4 ms·

The wealthy already pay something like 70% of all tax revenues that are raised. Unfortunately, even if the government were to outright confiscate the wealth of

The wealthy already pay something like 70% of all tax revenues that are raised. Unfortunately, even if the government were to outright confiscate the wealth of the 1 percenters, that would fund the government for just a few weeks. The middle class is where the real money is and that's why the government likes to raise taxes that hits everyone across the board - because the middle class will pay the majority of the new taxes. Before raising any more taxes, how about curbing the governments appetite for spending. How about eliminating costly weapons programs designed to fight wars that aren't very likely with the current crop of frenemies we now have. How about winding down the war in the middle east and closing many of the 700+ military installations we have around the globe. There is a lot of fat in the domestic budget that can be trimmed. It seems to be the standard behavior in government to raise taxes rather than examine the current budget to see if we can tighten our belt and trim some spending to raise funds for some needed purpose. Why not insist that if the government wants to spend 10 billion on some program, they have to find 10 billion in cuts to other programs. Here's an example. Everyone pays FUSF taxes on their telephone and telecom bills. It's for a good cause. When it started out years ago, it was at 6% of interstate and international telephone fees. Well, over the intervening years the rate has increased to 24% and they've added more services that FUSF tax applies to: not just long distance, but MPLS services, data circuits if the data ever might touch the internet and more. The appetite for 'Free Money' knows no bounds.. But it's for a good cause - right? So, before congress raises my taxes again, I want to see that I'm actually getting a good deal and I'd like to see some of the excesses cut from the budget. Joe

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eesmith 7y ago
You write "something like 70% of all tax revenues that are raised". Isn't that another way of saying there's extreme economic inequality? I mean, if 10 people controlled 99% of the wealth in the US, and the rest were below the poverty line and didn't need to pay income taxes, then those 10 people would pay 100% of all income taxes. (I say "income taxes" because even the poorest pay sales taxes and other taxes; sales taxes are at the state level or lower.) But, even though those 10 would pay 99% of the taxes, that doesn't mean its unfair. So, just giving the numbers you gave doesn't really say much about the situation, does it? You write "if the government were to outright confiscate the wealth of the 1 percenters, that would fund the government for just a few weeks". That's .. not right, is it? I mean, the 10 richest Americans, as listed at https://www.worldstrendingtopmost.com/2017-2018-2019-2020/celebrities/top-10-richest-people-america-american-billionaires-men-list/ https://www.worldstrendingtopmost.com/2017-2018-2019-2020/ce..., have a net wealth of $562.9 billion. "The U.S. government's total revenue is estimated to be $3.643 trillion for Fiscal Year 2020." says https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-ta... . So, those 10 alone would pay for 2 months of the federal government. Table 3 of https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085.pdf says there are about 635,000 households worth at least $10 million. If I do the math right, that's enough to fund the government for 2 years.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

eesmith 7y ago

You write "something like 70% of all tax revenues that are raised". Isn't that another way of saying there's extreme economic inequality? I mean, if 10 people controlled 99% of the wealth in the US, and the rest were below the poverty line and didn't need to pay income taxes, then those 10 people would pay 100% of all income taxes. (I say "income taxes" because even the poorest pay sales taxes and other taxes; sales taxes are at the state level or lower.) But, even though those 10 would pay 99% of the taxes, that doesn't mean its unfair. So, just giving the numbers you gave doesn't really say much about the situation, does it? You write "if the government were to outright confiscate the wealth of the 1 percenters, that would fund the government for just a few weeks". That's .. not right, is it? I mean, the 10 richest Americans, as listed at https://www.worldstrendingtopmost.com/2017-2018-2019-2020/celebrities/top-10-richest-people-america-american-billionaires-men-list/ https://www.worldstrendingtopmost.com/2017-2018-2019-2020/ce..., have a net wealth of $562.9 billion. "The U.S. government's total revenue is estimated to be $3.643 trillion for Fiscal Year 2020." says https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-ta... . So, those 10 alone would pay for 2 months of the federal government. Table 3 of https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085.pdf says there are about 635,000 households worth at least $10 million. If I do the math right, that's enough to fund the government for 2 years.