That is where I think you and are making the same point. I agree the tax burden is heavy on that top 50%. If you look at my first post again, you will see numbers for the top 60% of income earners. My contention is that within that top 20%, there is one group that has received huge tax cuts over the past 50 years while the rest of the top 60% has seen tax increases. Why should the top 1-2% get tax cuts when the rest of the top 60% has seen increases?[/QUOTE]

 

As your data points out, it makes sense when you observe their ultra high starting point. I would like to see data on actual taxes paid to compare how that has moved in relation to rates. In 50 years there has been a tremendous amount of change in tax law other than rate changes.

I didn't say to tax the wealth, I said they should contribute to the tax system and their rate should be equal to the amount of wealth they control. The more the wealth is pulled out of the economy the less their is, unless you assume a bottomless bucket of wealth. Generally speaking in our current system wealth is not created any more like Carnegie did it, it is shifted.

Not a zero sum game.

Not a zero sum game.

 

It is for about 50% of taxpayers.

There will never be a fair and equitable tax system as long as there are people and any income level that earn an income and pay no income tax. When some of those people actually get an income tax "refund" because of various tax credits then the system is not only unfair, it is broken.

Equal to the amount of wealth they control. What is that number?

Controlled wealth? Spoken like a true leftist. Wealth is only controlled by such utopian favorites as Chavez, Castro, etc...

Equal to the amount of wealth they control. What is that number?

 

Irrelevant.

 

Top 20% should pay no more than 80% of taxes in my mind.

 

I say go to a flat tax.

A few questions.

 

1. Can you explain what you mean by the part in bold? Is the government sending these folks a check or simply allowing them to keep more of their own money?

2. How is anyone paying the top earners taxes for them? Are you saying high earner's got to keep 100% of their pay check and folks like you and I had to pay their tax bill?

3. What would you consider a fair % for the top earners?

VOR, can I get your thoughts on these questions?

A few questions.

 

1. Can you explain what you mean by the part in bold? Is the government sending these folks a check or simply allowing them to keep more of their own money?

 

Keeping more of their own money. It was poorly worded on my part. My point is the upper 1-2% are benefitting by getting to keep a LOT of money while the rest of the top 60% of taxpayers are paying a higher percent.

2. How is anyone paying the top earners taxes for them? Are you saying high earner's got to keep 100% of their pay check and folks like you and I had to pay their tax bill?

 

No one is paying the top earners taxes for them. But they are getting big tax cuts while the rest of the top 60% are paying more.

 

3. What would you consider a fair % for the top earners?

 

It is more about a fair % for all earners. I think it would have been much fairer for the top earners to have their income over $200,000 taxed at 45% and have a slight reduction for the rest of the top 60% than for the top 1-2% reduced to where they are and the rest of the 60% have an increase.

 

My replies are in blue above. Let me be very clear once again. For me this is all about being fair to the majority of the top taxpayers. The past 50 years of reductions have overly favored the top 1-2%.

Yet they are still paying significantly higher rates on their higher income than those who you feel are not being favored? What am I missing?

Yet they are still paying significantly higher rates on their higher income than those who you feel are not being favored? What am I missing?

 

Here it is as simple as I can make. Last 50 years - increased tax rates for middle and upper middle class; huge cuts in tax rates for the upper 1-2%. Not fair.

Here it is as simple as I can make. Last 50 years - increased tax rates for middle and upper middle class; huge cuts in tax rates for the upper 1-2%. Not fair.

 

But taxes have not increased on the lower and middle classes during that time.

 

In 1960 the lowest tax rate was 20% and now it is 10%. After 1964 it never went back to 20% and was as high as 15% at one time.

But taxes have not increased on the lower and middle classes during that time.

 

In 1960 the lowest tax rate was 20% and now it is 10%. After 1964 it never went back to 20% and was as high as 15% at one time.

 

My posts in this thread have nothing to do with the lower end income earners. See post #1. See the thread title. Repeating, over the past 50 years average tax rates have increased on everyone in the top 60% of income earners except the upper 1-2%.

 

This thread, and people's opposition to tax increase for the rich, continues to amaze me. Even when presented clear facts that show their own tax rates have increased, people still will prefer to give tax cuts to the rich. Why is that?

Let me try to be very clear. The only income tax increase I want to see are ones where everyone that has an income actually pays income tax. I have much less of an issue of some very rich person who still pays a large dollar amount income tax then I do with a low end wage earner who pays no income tax and in fact actually get a "refund" because of tax credits. Until everyone has some skin in the game then I will oppose raising income taxes on only upper wage earners.

My posts in this thread have nothing to do with the lower end income earners. See post #1. See the thread title. Repeating, over the past 50 years average tax rates have increased on everyone in the top 60% of income earners except the upper 1-2%.

 

This thread, and people's opposition to tax increase for the rich, continues to amaze me. Even when presented clear facts that show their own tax rates have increased, people still will prefer to give tax cuts to the rich. Why is that?

I understand the point you are trying to and had the top 1-2% not been rates that amount to nothing short of criminal then you may have a point.

 

Also the numbers in your OP are a bit confusing. For example does the top 10% include the top .1%? And does the top 20% include the top 10% or should that be the next 20%? I would also like to average income tied to the categories.

Let me try to be very clear. The only income tax increase I want to see are ones where everyone that has an income actually pays income tax. I have much less of an issue of some very rich person who still pays a large dollar amount income tax then I do with a low end wage earner who pays no income tax and in fact actually get a "refund" because of tax credits. Until everyone has some skin in the game then I will oppose raising income taxes on only upper wage earners.

 

I'm good with that. Raise the taxes on those who received the biggest breaks over the past 50 years - the very top and the bottom.