AIG

[lookout123]

Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?

Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?

Originally Posted by lookout123

Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?

Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?

A $couple hundred billion in revenue over the next 3-4 years?

IMO, trickle down economics doesnt work and the 5 or 6 marginal tax rates in 2000 were a reasonable representation of a progressive income tax system.

If I were to change those marginal tax rates, it would be to lower the rates a few % points for the middle two brackets...and not the top two or bottom one.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Oh see? Now you've actually posted a number which is acceptable number to you. Can you explain why 39% is more acceptable than 35%? Does it remove a burden from somewhere else? Does it help a program that otherwise does not exist? Does it stimulate the economy and help in job creation?

Really, what makes 39% better than 35%?

Because they can afford to pay more. And they don't actually pay that much anyway. I heard somewhere (in the Warren Buffet interview maybe?) that the newest results from the IRS indicated that the top 2% were only paying 17% in federal taxes. That is more than most people in the middle and at the bottom. How is that fair, exactly?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Because they can afford to pay more. And they don't actually pay that much anyway. I heard somewhere (in the Warren Buffet interview maybe?) that the newest results from the IRS indicated that the top 2% were only paying 17% in federal taxes. That is more than most people in the middle and at the bottom. How is that fair, exactly?

Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?

Originally Posted by lookout123

Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?

I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion...

Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.

The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion...

Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.

The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income.

In addition there are three other arguments in favor of progressive taxation.

1. Whether by accident of birth or hard work, the rich benefit more from the system as a whole. Ergo, they should pay more into it.

2. In the glory days of the Roman Empire, being a taxpayer was considered a badge of honor. "On my shoulders rests the state." When that attitude faded, so did the empire, as aristocracy faded to oligarchy, and duty faded to privilege.

3. That's where the money is.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Your definition of fair is that someone who earns more than you should pay a significantly higher percentage of their taxes even though they will probably benefit less from government programs than you? How did we ever come to define that as progressive or fair?

Good grief. Under Reagan, the darling of the republican party, how much did they pay? Over 50% I believe. and you somehow think it's fair that the people at the very top should be paying less than someone in the middle or at the bottom? IMO, the pay scale has gotten SO out of balance, if it isn't corrected, there will be riots in the streets eventually. People are sick to death of the top 2% getting away with robbery. IF the pay were more balanced, people wouldn't need all those government benefits, would they?