3 ms·
I agree with your assessment of how it moves the area around, and people's reluctance for them to be the ones to 'distribute' their wealth as opposed to the nex
by eggy 11y ago
I agree with your assessment of how it moves the area around, and people's reluctance for them to be the ones to 'distribute' their wealth as opposed to the next guy up,but I just want to point out that even though there is a lot of press against how little (percent-wise) the top quartile pay in taxes (1%-ers), the top 5% paid 57% of all tax revenue in 2011. The top 1% paid 35% of all tax revenue in 2011.
Disclaimer: I am very, very far from the top 25%!
- p4wnc6 11y agoI don't see why these figures are considered useful in this context. The total amount of tax revenue needs to be larger (and more efficiently distributed), and that increase in tax revenue needs to come about almost exclusively through increased taxation of those hoarding wealth. "The top 5% paid 57% ..." makes it sound like they are doing more than their fair share, but that's a gross mistake. It doesn't matter what the raw percentage is without also looking at how much of the income the op 5% took. If they take 99% of the total income, but only pay 57% of the tax revenue, it still amounts to a deep unfairness. (I'm not saying that tax revenue paid has to be 1:1 with income, only that taking 99% income while paying for 57% of the tax revenue is deeply unfair in favor of that wealthy 5%).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]