3 ms·

> the top 10% earners pay 70% of federal taxes What percentage should they pay? What percentage would be fair? We can't say without specifying the income distr

> the top 10% earners pay 70% of federal taxes What percentage should they pay? What percentage would be fair? We can't say without specifying the income distribution. If the top 10% earned 95% of the income, then paying only 70% of taxes would be criminally low. This statistic says more about the income distribution than about the tax schedule. > Most of the money controlled by the rich in fact is being put to work in companies What data lead you to that conclusion? I see the opposite. Corporate cash holdings as a percentage of assets are way up: the money is just sitting there. The "invention" of crazy investment vehicles like CDO-squareds shows there's too much money chasing not enough legitimate investment opportunities. > cut government spending until outflow meets intake (and then go a few hundred billion farther, so that debts can be paid). Among other things, this might have a positive effect on business optimism, and we would experience an uptick in hiring for start-ups and established companies alike. "Cutting government spending" means the government buys less stuff from private firms and individuals. Firms generally do not increase their workforce in response to reduced sales.

blisterpeanuts 13y ago
The top 10% earned 43% of the income in 2009 and paid 70% of the income taxes according to several websites I've looked at (ntu.org, heritage.org). The bottom 50% paid 2% of federal income taxes. I was responding to this IMF report which says, in effect, that more holdings of the rich should be confiscated and redistributed. Arguably, the U.S. already has fairly progressive taxation. The payroll tax a.k.a. FICA is a slightly different story since, theoretically, we all get that money back eventually. As I understand it, the government's huge size and credit utilization encroaches on private sector investment and expansion. Simply put, if it didn't soak up $1T/year in loans, that loan money could be invested privately and put to more productive and efficient use. I didn't know that companies are sitting on cash. It was my impression that money is being put to use no matter how it is stashed, except under a mattress.

blisterpeanuts 13y ago

The top 10% earned 43% of the income in 2009 and paid 70% of the income taxes according to several websites I've looked at (ntu.org, heritage.org). The bottom 50% paid 2% of federal income taxes. I was responding to this IMF report which says, in effect, that more holdings of the rich should be confiscated and redistributed. Arguably, the U.S. already has fairly progressive taxation. The payroll tax a.k.a. FICA is a slightly different story since, theoretically, we all get that money back eventually. As I understand it, the government's huge size and credit utilization encroaches on private sector investment and expansion. Simply put, if it didn't soak up $1T/year in loans, that loan money could be invested privately and put to more productive and efficient use. I didn't know that companies are sitting on cash. It was my impression that money is being put to use no matter how it is stashed, except under a mattress.