Just cause I feel like it....from an AP story on taxes.

Someone earning 1 million will pay 291,000 in taxes.
Someone earning 20,000 will pay 1140 in taxes.
The person earning 1 mil earns 50x more than the person earing 20,000, and pays 255x the amount of federal taxes.

Someone earning 50,000 will pay 6250 in taxes.
The person earning 1 mil earns 20x more than the person earning 50,000, and pays 46.5x more in taxes.

Seems like we don't have a problem of the rich not paying their fair share.

And no, I am not one of those earning 1 mil. Not even close.

As always it depends on one's subjective definition of fair.

It could range from "everybody pays an equal percentage of federal receipts" to "everybody pays the same percentage of income" to "everybody pays the same percentage of total worth" to "everybody pays the same relative painfulness of loss."

All could legitimately be argued as "fair" and all result in vastly different tax structures.

Personally, on of my core starting points is that taking taxes from people who have nothing or just barely enough for self sufficiency is not going to meet my definition of fair.

Deep Thoughts From Alex While He Waits For Lani Outside The Downtown Disney LEGO Store

Do you have a link to that?

"29.1 percent of their income". Does that include capital gains, or just wage income subject to income tax?

And what about the people making between 50K and 1Million?

And what percentage of their income do they pay in sales tax?

What percentage of their income is used to pay for the bare necessities of survival?

Link to AP story

And of course everyone defines fair differently.

So what?

Are we talking who pays what in terms of federal taxes or wealth distribution?

I just think that when a man with 50x more income than someone with 20k pays 255x more federal taxes it is reasonable to say that the person pays their fair share. No debunking (the numbers come from IRS data).

If you don't like the distribution of wealth in the country that's a different matter.

I think you missed the point there, scaeagles. The tax code must influence wealth distribution. Otherwise, you'll get to a point where that 255x rate now paid by those with $X wealth will seem quaint.

Once 98% of the money is in the hands of 5 people, those five people will have to pay 3,768,432 x the tax rate of the other several million.



So it doesn't much matter what the comparative tax rates are. The money's got to come from somewhere. Once it's all soaked from the poor and middle class, guess where it comes from next?

I think it's utterly ridiculous that "job creators" are basically blackmailing the government by saying if you raise our taxes we won't create jobs.

Did you watch the clip? If 10% of the population has 70% of the taxable money, then they SHOULD be paying 70% of the taxes.

You limit your definition of inequality to income tax. That is a inadequately distorted view of how taxes work. It ignores the far more realistic, holistic, view of taxation in which ALL forms of taxation are taken into account. Payroll, sales, property, capital gains, and the fact that a huge portion of the wealth that the top 10% has access to is not considered income at all and isn't even considered part of the calculations. And when all of that is taken into account, you start to see things as Warren Buffet does, and realize that while on paper he can point to one column in which, yes, he pays a higher tax rate than everyone else, but on the whole, looking at every avenue he has to earn, control, and spend money, he and others in his category are by FAR beneficiaries of our tax structure, not victims.

Yeah, the problem here is focusing on 'income' because of what a loose definition that has in terms of taxation. Usually when people talk about taxing the rich more, they discuss it in terms of income tax, which puts the heaviest burden on high wage earners, not the truly wealthy.

The problem you have is with incentives and reinvestment. You can't tax investment so heavy that there is no benefit to putting your money into anything (vs. the risk) And then you have the added difficulty of how to tax investment in a world where everyone has 401K's instead of actual retirement plans. And how to make it so it doesn't unfairly burden the small-time investor, who already has the highest cost of entry, when you consider the fee structures of investment companies.

I'm not saying Buffett isn't right (he usually is), but it's VERY difficult for people who don't really understand business (aka politicians) to come up with a safe structure for accomplishing this goal.