5 ms·

The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. Tax breaks are at

The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. Tax breaks are at best a very short term proposition, and if the numbers are to be believed, the current tax plan only serves to widen the gap over time. Unfortunately, many Americans have been convinced to vote against their best interests since in many places, D means Devil. Having a strong stance on hot button issues like abortion is more important than whether you will gut a union or make a fair tax code. If it's an indication about how bad things are, a probable child molester has an actual shot of being reelected, simply because of the R next to his name. We are not selecting for the best candidates.

cperciva 9y ago
The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. That's not really supported by the data. A more accurate summary would be "the poor, unable to, the rich, not numerous enough to". Raising taxes on the top 1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.01% has very little impact on total revenues simply because you need to raise taxes 50x, 500x, or 5000x as much in order to extract as much revenue as you would get by raising taxes on the top 50%.
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  The federal tax code is a highly unequal affair, and due to a system of complicated loopholes and itemized deductions, the wealthiest among us get the lions share of spending and deductions. While I agree that raising taxes by 500% on the rich is an absurd idea, it's really not asking much for the wealthy to pay their fair share. These deductions and "welfare for the rich" basically amount to hundreds of billions in lost revenue. This is well documented, NYT has a good run down: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/economy/taxes-take-away-but-also-give-back-mostly-to-the-very-rich.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/economy/taxes-ta... If you're in the top 0.1%, the actual taxes you pay each year is a far lower percentage than the middle class would pay, due to this unequal system. The rich get richer, and use that money to rig the game further. Just look at the current tax bill that was passed.
  - harryh 9y ago
    > If you're in the top 0.1%, the actual taxes you pay each year is a far lower percentage than the middle class would pay, due to this unequal system. This is false. Paid tax rates rise progressively with income in the US. https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-... The NYTimes article that you link to doesn't really discuss tax benefits that are valuable to the top 0.1% so much as those that are valuable to the upper-middle class: the mortgage interest tax deduction, 529 plans, 401k/IRA deductions, various aspects of our health care law, etc are all extremely valuable to this group but small potatoes to those making $2M+ per year.
    - jorblumesea 9y ago
      Paid tax rates rise, but the higher income classes don't make much of their money based on income tax. That's why it's unequal, their method of earning money is substantially different from the average person, and taxed differently.
      - harryh 9y ago
        This is also false. I don't know what evidence you think this is for this point of view but it just ain't so.
- gizmo 9y ago
  Confiscatory taxes on the wealthiest would bring in hundreds of billions. That's not "very little impact", the money could be used to massively improve the lives of millions. Yes, there are few people, numerically, in the top 0.01%, but that doesn't mean their taxes are inconsequential. Otherwise you might as well argue that they should pay no taxes at all. Absurd.
  - cperciva 9y ago
    Confiscatory taxes could bring in hundreds of billions of dollars... once. But you can only expropriate someone's property once.
    - gizmo 9y ago
      Every dollar in the economy is spent and taxed many times. Taxation doesn't make money disappear.
      - harryh 9y ago
        Sure, but if you confiscate the wealth of the 0.01% then it's not in their hands anymore and you can't take it from them again.
        gizmo 9y ago
        The money would end up in the hands of somebody and subsequently it can get taxed again. You tax wherever the money is.
        harryh 9y ago
        But then we're talking about raising taxes on people other than the 0.1% to fund whatever initiatives we're talking about which was cperciva's point. You can only get so far taxing the ultra rich.
- harryh 9y ago
  I mostly agree with you but I think you are a bit pessimistic about what the top 1% are capable of. IIRC they currently pay something like 40% of the income taxes[1] (which is more than the bottom 90% combined). That's kind of a lot! 1. To be are I think this doesn't include payroll taxes so it's a bit of a skewed number.
paulddraper 9y ago
> The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country That is a common opinion, and one that is not justified by the facts. About half of income tax comes from 1% of taxpayers.

cperciva 9y ago

The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. That's not really supported by the data. A more accurate summary would be "the poor, unable to, the rich, not numerous enough to". Raising taxes on the top 1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.01% has very little impact on total revenues simply because you need to raise taxes 50x, 500x, or 5000x as much in order to extract as much revenue as you would get by raising taxes on the top 50%.

jorblumesea 9y ago
The federal tax code is a highly unequal affair, and due to a system of complicated loopholes and itemized deductions, the wealthiest among us get the lions share of spending and deductions. While I agree that raising taxes by 500% on the rich is an absurd idea, it's really not asking much for the wealthy to pay their fair share. These deductions and "welfare for the rich" basically amount to hundreds of billions in lost revenue. This is well documented, NYT has a good run down: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/economy/taxes-take-away-but-also-give-back-mostly-to-the-very-rich.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/economy/taxes-ta... If you're in the top 0.1%, the actual taxes you pay each year is a far lower percentage than the middle class would pay, due to this unequal system. The rich get richer, and use that money to rig the game further. Just look at the current tax bill that was passed.
- harryh 9y ago
  > If you're in the top 0.1%, the actual taxes you pay each year is a far lower percentage than the middle class would pay, due to this unequal system. This is false. Paid tax rates rise progressively with income in the US. https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-... The NYTimes article that you link to doesn't really discuss tax benefits that are valuable to the top 0.1% so much as those that are valuable to the upper-middle class: the mortgage interest tax deduction, 529 plans, 401k/IRA deductions, various aspects of our health care law, etc are all extremely valuable to this group but small potatoes to those making $2M+ per year.
  - jorblumesea 9y ago
    Paid tax rates rise, but the higher income classes don't make much of their money based on income tax. That's why it's unequal, their method of earning money is substantially different from the average person, and taxed differently.
    - harryh 9y ago
      This is also false. I don't know what evidence you think this is for this point of view but it just ain't so.
gizmo 9y ago
Confiscatory taxes on the wealthiest would bring in hundreds of billions. That's not "very little impact", the money could be used to massively improve the lives of millions. Yes, there are few people, numerically, in the top 0.01%, but that doesn't mean their taxes are inconsequential. Otherwise you might as well argue that they should pay no taxes at all. Absurd.
- cperciva 9y ago
  Confiscatory taxes could bring in hundreds of billions of dollars... once. But you can only expropriate someone's property once.
  - gizmo 9y ago
    Every dollar in the economy is spent and taxed many times. Taxation doesn't make money disappear.
    - harryh 9y ago
      Sure, but if you confiscate the wealth of the 0.01% then it's not in their hands anymore and you can't take it from them again.
      - gizmo 9y ago
        The money would end up in the hands of somebody and subsequently it can get taxed again. You tax wherever the money is.
        harryh 9y ago
        But then we're talking about raising taxes on people other than the 0.1% to fund whatever initiatives we're talking about which was cperciva's point. You can only get so far taxing the ultra rich.
harryh 9y ago
I mostly agree with you but I think you are a bit pessimistic about what the top 1% are capable of. IIRC they currently pay something like 40% of the income taxes[1] (which is more than the bottom 90% combined). That's kind of a lot! 1. To be are I think this doesn't include payroll taxes so it's a bit of a skewed number.

paulddraper 9y ago

> The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country That is a common opinion, and one that is not justified by the facts. About half of income tax comes from 1% of taxpayers.