3 ms·
You didn't mention them by name. You mentioned the top 10%, which naturally includes everyone I named. It also includes folks making $178k MAGI. You said "...
by nirvdrum 2y ago
You didn't mention them by name. You mentioned the top 10%, which naturally includes everyone I named. It also includes folks making $178k MAGI.
You said "... why do people believe the rich don't pay their fair share when the top 10% pay almost 3/4 of the taxes... "
I'm suggesting talking about the top 10% is misleading because when people talk about the rich not paying their fair share, they're not talking about the master electrician in your home town that broke $180k working overtime. You conflated the rich with the top 10%, but your grouping includes a whole lot of people that most of us wouldn't consider rich.
To answer your question about why people believe the rich don't pay their fair share, you either need to look at a different figure than the top 10% (which invalidates the 3/4 of the taxes portion) or you need to say everyone (including married couples filing jointly) making $178k MAGI is rich. I don't think people at large agree with the latter, so the rest of your question is premised on the wrong set of numbers. That may answer the question you posed initially.
- amazingamazing 2y agomy point stands even if you use top 1% or top 0.1%. no matter what you use for [income tax], the group size and revenue generated in income taxes by them will be far disproportionate. this is an inherent property of the distribution.
- bilbo0s 2y agoYes, but it's OK for the top 0.1% to shoulder a greater than 0.1% of the burden. Why? Because that enormously expensive army we're maintaining is protecting mostly their stuff. Setting aside the fact that, say, poor people, have no money; why should the poor pay an equivalent share to protect the wealthy person's property?