Class warfare is so 1970's.

Wanting the wealthy to pay their fair share is "class warfare?" Or do you mean that Republicans have waged class warfare on the middle class and the poor by giving all of the tax breaks to the rich?

Define "fair share".

Did you even read the article?

Yes, I did.

Now, define "fair share".

Fair share would be paying an effective tax rate equal to that of the rest of Americans.

So, what you're suggesting would either mean that the rich should pay a lot less in taxes (which would cripple programs like Welfare) or that the poor should pay a lot more in taxes (which, considering that the majority of them don't pay any income tax, would significantly reduce their incomes). Either way, it seems like your suggestion would very negatively affect the poor in the U.S.

Why do you hate the poor?

EDIT: I hate quoting a post that's been edited afterwards!

So in other words, you didn't read the article. The idea that the poor don't pay income tax is a long-pushed Republican lie. It ignores payroll taxes, which are hardly insignificant, and also regressive. Warren Buffet's payroll tax is virtually zero percent. And that's not counting other taxes that inversely affect the poor, like sales taxes, gas, utility, service taxes, etc.

Second, do you not understand the words "effective tax rate." Which means that with deductions, tax shelters, regressive payroll taxes, and capital gains taxes, the rich pay LESS than middle-income wage earners.

I did read the article. It provides nothing more than a few anecdotes about some people's tax rates. No statistics across the board. No comparisons with prior decades (well, it does talk about 1955 - the time at which top marginal rate was 91%).

This article is not a news piece, it's an op-ed piece by people with an agenda. Color me unimpressed. Show some hard stats on the subject and then we can talk.

Really? I don't understand what an "effective tax rate" is? I mean, seriously, how long have we been debating each other on this topic?

Let me ask you this then. Do you support a flat tax, a progressive tax, or a regressive tax system?

If you support a progressive tax system, then wouldn't you oppose a classification like capital gains which allows wealthier people to tax income at a lower rate than traditional wages?

If you support a flat tax system, then wouldn't you support the elimination of the payroll tax caps that make payroll taxes such a regressive and unfair tax on the poor and middle class?

I doubt anyone openly supports a regressive income tax system, but if you do, please explain why.

I support a flat tax (on all income) with no deductions. I also support cutting federal spending by a large enough amount so that the flat tax can be in the 10-12% range.

I suppose some sort of a floor on taxable income makes sense (like a rebate or simply a 0% low bracket), but no more brackets than that.

In the end, though, it's not about what I support - it will never get implemented - it's about what the reality is. In real life, taxes place a great burden on everyone, rich or poor.

With regard to payroll taxes (which I oppose altogether) - I hope you understand that the reason why there's a cap on income, is to reduce volatility in its collection. There is much more volatility in income in the top brackets than in the bottom. If you remove the cap, you won't be able to predict how much you're collecting in the future. This is just an aside, and not meant to offer arguments for payroll tax, pro or con.

Stranger things have happened.



I don't see the great burden that taxes place on the rich - unless of course they dodge paying them.

Obviously there's an argument that the rich can "afford" to pay taxes more than the poor. But that's just the reality of being wealthy. You can also afford to spend more on cruises, luxury cars, and high-class escorts. Should we be talking about how fair all that is too?

The argument that you're making is that the rich should pay the same tax rate as the poor - I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with affordability of said taxes.

But that goes to the definition of "burden." Is it a burden to pay 35% of your income in taxes if you made $600 million, particularly if deductions and shelters and creative accounting mean you a lot less, and if you account for how much of that is capital gains income, then only 15%?

And if you're for a floor on income tax, then that's a de facto progressive system, and the basis for the current bracketed income tax. If there is a tacit acknowledgment that the poor are less able to handle the burden, then why not extend that argument to those making $40K a year? Or $75K? Surely the reality is that the burden affects those brackets differently as well.

What! You mean that I have to pay 35% of my 600 million? How will I ever survive on that small amount left to me?

i'm personally of the opinion that whether i'm capable of affording 35% of my payment going to taxes if i'm making 600 million is totally irrelevant to if its fair or not. There is nothing remotely fair about it. Is it understandable ... sure.

while i totally get why it makes sense for someone making 200 to pay more taxes than someone who makes 100, it does not, in my opinion, in any entail that they 'should'. the fair tax, is, by its very definition, a fair tax. there is nothing unfair about it at all. whether thats practical or actually doesn't work in the favor of people has nothing to do with individually treating everyone the same.

All depends on "fair" I guess.

Rich people who have their wealth because of the great country they live in and who can easily afford it should contribute more to help out everyone. 35% of a poor person's income would be deadly, and even of middle class, but a sliding scale (called a "progressive" tax) that takes into consideration one's income seems fair to me.

The money has to come from somewhere. Better to tax those who can still live nice lives than hurt the poor family living on minimum wage.

Again, should is subjective. the question here isn't if they should contribute, its how much is fair here. everyone contributes ... whats fair and whats right has nothing to do with it.

The money has to come from somewhere is the reason for why the richer you are, the more you get taxed .. its to sustain everyone else, not because its somehow RIGHT for them to do so. in a sense, its almost a neccessary evil (i use evil in a figuritive sense) if you're thinking of the rest of the world.

which btw, also does bear resemblance to a communistic and socialistic type agenda ... i'm not equating it, just merely pointing out that higher taxes on the rich as opposed to the poor has more in common with them than a capitalistic market.

I actually agree with a progressive tax and would personally like to see something like:

1-49,999: 0%
50,000-99,999: 25%
100,000-199,999: 27%
200,000-299,999: 29%
300,000-399,000: 31%
400,000+: 33%

Exactly. In fact, we have had taxes like that in the past, but even higher for the very rich. Somehow the country didn't fall into communism then.

The issue now is the deduction hell we currently find ourselves in. Taxes brackets should be lowered across the board IMO.

I agree. The problem is that deductions inherently benefit the wealthy. I think getting rid of those would allow us to reduce the overall tax rates.

The deductions system definitely favor business owners.

For instance, if a business owner purchases a car as part of "company expense", it goes towards their business tax deduction. A regular individual purchasing a car for personal use cannot get the same tax deduction.

I think the solution is the make deductions equally favorable for individuals as do business owners, so a middle-class individual can also enjoy the same deductions even for personal expense.

Doesn't everybody get their payroll taxes back in the end?