<p>One’s fair share is not necessarily measured by income, especially unearned income. In Warren Buffet’s example, his wealth is dependent on his investments. And his investments have more to do with those who have earned income rather than wealthy people. Those with earned income, pay more in taxes on percentage basis.</p>
<p>"most of the tax benefits got to the absolute top of income </p>
<p>Why do you say this?"</p>
<p>Because it is true.</p>
<p>“And would your reason for that be punitive or because you think the government could spend that money better?”</p>
<p>I think in some cases the government can spend the money better.
What I really am in favor of is the government paying, its own way. I’m in favor of a government that helps those that needs help which is the lower class and in some instances the middle class. I’m not in favor of the government helping the upper class. Not because I have anything against the upper class. The upper class doesn’t need the help. </p>
<p>If we had things my way, the governement might actually be smaller than it is now because we wouldn’t have subsidies for farmers and oil companies, and people who make their money with capital instead of with labor. </p>
<p>I also would be in more favor of a system where everybody benefits as the economy grows and not just those at the top. So I would definitely not have tax breaks given to those that are already doing well. If there is extra money lying around, I might spend it on health care, alternative energy research, better schools, infrastructure, making sure the social security system is secure. </p>
<p>If I was setting the tax code, I would try to tax labor and capital at similar rates. I would have close to a flat tax. A few tiers. I think a society should take care of those at the bottom, so maybe I would have a zero tax rate for the first $30,000 of income, than maybe 15% for the next $30,000 then 20% for the next 30,000 and 25% for the rest.
But no deductions except for health care costs above a certain amount. I don’t want to see people go bankrupt because they get sick. No mortgage deductions.
Labor and capital taxed the same.
Taxes received should come close to monies spent by the government so the numbers may have to be tweaked.
We had something close to this in the eighties for a couple of years.</p>
<p>Thisoldman, nice link. People think that those that make the most money are in the top tax brackets, but as your link shows, that’s not always the case.</p>
<p>Guys, I’ve been posting this on various CC threads for years. We do not have a progressive tax system (when all taxes are taken into consideration) – ultra high income individuals pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor and middle class-- and high income taxpayers absolutely do receive more benefit from tax-funded services than poor people do. Those are cold, hard facts, verifiable with very modest effort. But the drumbeat of propaganda which drills into the average person’s mind the exact opposite has been very effective. Higherlead and U-U-Dad - virtually everything you expressed as a fact of the tax/economic system is simply wrong. (I wish I could come up with a more tactful way of putting that.) If you’re interested in the subject it’s worth doing a little self-directed research instead of just accepting and repeating sound bites about what “everybody knows is true.”</p>
<p>If his secretary is paying 30% Federal Income Tax she is doing something wrong. The Federal income tax system is progressive. As to the state and local taxes–it’s all over the map. Take it up with your Governor and local taxing folks (ours never met a tax they did not like)</p>
<p>Barrons, income derived from different sources is taxed at different rates, or not taxed at all.</p>
<p>Buffet’s tax rate is lower than people who make hundreds of times less.</p>
<p>You really think somebody in the $25,000 to $30,000 is better off with the Bush tax cuts than somebody that makes over $200,000 a year?
I’ll tell you what. I’ll give you the money a person with an income under $30,000 saved with the tax cuts, and you give me the money a person with an income over $200,000 saved.</p>
They ‘should’ be paying a lower percentage. It’s the dollars they pay that’s important and they pay dollars orders of magnitude above what mid to lower earners are paying. </p>
<p>Some of the discussion comes down to what one views as a ‘benefit’ and semantics are involved. Apparently some of you didn’t get my drift on this. The bottom line for me is that if one group ends up paying far more dollars in taxes than other groups I’d hardly consider rules applied to them to be a tax ‘benefit’. I know some of you do and are outraged that high earners aren’t paying even more or that their tax obligation might be reduced by a ‘benefit’ even though generally they really end up paying far more than most of us. </p>
<p>And kluge your typical condescending statements referring to others who don’t agree with your opinions as ‘average minds’ and ‘simply wrong’ probably aren’t worth more of a retort given your attitude towards others and self-rightiousness of your own opinions.</p>
<p>I’d rather have the money a $200,000 earner normally pays in taxes.
That doesn’t change the fact that those with incomes over $200,000 benefitted by the tax cuts more. </p>
<p>If you would rather have a regressive system than a progressive system than I can see why you would want the rich to have lower tax rates. </p>
<p>U-U-Dad, I’ll grant you one thing: you’re definitely not the “average person” I was referring to. I think most people would be surprised by, and not supportive of, the fact that the poor and middle class pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than do the extremely wealthy. So I’ll keep in mind that you don’t belong in that group of “average people” - you apparently are an enthusiastic supporter of the policies which have been widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and shrinking the middle class, for the past 30 years.</p>
<p>On the other hand, your casual assertion that the wealthy 'likely use less government services" demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what tax dollars pay for. By far, the largest single category of expenditure of tax dollars, at all levels, is governmental activity undertaken to assist business. Whether it’s infrastructure improvements to move goods, supply efficient access to supplies, personnel and other necessities, direct subsidies (especially agri-business), government funded research with the results provided to business gratis, market regulation, IP rights protection, debt collection, etc., one of the main functions of government is helping business. (As it should, in my opinion.) Who do you think gets the direct benefit of that government largess? </p>
<p>The thing is, people who are used to being provided services for free tend to take them for granted. If the wealthy had to hire their own police and armies to protect their belongings; if they had to personally enforce their legal rights to patents and copyright; if they had to fend off monopolies and all the other threats to a free market; if they had to build their own roads, and airports, patrol the sea lanes, develop all of the technology and research data which drives their business (or pay for the cost of producing it); provide education, housing and health care for all of their employees from birth to death - yeah, then they might not be receiving the majority of the benefit of government services. But they are now.</p>
<p>Oh, and one more thing: The more affluent you are, the more likely your kids are to receive a first rate education at the expense of the taxpayers at fine schools like UCSD and UCLA…</p>
<p>“I’m in favor of a government that helps those that needs help which is the lower class and in some instances the middle class. I’m not in favor of the government helping the upper class. Not because I have anything against the upper class. The upper class doesn’t need the help.”</p>
<p>"ultra high income individuals pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor and middle class </p>
<p>They ‘should’ be paying a lower percentage. It’s the dollars they pay that’s important and they pay dollars orders of magnitude above what mid to lower earners are paying."</p>
<p>u…dad, </p>
<p>The federal government in this country costs about 20% of our gdp to run.
How do you want to pay for it?
Let’s take a family of 4 with an income of $50,000. That income is close to average, right?
After paying for food, shelter, household goods, clothes, utilities, a car, the social security tax, the medicare tax, health care, education costs, and insurance, how much is left to pay for income taxes?
What income tax rate do you want this family to pay?</p>
<p>How about a family that makes $200,000? 1,000,000? You want the latter two families to pay a lower tax rate than the family that makes $50,000?</p>
<p>I don’t know if this is ever going to happen, but this is a democracy, and there are a lot more people making $50,000 than $200,000 plus. If the $50,000 people can’t make it, they may actually wake up and vote for people that actually serve their financial interest. Then say goodbye to the tax rates that exist today, and say hello to tax rates that are much higher for those near the top.</p>
<p>I say let the rich move to the democratic republic of Gangzhou, where they can reap the full benefits of corporate socialist rule. Or maybe another wonderful haven like Haiti, where people are free to buy more underwear than in evil communist Cuba, and free elections are the order of the day.</p>
<p>My position is that the high income people already pay far more than those of lower income. They would if the tax rate were the same as those in lower brackets and they generally would even if their rate were lower. </p>
<p>What irks me is when some people (I’m not referring to you) become indignant that people in higher brackets (usually defined as anyone who earns more than them) aren’t paying even more money in taxes despite the fact that the higher earner is already paying far more than they themselves are. I think that rather than complaining, these people should be thankful for those paying more than them regardless of what the actual ‘rate’ is and regardless of the so-called ‘tax benefits’. If the bottom line is that person A pays more dollars in taxes than person B, then I think person B should be thankful for person A’s greater obligation and contribution.</p>
<p>In your examples of the $50K family of 4 versus the family of $200K and $1M, the families of the higher income do generally pay a lot more in taxes than the $50K family and the $50K family should be grateful for that. I realize that the $50K family wouldn’t be able to afford to pay what the $1M family does and the $12K family can’t afford to pay what the $50K family does. Fine, I just want people to quit complaining that those who already paying far more than them aren’t paying even more.</p>