"The plain and simple fact is that all of us, me included, that aren't paying a higher rater are freeloaders plain and simple. I don't like being put in a situation were I'm dependant on others for what I'm getting. It's wrong. "

How much of the government funded infastructure do you use? Do you have fleets of trucks that use the interstate system every day? Do you derive tremendous benefits from our energy, trade and defense policies? Corporations and super-wealthy benefit more from these services and policies and as such should have to pay more to support them. When you consider who uses more of the stuff our tax dollars pay for, the average schnook pays way more than their fair share. We're not the freeloaders ... they are.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

"(Added: After thinking about this for a while it woud seem that if we simply raised the tax rate all to the same as the highest level we would all be paying the same amount and would have more money coming into the treasury. I'd be for exempting everyones first "X" amount of income from any tax except SS which would be put into a PA. By raising everyon's rate we would all be paying equal percentage and we could use the excess to pay off some debt. I'd actually go for this is it was legislated in conjunction with some serious "meaningful" spending reforms.)"

Ok, but what then would the exempt amount be :-)? It costs much, much more to live in LA or NYC than it does in Mississippi.

"The plain and simple fact is that all of us, me included, that aren't paying a higher rater are freeloaders plain and simple. I don't like being put in a situation were I'm dependant on others for what I'm getting. It's wrong."

Ok again, but what are you willing to give up? Military? Amtrak (Santorum on Meet the Press on Sunday was admanant that that wasn't going to happen)? Environmental protections (can't do a triathlon if the water's dirty)? Education? Social services for the poor? I think we both agree that corporate & farm pork has to go, but finding a politician willing to step up on this is about impossible.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Nice contribution to the discussion. How is the view from the cheap seats anyway?

Let me guess, when you look in the mirror you just repeat ME-ME-ME-ME? Way to have some empathy for others.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

"Do you have fleets of trucks that use the interstate system every day?"

These people with "fleets of trucks" Pay far more taxes than you'd even imagine. Liscensing, fuel tax etc etc. On top of that these "fleets of trucks" general are corporate assets not individual assets thus fall under a slightly different tax code than you and I.

"When you consider who uses more of the stuff our tax dollars pay for"

Taking a look at the largest federal budget items, SS, Health services, defense which make up a major portion of the budget. I don't see how these "rich people" use any more than you or I. Are the rich somehow "more protected" do the get a large SS check or use more health services? In act I'd say quite the opposite. They don't care about the SS check, they don't use much if any of the health services and on top of that they are far more likely to send there kids to private school...but still pay to have yours educated. Yes I'd say WE are teh free loaders.

~Matt

"Ok, but what then would the exempt amount be :-)? It costs much, much more to live in LA or NYC than it does in Mississippi."

Yes this is an issue, but much easier to deal with than teh current tax code. Also much more "global" than the current tx code. Could be done by area code or zones etc. Of coure our current tax code does not allow different exemptions at the federal level for individuals so maybe we won't have different exemptions with "my plan" either.

"Ok again, but what are you willing to give up?"

I'm willing to give up alot. In fact I'd be willing to give up or transfer to the private sector a good deal of the current federal government.

First a slow phase out of the current SS system to privat accounts. This despite everyones whining would over a period of 2-4 generations take roughly 12% out of the hands of the federal government and place it back into the private sector. Does it have glitches and bumps? Sure what doesn't. Would it be far superior to the current system? IMO by far.

Second...How about some tough love? Lets turn the wellfare system into a safety net rather than a way of life. No, drug addiction, obesity, alcoholism is not a disablity. The wellfare system can be reformed but it'll hurt and most people don't want anyone to hurt.

Three..."With my proposed" increase in taxes, so we all pay the same flat rate as you currently are, combined with the savings above we apply the surplus to the deficit. The ensuing drop in interest will intern result in lower taxes.

Four...There is no perfet system. Almost every, maybe even every system, can be improved. Military, tax law, Medicare etc etc, all be improved. With improved effeciency we end up with lower taxes.

~Matt...and I approve of this message.

Let's say we would all have to go to a 27% tax rate to make a flat tax, or something very similar, viable. It makes sense if you're paying greater than 27% (or whatever), but why argue for paying more taxes? It's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. People that would pay more taxes on a flat tax system and are arguing for the system are basically saying 'I believe in my ideology so strongly that I am willing to reduce my standard of living and give up thousands of dollars to make sure my ideas are implemented.'

I'm all for a tax system that is simpler and 'fairer,' but I'm not willing to pay thousands to get there. Supporting a flat tax means you're either rich, or insane.

"'I believe in my ideology so strongly that I am willing to reduce my standard of living and give up thousands of dollars to make sure my ideas are implemented.'"

I guess I don't understand your point. Yes I believe in my ideaology. Not because it's an "Idea" or I want my "ideas" implemented, but because they are what I believe is correct and fair.

I, as well as most if us below the 50% mark, aren't paying our fair share. The reason we aren't paying our fair share is because someone else is carrying the load for us. I think that is wrong, very wrong.

"Supporting a flat tax means you're either rich, or insane."

Or honestly believe that this country would be better off if people started actually taking responsibility for themselves. IMO the progressive tax rate, especiallly as skewed as it is, is nothing more than another form of welfare. Frankly I don't like being forced into a situation that in essence pputs me on the "Wellfare role"

The problem is that most people in this country feel exactly as you do, not just about taxes, but most things. "I'm all for "X", as long as "I" don't have to sacrafice anything". IMO we have crossed, or are very near crossing, the line of "no return" where the majority of the population is in someway supported by the minority. Only a few things can come from that scenario, complete stagnation, collapse due to ever increasing burden on the minority, or a "class system" are a the main ones I can think of. Taking a look at the ever widening gap between the "haves" and the "have not's" in this country I think we are moving toward the later.

We simply cannot have the minority supporting the majority and expect that we have the same freedoms, rights and desicion making powers as they do.

Either take responsibility for yourself and support yourself or basically be a second class citizen...IMO.

~Matt

That's all fine and dandy, but rich benefit from gov't services more than the poor and middle class. I read an article about a year ago from someone at harvard stating this, but I can't find a link. I think you are incorrect when you say that poor and middle income people are not paying their fair share. I'll try to find that article.

Money is not an end all be all. Just because you make a lot of money doesn't mean you work harder than other people. People are people. Some rich are lazy, some poor are lazy. We could argue in circles about the benefits of government services to different socioeconomic class, and about how lazy people are, but we couldn't come up with anything solid because we really don't know. You believe, for whatever reason, what you believe as do I. We both have good reasons.

So what it boils down to is, as people have already stated, if I have to pay 27% of my income in federal taxes, that's going to hurt like a bitch and I'll have to skip a few races, shorten my already short vacation, and make many other sacrifices. Regardless of what services I receive from gov't and how hard I work. I'm climbing the ladder, enrolling in grad school, and working my ass off but I can't afford to have my taxes increased a lot just to make a few people who think the current system is unfair happy. So fuck you when you say that I'm not pulling my weight. I think I speak for most of the middle class when I say that. God damn armchair quarterback.

My friend who makes 150k pays a shitload in taxes, but guess who goes to the bahamas for two weeks every year, drives a porsche, and generally takes friday afternoons off? It isn't me.

"I think I speak for most of the middle class when I say that."

Like I've already stated, of course you speak for most of the middle class. Few people of todays day and age want to admit their freeloaders. I for one, who BTW is definately middle, maybe even lower middle by some standards, feel that the system is not fair to the upper classes.

"My friend who makes 150k pays a shitload in taxes, but guess who goes to the bahamas for two weeks every year, drives a porsche, and generally takes friday afternoons off? It isn't me."

Plain and simple your friend pays shitloads of taxes, thus has less of a percentage of his money he worked just as hard for as you did, to spend. In essence he gets to do less things as a percentage of what he makes than you do. Also in essence you get to do more things beause he gets to do less.

Are we to legislate taxes on "who does what?" What if both of us make the same amount of money. I however am frugal and live well below my means for several years, make wise investments and end up with considerable wealth. We both had the same opportunity's yet I made different choices. Should I pay more taxes because I go to the Bahama's for 2 weeks a year. You apparently think yes I think no.

"So fuck you when you say that I'm not pulling my weight."

So yes fuck me. Because I'm not pulling my weight either. However at least I'm willing to admit it and also willing to accept a reasonable tax reform that would rectify the situation.

~Matt

"I for one, who BTW is definately middle, maybe even lower middle by some standards, feel that the system is not fair to the upper classes."

I'm sorry to break the news to you, but you are an idiot. I refrained from posting after your recent top 6 list of ways to run the country into the ground, but this line couldn't be ignored.

Trust me on this--one who is very comfortably ensconced in the upper class--we are not suffering, nor are we feeling put upon (those that do are greedy bastards with little regard for the well being of society or their fellow man) by the "burden" the middle & lower socio-economic classes "put" upon us.

Your statement may be one of the stupider things I've ever read on the internet. Let me, part of the 5%, thank you for subjecting the 95% of society to a poorer day-to-day existence just so I can buy a Chateau in Provence ahead of schedule. Comical.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

To throw another political cartoon into the mix. It gets to the heart of the issue of whether we need to privatize social security and allow us to plan for our own future. I happen to be in the camp who feels Americans are more than capable of making the right decision as it relates to their investments and finances. For those who don't then they need to accept the responsibility for their actions. For those who can't we as a society need to help. But there is a distinction between the two.

"but you are an idiot"

Maybe I am but can you explain teh simple fact that while over the last 30-40 years we've transfered the burden of taxation over to the upper classes is the period that the gap between upper and lower class is growing? In teh same time frame the percentile of income increase for the lower groups has not increase nearly as much as that of teh upper class?

I think I can and it's fairly simple. As we, the lower and "Middle" class become more reliant on the upper class we are put into fewer and fewer situations in which we are "forced" to be self reliant. As we loose, yes loose, these opportunities we are slowing having our oportunities for ways to be succesfull removed. This in the long term will religate the lower and middle class to permant level of "reliance". Some call this fiefdom, or slavery.

Necessity is still the mother of invention. When nothing becomes necessary not much gets done. As we become reliant on others for our "needs" there are fewer and fewer instances of necessity.

I'm not suggesting we tax everyone into the poor house, infact I'd rather see the top 1% end up in my bracket than I in their's. However that would take MASSIVE cuts. And why would the lower or middle class be for that if someone else is paying for it?

The fact that you're paying more than I makes no more sense than you going to the grocery store and buying my groceries.

"Let me, part of the 5%, thank you for subjecting the 95% of society to a poorer day-to-day existence just so I can buy a Chateau in Provence ahead of schedule."

As the poster I responded to said "Money isn't everything" and a "poorer day-to-day existence" is certainly debateble as whether it's related to money at all. I frankly would feel our society was much better off if the "Me, Me, Me" mentality that has been created over the last 30-40 years was changed. I frankly believe that part of this mentality has been created simple because we don't have to do a whole lot for everything we get, particularly from the US government. I strongly suspect that this mentality, at least were the government is concerned, would change precipitously if the lower and middle class had to pay their portion of what they were recieving.

~Matt...The idiot.

What exactly are you saying here, and how did you get so focused on percentages?

Why do you think the middle class is somehow reliant on the upper class? I can tell you that we're doing all their dirty work, and getting paid far, far less than they are. As you pointed out, the rich have figured out how to get richer despite our progressive tax system.

You're making too many assumptions in your arguments. I'm paying around 35% in taxes, state, local, etc. which is my fair share. My relatively low wages keep me from doing the things that require more gov't resources, like investing, traveling, and consuming. Sure, I do all of them, but my measely 20k investment doesn't require the resources that a 10 million dollar (or even a million) investment requires of the FDIC. My short trips to other parts of the country don't require much of the resources of the FAA, unlike multiple trips to europe require. And I don't get to depreciate and write off many of the things I buy. Let's look at the write off of a 75k SUV the gov't allows. You can take this write-off in one year, which means you have to be making a lot of money to write off that whole amount. How does that benefit me? I'm paying for some rich guy's SUV. To the tune of 75k. I'd rather pay for some freeloader's foodstamps to the tune of 1500 per year than an SUV for someone that doesn't need my help. Yeah, I write off mortgage interest, but since I can't afford a huge house the amount is pretty small. So thanks to all this crap, my friend that makes 150k only reports 85k income to the IRS. Sure he's in a higher tax bracket, but if you look at the taxes he pays (40k), his percentage is lower than mine (27% compared to 35%). And it's not like he doesn't use his business car for personal trips, and his laptop and cell phone for personal stuff, and that home office he writes off for storage of his own stuff, etc. etc.

Maybe it's time the upper class started 'taking responsibility.'

Matt, Greenspan seems to share your views on the complexities of the tax code:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3689-2005Mar3?language=printer
Time to Change Tax Code Again, Greenspan Says
1986 Law Presented As Model of Reform

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 4, 2005; Page E02

The U.S. tax code should be simplified in ways that would boost economic growth, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday.

Greenspan, addressing the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, urged the committee to follow the spirit of the "exemplary" 1986 law that lowered marginal rates while broadening the revenue base by scrapping many of the exemptions, deductions, credits and other provisions that shield much income from taxation.

Since 1986, he said, "the tax code has drifted back to be overly complicated," with higher rates and multiple special provisions that narrow the tax base. "It is perhaps inevitable that, every couple of decades, drift needs to be addressed and reversed."

Greenspan proposed no specific tax-law changes, but recommended broadly that the panel seek to keep tax rates as low as possible and make the rules predictable. That should benefit the economy overall, as did the 1986 law, he said.

"A simpler tax code would reduce the considerable resources devoted to complying with the current tax laws, and the freed-up resources could be used for more productive purposes," Greenspan said.

President Bush has made tax reform one of the top domestic legislative priorities of his second term.

He created the advisory panel to recommend ways to simplify the tax code to promote long-run economic growth and job creation while encouraging work, saving and investment. He directed the group to keep tax deductions for home-mortgage interest and charitable giving. Greenspan said in his testimony that one of the first decisions the panel must make is whether to focus on taxing consumption or income, or some combination.

The U.S. system is "somewhat mixed," as are those of many countries, he said. "That is probably the best route to go."

Many economists, including some White House advisers, have advocated a system that would tax consumption more heavily, such as through a national sales tax or value-added tax. They argue that a consumption-focused system would encourage people to spend less and save more, providing more capital for investment, which over time fuels growth and produces the new technologies, plants and equipment that raise living standards.

Greenspan noted that argument, but didn't say whether he agreed with it. Rather, he suggested switching to such a system would raise "a challenging set of transition issues." And, he said, "the opposition that would arise would probably make [a pure consumption tax] infeasible."

More generally, Greenspan repeated his oft-stated belief that taxes should be as low as possible.

"Any tax increase, as you know, inhibits economic activity in one way or another," he said. "Whatever you tax, you will get less of."

However, he criticized the proliferation of special provisions that reduce taxes in various ways. One problem with them, he said, is that they distort economic behavior by prodding businesses and consumers to make decisions based on tax advantages rather than pure economics.

Such special provisions also make the tax code more unpredictable, he said. In his view, ever-changing rules make it harder for businesses and consumers to plan ahead, lowering investment and restraining the rise in living standards.

He did, however, endorse tax breaks designed to encourage retirement savings, such as through 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts.

Economists disagree about whether such accounts lead to more savings overall or just cause people to move savings from regular accounts to those that carry tax advantages. Either way, Greenspan said it is "probably indisputable" that they do boost saving for retirement specifically, even if there is no increase in total saving.

And boosting saving for retirement, he said, is "clearly something that is desirable."

I like the cartoon, that's funny.

I think your view about Americans being more capable to run their own finances than the government is mostly correct (not that you care what I think), but the differences in views on what should happen to SS are more about how one views what SS is about, than what method to use to fix it.

I view SS as purely a backup and safety plan. Sadly, most Americans seem to view it as their primary retirment income vehicle. I think we have to aggressively attack that view first, and then can address actually changing the setup of SS.

Not sure if you've read prior posts....but from a prior post.

"The bottom 50% of taxpayers in the 2002 fiscal year paid an average tax rate of just 3.21%. They're share of the total income tax was just 3.5%. That means that half of the country pays 96.5% of the income taxes and the other half pays just 3.5%. Then to take those numbers even farther, the top 25% paid 83.9% of the total taxes collected in 2002 and to get into the super rich people who "never pay taxes" the top 1% accounts for a whopping 33.7% of the taxes collected. The top 5% of taxpayers alone pay over half of the total taxes collected at 53.8%! "

And from another post...

"Shows that the top 1% only accounts for 16.12% of total AGI and top 5% at only 30.55%. So in essence both of these groups are paying a much high percentage of tax than the lower groups. For example the lower 50% makes 14.23% of the total AGI but only pays 3.5% of the tax?

"To put in a "ratio" the Lower 1/2 pays at a tax to income ratio of .245 While the upper 1% pays at a ratio of 2.09? Hmmmmm seems...well unfair."

Your numbers seem a bit "anecdotal" while the above numbers are based on actual 2002 tax return information. I realy don't think I'm making any assumptions merely quoting numbers from gathr tax information.

Even with all of these "Tax deductions" the rich get it appears they are paying a much higher percentage of taxes per income, as shown above, than the rest of us. You cn argue all day long about how "the rich guy gets so many breaks" but according to the collected tax information he stills pays a higher percentage than the little guy.

I can think of many deductions that are way more impactfull on my income than they are for a rich guy. For instance what's the individual deduction now? 2500-3000$. Well for a person making 30K that's a 10% deduction. For someone making 3Mil that's....well that's nothing. Add in mortgage, deductions for kids, IRA savings and it's pretty easy to see how someone making 30K a year will only pay 3.5% in taxes.

"Maybe it's time the upper class started 'taking responsibility.'"

It would be very, very, very ugly in this country if these supposed "rich" freeloaders, that aren't paying there share, suddenly all moved. In this very thread we have someone claiming to make 1M a year, true or not, I have no idea, however he also states he pays far more percentile than us on the lower end. Thankfully he doesn't mind.

~Matt

ljk, read this book. You are pretty much right on ... Like I posted so long ago, this book tells a lot:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591840198/103-7945321-0563014

I'm not advancing an opinion, just facts.

Is utterly untrue to believe the wealthy are paying more in taxes than 30-40 years ago, and middle class people are paying less, according to the author of this book. They are paying far less. Sure, the super rich are paying more than ever before in taxes, but they are making way more than ever before.

It's like this (I'm ballparking, read the book for exact stats): In 1975, the top 1 percent made $100,000 a year, or equal to $300,000 today. Today, the top 1 percent make $500,000 (equal to $500,000 today) ... So the richest 1 percent are that much richer ... Taxes? The tax burden on what the top 1 percent make is less than it used to be, due to the complicated tax code. They pay a much lower percentage now, not higher. Due to loopholes, tax writeoffs, shelters, the list goes on. Things wage earners cannot take advantage of.

As far as wage earners in the middle, someone at around the 50th percentile used to make $15,000 in '75 (Equal to $45,000 today) ... The 50th percentile today makes $45,000, so their earnings haven't increased at all. And their tax burden is much more, I am certain. Facts to prove otherwise? Bring them on.

The numbers are all fine and dandy. I support our progressive tax system. The problem with numbers is they're just that - numbers. They don't tell any stories and can be twisted and used any way you want. I look at the numbers and see that 1% of the people in this country take home 16% of the AGI. That's unfair. So you can whine about how you think millionaires are getting taxed too much, but they don't need your help, and you're not doing yourself any favors either. And you can opine that rich people work harder and therefore earned it, but you don't have any way to prove that. It's just your opinion.

I'm still confused why you're going to bat for millionaires for some personal ideology you have. Millionaires who are doing quite well despite this extremely unfair tax system you're talking about. Guess which country has the most billion and millionaires in the world?

Your ultimate point seems to be that society would be better off if the middle and lower classes paid more income taxes than they currently do. It would make them take more responsibility in their lives, like people having less money in their pockets is some silver bullet that will cure the problems 'people like me' are causing this society. Sorry man, that conclusion is way out there. I could say you're stretching it to come up with that conclusion, but that would be too kind.

"The bottom 50% of taxpayers in the 2002 fiscal year paid an average tax rate of just 3.21%. They're share of the total income tax was just 3.5%. That means that half of the country pays 96.5% of the income taxes and the other half pays just 3.5%. Then to take those numbers even farther, the top 25% paid 83.9% of the total taxes collected in 2002 and to get into the super rich people who "never pay taxes" the top 1% accounts for a whopping 33.7% of the taxes collected. The top 5% of taxpayers alone pay over half of the total taxes collected at 53.8%! "

And from another post...

"Shows that the top 1% only accounts for 16.12% of total AGI and top 5% at only 30.55%. So in essence both of these groups are paying a much high percentage of tax than the lower groups. For example the lower 50% makes 14.23% of the total AGI but only pays 3.5% of the tax?

I'm sure all of this is true. Statistics show people in the top 5o to 95 percent are paying more than ever, but the tax burden (percentage of income) for the top 5 percent and especially the top 1 percent is lower than ever. All due to the complicated tax code.

The poor won't ever pay much in taxes and never will (except in sales and gas taxes, which is large percentage of their income). How can they? I think most of us pair our fair share, but the really well-off are getting away with more than in the past, and the system promotes this.

"I think most of us pair our fair share"

And I don't, a matter of opinion on "Fair" I suppose. I personally think that one group paying on the order of 8-10X larger percentage, a fact, more than another is not fair, an opinion.

"The poor won't ever pay much"

I'm not asking the poor to pay ALOT of taxes, simply teh same percentage as everyone else. If you make a buck you pay "X" percent of that if you make 100$ you pay 100 times that. Seems simple and fair.

"but the really well-off are getting away with more than in the past, and the system promotes this."

This could very well be true, I've not found any data to support or deny it. I do however have a hard time believing that it's much different considering the low effect rate of 3.5% that the lower groups are currently paying. I will see if I can get a copy of the book you suggested though.

~Matt

"I'm still confused why you're going to bat for millionaires for some personal ideology you have. Millionaires who are doing quite well despite this extremely unfair tax system you're talking about. Guess which country has the most billion and millionaires in the world? "

"Your ultimate point seems to be that society would be better off if the middle and lower classes paid more income taxes than they currently do."

Nope not advocating for more taxes simply equal taxes, however one does lead to the other, without significant spending cuts.

"It would make them take more responsibility in their lives, like people having less money in their pockets is some silver bullet that will cure the problems 'people like me' are causing this society."

And in a sense yes. When one is given an "open checkbook" to spend others money we generally have a tendancy to spend it unwisely. It's very easy to be generous, giving and "compasionate" with others money. I suspect that if the tax burden was equalized so that the middle and lower classes payed "their fair share" that they would be come significantly more interested in how that money is spent. As it stands not only is a small portion paying the bulk of the taxes but they are paying at a rate that is higher than the rest of us, in effect making us not really give a rip. Why should we care if we're only paying such a tiny portion? In fact why not ask for more...we're not paying for it.

I don't think that's anymore "stretching it" than saying that if I were buying a car with my money I'd be more likely make a wiser more conservative choice than if someone gave me the money.

~Matt

 
I'm not asking the poor to pay ALOT of taxes, simply the same percentage as everyone else. If you make a buck you pay "X" percent of that if you make 100$ you pay 100 times that. Seems simple and fair.


Seems fair, but if you take home $1,500 a month after minimal taxes and SSI (Say you are relatively poor and supporting a family) that's not easy. Rent, food, gas to get to work ... Let's say before taxes you make $1,800 and all you pay is 15 %.

If you take home $15,000 a month after being highly taxed (Let's say you make $27,000 a month before taxes) life is much better, even with so much taxes. Paying 40 % is a bit of a burden. For the first person, paying 15 % is a much bigger burden, really.

Sure the bottom 50 percent contribute very little, even relative to what they make. But the very top also contribute very little compared to years past and compared to what they can contribute without too much suffering. Now the upper middle portion are paying the most in many ways.

"that's not easy."

Nope it's not. But at what point did we decide that those that have succeeded should make it "Easy" for those that have not.

Again I'm not talking about the people that simply can't or don't make enough money to survive. In fact in another post I mentioned that I would be for creating a "tax exempt" line. "If you make less than this you pay no tax as this is what is deemed what everyone needs to "survive"". Also as pointed out that point will be difficult to "nail down", but a different issue.

However after that point taxes are equal. Sure it's harder to make it on less money, that's called life. No one is guarenteed "X" level of living. I just don't agree with the idea that 1 dollar to a man with a hundred is different than 10 to one that has a thousand. To us on the lower end of the scale we see someone with 990$ left over and think "Man that guy has way to much, giving more won't make him "suffer"" to me that makes no sense. His "Expenses" are probably some factor larger but at a similar percentage.

My point is, that other than the ludicriously rich that somehow made so much money so fast that they simply couldn't "grow" into it (hink lottery winners), we are all pretty much operating at similar percentile just at larger or smaller amounts. I'd guess the mahjor difference is that the "upper" levels simply have more room to "fall" back and make cuts before they are destitute.

This is often shown by simply asking someone if they think they are rich and who do you think is rich. Few people think they are "rich" and those that point to "that guy is rich", "That guy"... probably doesn't think he's rich.

There is no simple answer to this problem, but like most systems in our governement I believe there is vast room for improvement.

Thanks for the civilized discussion.

~Matt

I agree with your reasoning for this whole tax issue. Below is an (in my opinion) excellant overview and description of the fair tax plan. I would love to hear from our multi-millionaire mopdahl on why this plan is not fair.



Thumbnail sketch of the FairTax
a comprehensive plan to replace income and payroll taxes



The FairTax proposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

No federal sales tax up to the poverty level means progressivity like today's tax system.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.
With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service, the sales tax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. If you choose to buy used goods - used car, used home, used appliances - you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or their compliance costs, which drive up costs for those who can least, afford to pay.
Did you know that hidden income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more percent of all retail prices? It's true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices - from an average 22 percent on goods to an average 25 percent on services - for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.
Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports as they are with the current income tax. So the FairTax allows U.S. exports to sell overseas for prices 22 percent lower, on average, than they do now, with similar profit margins. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S.manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries' value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutrality:
Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.
The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 15.3 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 33 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals - don't make criminals out of honest taxpayers.
Today, the IRS will admit to 25 percent non-compliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax will tax this - criminals love to flash that cash at retail - while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance - from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers - also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

What is Americans For Fair Taxation?
Americans For Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to replacing the current tax systems. The organization has hundreds of thousands of members and volunteers nationwide. Its strategy supports sound economic research, education of citizens and community leaders, and grassroots mobilization efforts. For more information visit the web page: www.fairtax.org or call 1-800-FAIRTAX.