Quote:
Originally Posted by wincrasher
If you read the article, it goes on to say that if you include SS taxes that the percentage drops to 24%. It also gives the percentages by income range. But 47% makes a more sensational headline. Makes you wonder what their political motivations are?
Although I think an argument could be made that all citizens should have "skin in the game", the unfortunate reality is that the ranks of the under $30k crowd are growing. It's pretty hard to raise a family on that level of income. Asking them to pay more taxes now is quite alot to ask.
I see in articles alot of information about earned income at the higher end. It's harder to find figures on wealth held. I've seen a figure of the top 1% holding 95% of the wealth - the truly rich are probably more asset heavy than earned income heavy.
The proper strategy would be to figure out how we can move people up into a viable middle class. Increase incomes and the tax problem fixes itself.
|
First, know this post is tongue and cheek
there are 2 ways to think about it-
the poor need to pay more, so the current level of spending and programs can be sustained
or
the rich need to pay less and the current level of spending and programs needs to be cut proportionally.
I found it interesting your reaction was "the poor cannot afford to pay more" and to that my tongue in cheek response is "that does not mean the rich can afford to pay more either".