There were no such claims.
No, he noted that, "It’s also important to note that the U.S. income tax system has become more progressive since the 2017 tax cuts under former President Donald Trump, not less." The author cites the data ("approximately 39% to today’s 45.8%") to support the truth of his claim.
Regarding the code being "steeply progressive" the author notes, "... it’s impossible to intelligently argue that the U.S. tax system itself isn’t steeply progressive." You have yet to make an objective argument countering that statement.
In which of your posts did you correct the author's numbers?
No need to "sum up"; the author was quite succinct.
One can infer almost anything they can imagine; better to simply take the author literally: "... a reasonable equilibrium between someone’s share of income earned and their share of income taxes paid."
If you disagree then you ought to give us your alternative as to what constitutes a reasonably fair method to evaluate the fairness of the tax code.
No. I read your comment correctly and noted that it does not apply as a counter argument to the author's claim.
You can calculate his number for the bottom 50 from the information available about the total and the top 50.What do you now see?
If you ask a Libertarian, and there are plenty of them, they'll tell you Zero.Exactly what level of support, if ANY should government provide to it's poorest citizens?
If you ask a Libertarian, they'll tell you that these people should die. No government services, no taxes, no assistance even for poor children who will otherwise die. Every man, woman, and child for themselves.If these people are unable to get the necessary income to survive, what do you predict would be the next steps they would take?
You're taking percents of percents, which is misleading. Taxes are measured as a percentage of income, not as a percentage of a percentage of income.To be more precise, it jumped from 38.47% to 45.78%, which is an increase of 19%.
However, their share of income over that same span went from 21.04% (in 2017) to 26.3% (in 2021), which is an increase of 25%.
Consider the impact of losing 3% of your income when you're living paycheck to paycheck compared to the impact of losing 3% when you have millions in disposable income. Sure, it's a small enough percentage in this case that it's probably not going to make or break the first person, but it is going to impact their life more than it will the second person.How so?
I live in PA where we have flat state income tax of 3.07%. How do you think that disproportionately disadvantages Pennsylvanians with lower income?
You're taking percents of percents, which is misleading.
Taxes are measured as a percentage of income, not as a percentage of a percentage of income.
It would absolutely be accurate to say that the tax rate increased by 100%. It would not be accurate to say that it increased by 100 percentage points.If I pay a penny of tax on a million dollars, and next year I pay two pennies, a Republican might complain about a tax increase of 100%, but it wouldn't be accurate.
I heard that before and there are pros and cons for both I feel each person living in America should pay taxes now that I've heard how detrimental the debt is to America. I rented the first home I owned and enjoyed the benefits, I wrote off most the income from that property, If I can do it then those millionaires in government and high-paid white collar (CEO) workers probably enjoy the same to the tenth level because they can afford the high priced lawyers to do it for them. Maybe this is why nothing can be done about the tax system.Flat taxes are extraordinarily regressive in that they disproportionately disadvantage lower income taxpayers.
I'm torn about "taxing the rich" because we are making them pay for being successful.
Where do you think tax money goes? The back of Bob Menendez' freezer? It goes back into the economy. In many cases, more of it goes back into the economy than does what passes for "investments" amongst rich folks.One of the arguments against this is that it will hurt our economy because the rich won't be able to invest more in the economy. Conundrum
I was thinking more like 10% lol but you're probably right. When I say flat tax that includes doing away with all the other taxes including sales, property.... Also a flat tax in my state like PA.Consider the impact of losing 3% of your income when you're living paycheck to paycheck compared to the impact of losing 3% when you have millions in disposable income. Sure, it's a small enough percentage in this case that it's probably not going to make or break the first person, but it is going to impact their life more than it will the second person.
Now ramp that up to federal income tax levels (most flat tax plans call for a rate of 15-20%) and consider again.
That would require even higher tax rates. Also, those are state taxes, not federal. I can generally support folding sales tax into income tax - that's also a regressive tax, in that the greater percentage of your income that you spend, the more tax you pay. So, people who spend the majority of their income on taxable items end up paying more in sales tax (as a proportion of their income) than someone who invests or saves most of their income.When I say flat tax that includes doing away with all the other taxes including sales, property....
Consider the impact of losing 3% of your income when you're living paycheck to paycheck compared to the impact of losing 3% when you have millions in disposable income. Sure, it's a small enough percentage in this case that it's probably not going to make or break the first person, but it is going to impact their life more than it will the second person.
Now ramp that up to federal income tax levels (most flat tax plans call for a rate of 15-20%) and consider again.
The system isn't very complicated for individuals. The forms could be designed (a lot) better, but by and large, you get a W2, you enter your numbers, and you're done. Where it gets complicated is when you start taking deductions. Most people don't even have to worry about that because they don't itemize.I don't claim to have the answers, but our tax system is in dire need of overhaul and simplification.
Everyone in America does pay taxes - sales tax, gas tax, property tax (even by renters - they just pay indirectly). Not everyone pays income tax, but that's generally because it's deemed too much of a burden on people who make less than a certain amount of money.I heard that before and there are pros and cons for both I feel each person living in America should pay taxes now that I've heard how detrimental the debt is to America.
"Trickle down" economics has been proven not to work time and time again.I'm torn about "taxing the rich" because we are making them pay for being successful. One of the arguments against this is that it will hurt our economy because the rich won't be able to invest more in the economy. Conundrum
Can you give me an example are you talking about corporations?We're making them pay for the services that facilitate and, in some cases, directly subsidize their success.
Probably or maybe in Trump's and Biden's basement. The government doesn't know where all the tax dollars are going so don't ask me. One Trillion dollars every 100 days are going into the economy? We are reaching a point where the interest payments on our debt is going to cost us as much as social security. This interest payment does nothing for the economy but pays for borrowed money.Where do you think tax money goes? The back of Bob Menendez' freezer?
Sure, but when you cross that pre-bate threshold, you're still getting hammered with the maximum tax rate. I make about $65,000/year. My effective federal income tax rate is about 10%. In order to maintain that rate under a 20% flat income tax (assuming that FICA taxes aren't bundled with it), I would need a $32,500 deduction. Most plans that I've seen don't come close to this.However, most flat and/or fair tax plans I've seen also include some kind of pre-bate to address this imbalance.
No arguments that our tax system needs an overhaul - I'm just saying that a flat tax is not the answer. It's attractive because it's "easy", but the problem isn't that taxes are complicated (as @iluvatar5150 pointed out). It's that there are too many ways to avoid paying taxes if you have a lot of money.I don't claim to have the answers, but our tax system is in dire need of overhaul and simplification.
Can you give me an example
are you talking about corporations?
If that's what we're actually spending, yes.One Trillion dollars every 100 days are going into the economy?
I second that! Maybe we can ask AI because something has to be done and spending curtailed.don't claim to have the answers, but our tax system is in dire need of overhaul and simplification.
Works every single time, for the powerful people it is designed for not the people suckered into supporting it and waiting on the trickle to hit them."Trickle down" economics has been proven not to work time and time again.
Not 100% Because we give money overseas. I just copied 10 countries in 2024 that get the most and Afghanistan surprises me because the Taliban is getting our tax dollars and Yemen is launching bombs at our supply ships.. Ukraine is a no-brainer but we give your tax dollars to countries that don't like us.If that's what we're actually spending, yes.