, and if you overtax people in those brackets, they have no reason to continue to invest in their companies (most of them ARE self employed). So you literally tax away jobs as well when you raise taxes on the "rich" to 70%. Keep in mind that people who make just $159,619 or more are in the top 5% of wage earners, but pay 58% of all income taxes. People who make $380,354 or more (1% of the population) already pay 38% of ALL income taxes earned. The "poor" people, making $33,048 or less may be plentiful, but pay less than 3% of all income taxes collected. I would instead say that we spend entirely too much on military, farm subsidies, and in general, while not investing OUR money in the right places, such as education and the sciences. "Rich bashing" is not nearly as productive as it is popular.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html if you are interested.

Reagan said it best: "No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity." Paraphrasing Margaret Thacher, you could also say that "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money". In other words, you can't just tax rich people more and solve all the world's problems, and over-taxation will certainly cause a whole new set of problems.

Um, you mean, especially if you make $100 million a year or so. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Okay, slight exaggeration using "Most", as some of the bottom 50% do pay income taxes. The trend has been ever increasing plurality pay no income taxes, and within a few years will be the majority.

However my point remains.

Only poor people pay taxes.

Is that why the top 10% of our country pays 70% of all income tax? and why the bottom 50% of the country only pay 2.5% of all federal income tax?
Source: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Tax evasion is still tax evasion and we shouldn't put up with it.

I am not rich, having 2 kids and living in a 40 yr old tiny townhouse. But, I do not envy rich people. It is not a sin to be a rich man/woman if he/she works hard and legally.

It is very dangerous to fight in classes based on wealth. This is the fundamental idea of Communism.

Remember... "Eventually, socialists/communists run out of other peoples' money" and "Top 10% pays 70% income taxes in US."

Reference: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

In order to make your point, you need to prove that the bottom 80% has less because the top 1% has more. You won't be able to, because it isn't true.

In the meantime, I direct your attention to this table, which shows you exactly how "exploited" the "poor" are.

Obviously what we suffer from here is a tyranny of the majority. If we end up with that bottom number, the amount of taxes that the bottom 50% pays, at zero, then we're sunk, because there will never be any pressure to lower taxes.

The only group of people that have consistently paid barely any taxes and consistently voted themselves better treatment from the government are the filthy rich.

O RLY?

Strat

The poor still pay taxes, dick wad.

No they don't.. Bottom 50% earners pay less than 3% of total taxes collected. Bottom 47% pay nothing. Top 5% pay 60%.

The government spending billions on roads and bridges would be great.

Why is the government in a better position to do this spending, than a private concern? All our roads now are government-owned, are you seriously claiming, they are a stunning success? Are the Congressmen better prepared to oversee the roads, than the CEO and the board of a road-management company — which has to compete with others for riders — would be? (Don't even start with "natural monopolies" — there are, at least, 3 different roads to drive between New York and Boston right now; there is no reason, why they can't all be sold-off to three different highest bidders.)

Oh, yes, I hear, I hear. The evil capitalists will put profits over people. Right... We can't stand other getting rich, can we? But the current situation is even worse — our highways suck, because the interests of the (unionized) workers are put in front of those of the riding public... And when the union bosses help the politicians get elected, well, that what it takes to keep the country "progressive", does not it?

The government spending billions to lay out a high speed

I grew up in a country, where telecommunications (and everything else) was the government's responsibility. A wait time for a regular land-line telephone (in the 1980ies) was over 10 years... I kid you not...

But, hey, let's ignore the 80 years of central-planning's failure and try again, right? A monopoly controlling everyone's Internet access sounds awful even to you, I'm sure, but, because it is a Government monopoly, it would be staffed by the selfless, benevolent people, who will put their interests last... Sure... Under the wise guidelines set by Congress, they would never attempt to ban any kind traffic, will allow all kinds of information through, never spy on the users, and, if we don't like any aspect of the service, we can just wait 2 years to vote them out. Picking up the phone and calling a competitor is so bourgeois...

The government giving a bunch of tax breaks to people who already have a lot of money

People, who don't have a lot of money, do not pay taxes at all. 47% of Americans don't pay Federal income tax, for example, while the top 1% pays over 40% of the total. If you are going to cut taxes at all, you are bound to benefit "the wealthy"...

Hell, I'd rather we pay down the debt before we give people making over a quarter of a million dollars more tax breaks, they've got money to burn.

The truth comes out... You want to use my taxes to pay for the debts you incurred (or are about to) by spending on all of the above-listed "feel-good" projects for the "poor masses" — the rich pay for themselves, don't they?.. Fairness be damned — whoever has "money to burn" (and you will be deciding, how much money is "enough"), will be forced at gun-point (via the IRS, that is) to pay up. No longer are you content with humbly asking for money to help "the unfortunate" — you are now demanding it, or else...

You aren't, per chance, posting from Athens, are you? Don't you still have a few offices to burn?

Taxes would go up - significantly - for 95% of the population. Currently, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of the taxes - more than the bottom 95%. Presumably because they can afford it.

If you move to a flat tax and want to keep the same taxes coming in, nearly every single taxpayer would need to pay double or triple their current tax rate.

If you keep exempting the rich from paying taxes ...

The top 50% of tax-payers pay 91.11% of the income tax. The riches 1% pays 40.42%.

... and spend all your public money in useless defence contracts

The federal government's total spending in 2008 was at 2.9 trillion dollars. Of that, the entire Department of Defense's budget plus "The Global War on Terror" constituted $626.6 billions — or merely 21.6 percent, and even the rosiest pacifist would not claim, that all of that went to "useless defense contracts". For comparison, Social Security alone was $608bln, and the Medicare and Medicaid combined for another $595bln.

You were saying?..

Or is your point that implementing progressive taxation for the purpose of helping all members of society have opportunities available to them is even comparable to illegally seizing private property for merely speaking against corruption?

Yes, it is comparable — and increasingly so. First of all, your priorities are screwed up. "Progressive taxation" is a fact of life, because of the principle, that your taxes are based on your ability to pay. This principle existed since long before the politicians recognized, that they can get elected by promising the poor to "take care" of them. It was neither meant to "give opportunities", nor is it achieving that goal. Despite the poorer half of the Americans paying less than 3% of the total tax, the upward mobility in the country has slowed over the decades.

And now back to the validity of comparing to the case at hand... Contrary to your accusations, the guy's property was seized neither illegally (explicit accusation) nor permanently (implicit). In fact, most of his property is still with him, thankfully. He is, by all appearances, being harassed by the government (incidentally — Democratic government) he criticized, which is very wrong.

But the 90% punitive taxes (except, of course, on the government employees), government's takeover of firms (on the Executive's whim), and refusal to release control of the firms willing and able to pay back the government's money are much worse.