3 ms·

Not to get too political on HN, but the top 10% of earners in the United States already pay ~45% of the taxes, which is a greater share of the burden than anywh

Not to get too political on HN, but the top 10% of earners in the United States already pay ~45% of the taxes, which is a greater share of the burden than anywhere else in the industrialized world. In Germany, for example, the top 10% of earners pay 31% of taxes. In France, they pay 28%, and in Switzerland, only 21%. If the United States wants to have a European level of both social services and spending (a legitimate choice, although not one I'd make), the wealthy can't possibly carry the tax burden alone - it needs to be spread around more equitably, over all tax brackets.

kip_ 14y ago
The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income, don't you think that person should be paying more than a 1/(population of the United States) share of the taxes?
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  > The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. Wat. Top 10% — $87,334 http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/
- crusso 14y ago
  If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income I don't understand this argument. The infrastructure benefits everyone. The opportunity to succeed from that infrastructure is available to everyone. The road that leads to the grocery store benefits the grocer and the countless consumers who use it. Who gets the better side of the bargain and how do you determine the magnitude of that inequality? If anything, public infrastructure tends to help the little guy. Historically, when public services weren't provided, the rich paid for their own needed infrastructure, protective services, etc. Those services were geared exclusively to help the wealthy land owners. If you got protection from the watch patrolling the nearby keep, you were lucky because they weren't really there for you.
rayiner 14y ago
This is a mindlessly stupid comparison, because in those countries the top 10% of earners also make a much smaller share of the income. If you look at total taxes, instead of just federal income taxes like the Heritage Foundation likes to do (intellectually bankrupt think tank whores that they are), you'll see that the total US tax burden is pretty flat from median up to the top 1%: http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america....

kip_ 14y ago

The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income, don't you think that person should be paying more than a 1/(population of the United States) share of the taxes?

Domenic_S 14y ago
> The top 10% of earners pay that much in taxes because they already make more income than the bottom 90% combined. Wat. Top 10% — $87,334 http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/ http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/the-rich-o-meter/
crusso 14y ago
If having a national defense and an infrastructure that has enabled a person to build that kind of income I don't understand this argument. The infrastructure benefits everyone. The opportunity to succeed from that infrastructure is available to everyone. The road that leads to the grocery store benefits the grocer and the countless consumers who use it. Who gets the better side of the bargain and how do you determine the magnitude of that inequality? If anything, public infrastructure tends to help the little guy. Historically, when public services weren't provided, the rich paid for their own needed infrastructure, protective services, etc. Those services were geared exclusively to help the wealthy land owners. If you got protection from the watch patrolling the nearby keep, you were lucky because they weren't really there for you.

rayiner 14y ago

This is a mindlessly stupid comparison, because in those countries the top 10% of earners also make a much smaller share of the income. If you look at total taxes, instead of just federal income taxes like the Heritage Foundation likes to do (intellectually bankrupt think tank whores that they are), you'll see that the total US tax burden is pretty flat from median up to the top 1%: http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america....