4 of 4
4
DNC 2012 -  Wow!
Posted: 19 September 2012 04:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

If my understanding is correct and the top 1% of society’s income is increasing, productivity is increasing, middle class income is declining, and more people are living below the poverty level, then it’s hard not to believe that there is something wrong with the way wealth is being distributed in this country.  It can’t just be claimed that lower and middle class people are lazy, productivity figures show that is not true.  The probable truth is that wealthy, powerful people have been able to influence and control the flow of income so they receive a larger share.  We can argue about just or fair, but I think that those people working harder and making less money clearly have a valid issue and are probably not going to remain satisfied with this situation.

So isn’t the debate about taxes really a way to address this?  Taxes are effective, democratic tools, which can be used to encourage a more fair income distribution. While the term “income redistribution” is used as a pejorative by some, I don’t have a problem with the tax system functioning this way, it beats a revolution, or a totalitarian government, two other ways to address this problem which come to mind.  The current conservative cant is that somehow people who want to see wealth more fairly distributed are lazy, conniving, parasites.  That’s an insult to millions of hardworking middle class United States citizens.

[ Edited: 19 September 2012 09:53 AM by Jeciron ]
 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Write4U - 19 September 2012 01:25 AM

I am not trying to argue that in principle higher income people do not pay higher rates.

I am curious to know why there are about 7000 millionaires who do not pay federal income tax. Apparently they have managed to become recipients of this wealth distribution program.

Or not.

Janice Johnson and Jay Safier, members of the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants, and Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, explained the likely reasons.

Such tax filers probably have big portfolios and big investment losses from the 2008 financial crisis. They are also more likely to be retired or self-employed, and may be charitably inclined.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/pf/taxes/millionaires_income_tax/index.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/1500-millionaires-pay-income-tax/story?id=14242254

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0415/Tax-Day-101-How-some-millionaires-can-owe-no-taxes

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

I guess that you have to consider the “burden” of making so much money on corporate income that it lowers your personal income tax rate to next to nothing.  Not to mention the burden of having to pay tax accountants to find all of the loopholes you need or the burden of having to support lobbyists and to pay off politicians to create said loopholes.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 19 September 2012 12:48 PM

I guess that you have to consider the “burden” of making so much money on corporate income that it lowers your personal income tax rate to next to nothing.  Not to mention the burden of having to pay tax accountants to find all of the loopholes you need or the burden of having to support lobbyists and to pay off politicians to create said loopholes.

Hey, let’s play games with the word “burden” so that we can gloss over the fact that the U.S. income tax system is highly progressive!

Everybody play!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

Of course the federal income tax is progressive, as it should be.  But calling corporate income tax, a tax burden is playing games with the word burden.

Alternatively, perhaps a flat tax would be more fair, but only if it is a flat tax of net worth.  Those who enjoy the gains of our society, the most, would then pay their fair share, as would those who experience actual burdens in our society. Let’s not have any tax on income, or payroll taxes, or on gasoline, or sales tax, no taxes at all, except only tax net worth, at a flat rate -  no loopholes.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4