The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

Where have I ever said it needs to be eliminated?
You're just making that up.

I posit that their taxes are higher due to their income being higher.
And from the data/link I supplied, that is true.

I counter your argument the top 1, 5, or 10% are overpaying in taxes. I don't think they do.
When one compares tax payments to income received.

The reason for the progressive tax formulas is those in the bottom 50% spend that vast majority of income they receive on daily living expenses.
Take some of them away for tax collections and a higher percent of income goes to taxes and not directly into life necessities. Which is also a driver of economic activity. Especially at the local level where those lower age workers live.

 

A post of numbers without a link doesn't do much.
For it's not possible to find out how the data was collected and statistically calculated.

Like the old claim, 50% of USA residents don't pay taxes.
When one digs deeper, a large percent of that 50% are students, poor, and elderly.

 

So some incime disparity is OK? How do you propose to lower it nd to what level for it to be fair?

The numbers I posted show it and if you agree with Biden this is nit fair then write your numbers that would be.

Bottom 50% 10.4% of income 2.3% of taxes 3.4% rate
Between bottom half and top 25% 17.5% of income 8.4% of taxes 7.2% rate
Top 25% to 10% 19.5% of income 13.4% of taxes 10.3% rate
Top 10% to 5% 10.6% of income 10.2% of taxes 14.3% rate
Top 5% to 1% 15.7% of income 19.9% of taxes 18.9% rate
And top 1% 26.3% of income 45.8% of taxes 25.9% rate

I GIVE YOU THE ACTUAL.DATA ABOVE. Stop talking in vague terms.

Adjust the numbers above to what would be equitable.

Your obligation to the rest of us included.

Do they pay too much now? Adjust the numbers above with how much they should pay.

 

Read the OP and stop with the obtuse post.

 

Can you name me some of these rich people the government just gave them their wealth? I don't know if any.

 

And an available workforce and capital. It's a cycle and when we come out of recessions and lots of people have been out-of-work and production down it is LOTS easier to have big increases in GDP and "jobs created" and lowering unemloyment. But then after a period and the more successful the recovery the faster you get there that bottoms out. You don't have the available workforce, companies have completed capital projects and now it's production increases that grow the economy and they are harder to get but more long term. Trump came into office after a long slow period which FINALLY had us recovred from the 2008/9 recession where we never had those large GDP increases but had reached full employment. His policies did reverse the huge drop in the LFPR under the Obama/Dem policies and incomes began to rise. 2.5% -3% stesdy after s many years was just fine.

 

Starting at msg#1
Stop posting your obfuscations tell me what equality do you seek. Younhace the actual numners edit them to where you wsnt them to he.

 

This^ is supposed to be a point you are failing to make or just obfuscation gobbledygook? Rhetorical..
Do you ever post anything myred in an actual timeline, reality or fact or does distorting and rewriting history and the factual historical timeline simply just a part time hobby? The Trump era has really brought a spotlight to the bottomless. You can't even admit it when you are obviously wrong and have been easily exposed as flogging hyper partisan nonsense. Jeez...I don't expect better however.

 

You are BOTH wrong about the term straw-man. A straw-man is a tactic used to undermine opposition by pretending to hold the oppositional position for the purpose of setting up the position so weakly as to make it easily refuted. A straw-man argument is similar but refers to the easily refuted argument. It stems from the visual where one creates a straw-man (scarecrow) and then fights with the scarecrow (tearing it to bits) to appear strong or superior.

A great example is Steven Colbert, who pretends to be a Conservative Republican, then states their arguments in the most ridiculous manner possible in an attempt to make Republicans look foolish or allow their position to be easily refuted. An example might be:

"Well of course we need the 2nd Amendment! Without the 2nd Amendment my 2nd grader might not be prepared to hunt elephants in the event one entered his classroom. That is what they are there to learn, right?"

In the first sentence he CREATES the straw-man by pretending to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment. Immediately followed by the most ridiculous straw-man argument one could imagine in the 2nd sentence. The intent is so the now straw-man can then takeover his oppositions position and do the worst job imaginable in supporting that position. It is a method employed so that one does not have to address strong opposition.

I have had instances in the past where viewers of the Colbert show actually thought he was a Republican. They believed these straw-man arguments were actually the arguments Republicans and conservatives used to come to their positions on various topics. Colbert's entire show used to be a straw-man act. Since then he has strayed a bit from this exclusivity. But he still resorts to it on regular occasions.

 

Your bromide and platitudes notwithstanding. Stop with the obtuse posting and show me what would meet your satisfaction what is so difficult here?

 

I know full well what a strawman argument consists of, and nothing I have said while describing it is incorrect.

Your description isn't necessarily wrong, but it in now way invalidates what I said. In a lot of ways you simply described it with similar but slightly different wording.

I said arguing against points that have not been raised and that description is 100% correct. You said pretending to hold the opposing view weakly. We are both referring to the same thing. I think my wording is more concise and straight forward, but Im not going to die on the hill trying to argue that your wording is less correct.

 

Hey you felt the deep need to quote me in this thread and run down some made up rabbit hole for comfort hoping to obfuscate yourself into being chased. Instead you found your own irony staring right back. No need to thank me for exposing it, I'm good.

 

Here’s the old claim;

Sep 18, 2012

Republican nominee Mitt Romney told supporters that there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president, “Obama” no matter what because they are dependent upon government, believe that they are victims, believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, they are people who pay no income tax”
————

Stay tuned for a bombshell

 

Okay. I see your similarities. It is important to distinguish between the straw-man and the straw-man argument is all.

 

The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

And, oddly, only earn about 25% of the personal income. They pay more than their fair share. It is actually the people of modest income that don't pay their fair share. Sorry, that is the truth. Not the politically correct talking point, of course, but the truth.

 

I have not made a single post about income disparity needing to change.
Only that because of income disparity, the tax payments are NOT as OUT of WHACK as the claim you made.

You posted number in sentences with no reference to where the number came from.
Someone could have pulled them from their backside

That's kinda what the RW does. Attack certain groups of people and wonder why they can't win the popular votes in a general election.
They cater to their mostly white and preferably male voters.
And cut down anyone like themselves.

What does the GOP have for black congress members? 4 out a possible near 300 congress critters.

 

You have a valid point…..Decades ago, lower, middle, upper, and top 5% effective income tax rates were proportionally higher than today.

However, reference to rich paying more than their fair share, “argumentative”, and I disagree.

 

Reference to how the data was collected and statistically calculated, YOU HAVE A VALID POINT, for example;

As a percentage of GDP, I used OMB’s computation, which is; As a percentage of fiscal nominal GDP, thus, end of fiscal year receipts, outlays, deficits, other figures divided by September 30th/Q3 Nominal GDP. Other sources are using annual/real GDP, annual/Nominal GDP, and several more methods.

 

For me it is a very deep problem. I believe our country was founded on the concept of equality meaning simply that government should treat everyone in the same manner. Equity, the antithesis of that, supports inequality in government action and I see it as wrong. I don't view it appropriate for government to rob Peter to pay Paul in any way and the constitution agrees with me.

So for me a fair income tax would be a set percentage of gross income for everyone. Government shouldn't get involved in influencing how people use their money. It shouldn't want different policies for different people. You could get rid of most of the IRS if government engaged in equality. What you call argumentative I call common sense and fairness to all.

 

The concept of one income tax rate for all isn’t new, however, the nations who have adopted a one rate for all have also legislated a general tax credit for their low income earners, payable monthly or quarterly.

 

Quote; Trump’s policies reverse the huge drop in the LFPR

Once again, you are playing partisan politics

Bush Jan 2009 LFPR; 65.5…..start/recession
June 2009…..recovery
Obama Jan 2010 LFPR; 64.7
Obama Jan 2011 LFPR; 64.2
Obama.Jan 2012 LFPR; 63.7
Obama Jan 2013 LFPR: 63.6
Obama Jan 2014 LFPR; 63.0
Obama Jan 2015 LFPR; 62.9
Obama Jan 2016 LFPR; 62.7
Obama Jan 2017 LFPR: 62.9…..up 0.2

A huge drop of Minus 2.6 over 7 years
Excluding recession; a drop of 1.8 over 6 years

NOTE; Jan 2017 I see a reverse with a + 0.2, and Trump certainly didn’t reverse it within 11 days after his inauguration.

Trump’s Jan 2017 LFPR; 62.9….start
Trump’s Jan 2020 LFPR; 63.4….up 0.5
Trump’s Jan 2021 LFPR; 61.4….down 1.5

Trump’s LFPR before 2020’s recession, up 0.5 over 3 years

Including recession, down 1.5 over 4 years.

Trump Jan 2021 LFPR; 61.4…..down 2.0 over one year

Biden’s Jan 2024 LFPR; 62.5…..up 1.1 over 3 years

THERE YOU AGO, I provided enough info for a partisan war, and IMO, Biden, Trump, and Biden’s are rationally incomparable….too many factors to take into consideration.

 

the progressive tax is politically appealing to politicians who want to pander to the public because they can promise the many handouts while only claiming the top one or two percent will see taxes increased.

If every time the government increased spending, EVERYONE had to pay more taxes, that would make pandering much harder to do

 

Most don't seem to understand or care, a 10% tax on 20,000 income is 2,000 taken out of the ability for those to buy food and other essentials.
IE, it's a larger % of their basic needs income compared to someone making 100,000

 

Because others have done that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. "Mommy, Sarah's mother said she could go." Equality is the best path in my view.

No doubt about that. With a monetary system backed by nothing and controlled by the spenders the future looks a bit dismal to me. We have lost the concept of equality in the U.S. Big mistake.

 

Stop posting your obfuscations tell me what equality do you seek. You have the actual numbers edit them to where you want them to be.