12 ms·
Sure—and as of 2018, I’m a little out of the loop on anything more recent, the top 1% in the US paid about 40% of US taxes—but have you considered also reducing
by SllX 2y ago
Sure—and as of 2018, I’m a little out of the loop on anything more recent, the top 1% in the US paid about 40% of US taxes—but have you considered also reducing borrowing, spending and services and then adjusting tax rates across the board down once we’ve gotten our debts down to a more manageable level?
- jncfhnb 2y agoYeah you are out of the loop because that doesn’t matter for shit. The 1% does not contribute proportionately to their benefit.
- SllX 2y agoIf you’ve got a more up to date figure, enlighten me: how much of the tax revenue from any of the past few years came from the top 1%? The way taxes get talked about every year changes, but there’s usually an emphasis on effective tax rates for individuals rather than absolute dollars lawfully collected. In terms of benefits, if we’re talking what the Federal budget gets spent on, the largest amounts are usually Social Security and Medicare, but this is non-discretionary (although it still matters!) and discretionary spending is typically topped by HHS and the Military (although not necessarily in that order). I don’t recall what #3 usually is, but I’m pretty sure it’s usually Education. There was also the CARES act, so that might throw some of this off. So, go on then, flesh out your argument.
- jncfhnb 2y ago40% is fine. It just doesn’t matter. The rich benefit disproportionately from societal structure that enforces protections for the rich and restrictions on the poor. The rich do fuck all to benefit from the average growth rate of the market compounding their wealth. Those gains should go foremost to society.
- SllX 2y agoOkay, so it is an equalizing factor for you?