Top 3% of Taxpayers paid majority of income taxes in 2016.

While your insatiable appetite for other people's stuff grows

 

No answer my question first.

Bluesguy said: ↑
And how much more "progressive" do you want it when the top already pay a HUGELY disproportionate share vis-a-vis their income and half paying practically nothing?

 

Yea and he pays a hugely higher effective tax rate.

 

OK but we're talking income taxes here not people's wealth which has nothing to do with taxes.

 

If you make more, it's ok to steal from you.
See how that works?

 

And the bottom 90% are growing just as well as the top .1%. Who cares that someone gets richer just because someone else is not getting as rich. You all still keep getting richer, stop being jealous of others doing better than you.

 

It’s not a matter of jealousy - I’m content with my financial situation - it’s a matter of identifying something that just about all economists see as a growing and alarming issue.

Income inequality will always exist in some shape or form but extreme wealth inequality like we are seeing isn’t typically sustainable. Why can none of you actually debate the topic instead of just making it about jealousy or greed (of the poor - y’all never have an issue with greed of the rich for some reason).

 

Left wing jealous economists believe that. Right wing ones don’t.

 

Wow. What a powerful argument. You sound so smart.

 

I have read quite a few analysis of income distribution and wealth inequality, some right wing think tanks have articles that attempt to show it isn’t a huge problem but none of them have shown it’s good or desirable. Pretty much all left and center/independent analysis have shown that it is an overall net negative.

Who benefits from a billionaire with hundreds of millions stashed in overseas bank accounts?

I would like to read any independent argument if you would care to post it.
Instead of just crying “jealousy” as your counter argument.

 

Why? What is your purpose in doing so? And you mean an effective rate of double what it is now?

 

I clearly said a top rate, not an effective rate. Why? To stymy income inequality and the rapid growth of wealth that the middle class is not experiencing, but the 1% is experiencing exponentially almost every year.

 

Don't people realize the economic life cycles most go through? When you are younger and in your 30's through 40's and start making lots of money and have a higher income but are buying houses and cars and raising kids and have little wealth accumulated compared to when you retire and have accumulated lots of wealth but have relatively little income and now you live off that principle wealth.
The left/progs are envious of both and want to tax away the income and then tax away the wealth because "its not fair".

 

You think taxing the balls off of guys making $450k is going to reverse this?

If a $17t economy grew at roughly 2% only, for 8 years, where is all this wealth coming from? How is it entering the system? Why is finance now approximately 25% of the economy?
Why is the mean price of a home over $300k, automobiles >$30k, tuition skyrocketing?

Debt, all with servicing costs to the debtor.
$1.3t per year, for four years running, entered the system, via QE and Fed, directed through the large wall street banks, where the Fed remove bad debt from their books, with no strings attached.
This money multiplied as new debt into the system via fractional reserve banking and drove up the price of every major asset through the roof via debt based purchasing. Debt, which is a claim on future productivity.

And you wonder why the money is flowing to the top and the middle class is falling behind?
It ain't the tax code.

 

Taxing the **** out of people making a few hundred grand is the answer?

 

Well what do you want the average effective rates to be and why would you give up the economic growth and revenues the tax systems is supposed to generate just to satisfy your envy of those who earn more than you. Why do you believe raising income taxes on the higher earners will increase the income of the lower earners?

 

The promise of free **** is too strong.
They want to live off of debt, experiencing lifestyles beyond their means, and make you support them when they are old and run out of money

 

A 3% increase on income over half a million is hardly taxing the **** out of people.

 

When you put it on top of what those people are already paying and do so simply to satisfy jealousy and envy it is.

 

The average effective rate for everyone? I’m not going to do those calculations because it’s entirely irrelevant to the discussion. And again, you’re premising your question with unverified accusations about how taxing the 1% will somehow dismantle economic growth and revenue. Why don’t you just once back up your claims before you insert them as facts into a question? Also, your last question is a pure strawman of what I said.

 

Prove that it’s to satisfy jealousy or envy. I’ll wait. Otherwise you’re just being a whiny baby and jumping to conclusions about the reasons I support more progressive taxation.

 

Obviously you dont understand orders of magnitude and the vast difference between $500,000 and $1,000,000,000.
The difference between $50K and $500K is indiscernible on a line graph representing $1B if you were to draw one on this page, yet you would clobber the **** out of those making $500k.
Can only be jealousy

 

Wtf are you taking about? $450,000 is about what it takes for an individual in the United States to be considered apart of the 1%. What does $1B have to do with anything? Where did that number come from? Of course it’s in a different league all together, but what the flying **** is your point?

 

Obviously you don't understand the magnitude of the wealth in the top .001%.
$500K ain't even in their time zone, let alone their ballpark.
To desire to inflict those rates at $500k can only be born out of envy

 

Which is why I also included a comment about supporting higher brackets when we get to over a few million dollars. Learn how to read.