Tax Distribution in the USA

[sirs]

[Plane]

  Where did you get this?

   I want to examine that math a bit.

[sirs]

The source of the numbers is the IRS.  The report on the numbers is found here

[Plane]

One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

   Hey, this is an excellent article!
     

     The poor are subsidized here, more than most of us realize.

      This would not be a problem if we were not getting new poor constantly.

        But if we have 12 million imports , nearly equal to our whole bottom 5%, why did they come?

        To convert our lowest 5% of earners to 10%?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The rich need to pay MORE, because they benefit more from the system.

[sirs]

THEY ALREADY DO

[Xavier_Onassis]

I mean they need to pay more than they do NOW, especially hedge fund managers who get a special rate.

Romney paid a rather measly 14% or $22 million. That was inadequate, considering that  the system gave him huge advantages.

[sirs]

I mean they need to pay more than they do NOW, especially hedge fund managers who get a special rate.

Why??  Just because they can??  NEWS FLASH.....THEY ALREADY ARE PAYING MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE.  Especially as it relates to how much their contribution to the Federal Income Tax bill.  Not every rich person is wealthy enough to simply live off their investments.  That's actually a small % of "the rich".  Now can you raise the taxes of every "rich person", and think that's going to pull the country out of the debt Obama and the Dems have put us in.  It won't even dent it, so again, WHY do they need to pay even more than they already do??

Romney paid a rather measly 14% or $22 million. That was inadequate, considering that  the system gave him huge advantages.

I love how the left tries to portray Romney (completely ignoring Soros and every other rich liberal who has become so successful, they no longer need to live off their income, and can simply live off their investments), as if they're getting away with something.  Before anyone can reach such a level of success, any income they generate, AS IN A JOB, is taxed just like you and me, with the wealthier one gets, the greater they're taxed, under our system.  And they're investments are ALSO taxed, so that "the rich" are most often being double taxed.  If by some measure of ability provides some of those to have made enough money from working and investments, that they can opt to the point of simply living off their investments alone, that demonstrates some incredible success.  And there you are, with your fellow socialists wanting to punish them for their success by making them pay even more on taxes, on their investemts now

[Plane]

I mean they need to pay more than they do NOW, especially hedge fund managers who get a special rate.

Romney paid a rather measly 14% or $22 million. That was inadequate, considering that  the system gave him huge advantages.

No .
This is not what you need and this is not what you mean.

What you REALLY need to see is greater subsidy of the things that you like , such as feeding the helplessly poor and assisting the ambitious poor with subsidies to education etc etc....

     There are already a lot of subsidy for our poor but you want to see more.

    Ok, Why not?

      But why insist that the rich pay higher tax rates, if this does not result in better rates of recipt to the government and again does not result in greater subsidy to the needy?

       Deserving or not is a very different question, right?

        So if you were to reduce a top rate guy from 35% to 25%, but the result was that he paid a higher total of taxes because he made 50% more money in these circumstances, and 35% of 100 million is less than 25% of 150 million.

       Perhaps the recipient of the subsidy is not deserving more of it , perhaps the millionaire is not deserving of the improvement in profit, but why care?

       Everyone who is rational has won at that point.

        The only losers would be those who refused to feel the win.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It would clearly result in more revenues. he idea that every tax cut earns even more money is bogus.

[Plane]

And ... The idea that every tax increase earns even more money is bogus.

  Sure...

  As a thought experiment compare the results of making the tax rate zero percent across the board.

   Tragic eh?

   Now imagine increasing the tax rate to 100% across the board ?

     The very same result right?

     The idea that no rate can be to high is ridiculous, but where is that line?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Obviously there is a percentage at which the amount received is at the maximum, after which any raise will result in less revenue received. But the Republicans never talk about this: their mantra is ALWAYS to lower taxes, especially on the rich, who coincidentally pay them most of their campaign receipts.

It only occasionally raises revenues when taxes are raised. Experience has been that lower rates result in fewer, not more jobs.

[sirs]

Wrong again....reality & history have demonstrated the exact opposite, in which when taxes brackets were lowered, there was a spike in employment, and the subsequent bump in increased tax generating revenues after they had been fully implemented, because of the increased job #'s.

- Occurred under Kennedy
- Occurred under Reagan
- Occurred under Bush II (even after the events of 911)

[Plane]

So what determines the ideal tax rate?

Is there any science for this?

[sirs]