4 ms·

You do realize that 48% of all Americans pay $0 dollars in Federal Income tax. The top 10% pay 40% of the pie. I'm for the tax cuts expiring but I do also agr

You do realize that 48% of all Americans pay $0 dollars in Federal Income tax. The top 10% pay 40% of the pie. I'm for the tax cuts expiring but I do also agree with the whole "equality" argument. I'm of the generation where I'll probably never see any Social Security but I do know that I'm paying for it.

grandalf 16y ago
This is the key point (or should be) in this discussion. The foolish spending that Delong accuses Henderson of supporting would never have been approved if the average taxpayer had to pay even $10 out of pocket for it. The general public can only be convinced to vote for grandiose schemes when there is zero perceived cost. Since most US citizens pay nearly nothing in taxes, it's easy to get them to vote for such schemes. The tax system is designed to facilitate consent for such schemes, or at least to minimize the natural skepticism that any reasonable person would have about the ROI of most government endeavors. Of course, you can't have negative ROI if your investment was $0, so why not cheer on the blow dried politicians and hope it works, after all someone else is paying for it.
2arrs2ells 16y ago
This is a wildly misleading figure. First, the primary driver of this "inequality" is the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the US. The top 10% of earners in the US take home nearly 50% of the country's total income. Under a "flat tax" system (i.e. everyone pays 20%), they would still pay nearly 50% of the country's total income tax. Under our system they actually pay 70% of all taxes. Do you think it's "unequal" for people who take home more income to pay proportionally more income taxes? Second, even people paying zero income tax pay ~15% of taxes on income for social security + medicare, as well as a disproportionate share of their income on regressive taxes, like sales tax and gas tax.
- wheaties 16y ago
  Nope, I don't think it's unfair that the people who earn more pay more. In fact, I'm for it. However, what I'm against is even a small group not paying for it. This "small" group right now is nearly half of the population. The argument for regressive taxes is also poor. Come to New Hampshire where there is no sales tax or W-2 income tax. The air is clean, the mountains well hiked and the people friendly. Take a look at the state's finances too. The regressive taxes there are on inheritance, dividends, investment income and a few things else I can't remember. That hits the rich far more than the poor.

grandalf 16y ago

This is the key point (or should be) in this discussion. The foolish spending that Delong accuses Henderson of supporting would never have been approved if the average taxpayer had to pay even $10 out of pocket for it. The general public can only be convinced to vote for grandiose schemes when there is zero perceived cost. Since most US citizens pay nearly nothing in taxes, it's easy to get them to vote for such schemes. The tax system is designed to facilitate consent for such schemes, or at least to minimize the natural skepticism that any reasonable person would have about the ROI of most government endeavors. Of course, you can't have negative ROI if your investment was $0, so why not cheer on the blow dried politicians and hope it works, after all someone else is paying for it.

2arrs2ells 16y ago

This is a wildly misleading figure. First, the primary driver of this "inequality" is the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the US. The top 10% of earners in the US take home nearly 50% of the country's total income. Under a "flat tax" system (i.e. everyone pays 20%), they would still pay nearly 50% of the country's total income tax. Under our system they actually pay 70% of all taxes. Do you think it's "unequal" for people who take home more income to pay proportionally more income taxes? Second, even people paying zero income tax pay ~15% of taxes on income for social security + medicare, as well as a disproportionate share of their income on regressive taxes, like sales tax and gas tax.

wheaties 16y ago
Nope, I don't think it's unfair that the people who earn more pay more. In fact, I'm for it. However, what I'm against is even a small group not paying for it. This "small" group right now is nearly half of the population. The argument for regressive taxes is also poor. Come to New Hampshire where there is no sales tax or W-2 income tax. The air is clean, the mountains well hiked and the people friendly. Take a look at the state's finances too. The regressive taxes there are on inheritance, dividends, investment income and a few things else I can't remember. That hits the rich far more than the poor.