Then your talking less than 1%, according to the IRS and census. Do you think the tax hikes your proposing, on such a small population would have a big effect on balancing the budget? Is so, can you support that theory with any data?
OK, let's restrict it to the top 1% then. I've read different numbers, but it's easier to find all the numbers on the top 1% then the top 1.5% anyway. So, let's just say the top 1% is rich.
Now, yes, I do believe tax increases on just that segment of society can have a big effect on balancing the budget. That group has a total income of about $2 trillion. If you take an extra 10% of all of that, that's $200 billion. That doesn't balance the budget, but it sure does a good bit. Along with that can also be budget cuts and other tax increase on held wealth. And that's just on the top 1%.
Do you care to present some data to support that theory?
Well, I could with a bit of time, but it's actually not really important. The owners of the large businesses that make millions of dollars, even if they are creating as many jobs as small businesses, aren't going to stop creating as many jobs if they're taking home a bit less money. Someone making $250,000 supporting his family, while still well off, could realistically cut some funds from his business, if he started making $20,000 less a year. Someone making $2 million isn't in the same situation. If it's at all profitable to create more jobs, that person will do it. If it's not, they won't.
Care to present anything backing this up? What evidence do you have that makes you think one scenario is more likely than another?
History. As has been talked about recently in this thread. In the 90s the GDP went up significantly, as did taxes and revenue as percentage of GDP. And by the end of the 90s the budget was nearly balanced. So, that's a good example of raising taxes (mainly on the top tax brackets) with positive results for the economy.
Are the only two variables your looking at income tax rates vs GDP?
No, the economy as a whole.
See, this completely left field, in regards to progressive vs flat tax, the "rich" and their "fair share," and moral obligation to fund society.
Increasing the tax burden in the "rich" (who now seems to be less than 1% of the population.) only "redistributes wealth," if you turn around and spend it on some sort of payout to other non-rich people. So, how can we redistribute wealth, by raising taxes on the "rich" and then spending that extra money on non-rich, while, decreasing spending and balancing the budget at the same time? You've previously said the "rich" weren't paying their fair share because of the large deficit, now your claiming it's not so much they aren't funding enough of society, but that have too much, and it needs to be taken away.
This is a MUCH different argument than "fair share."
No, it's not. Part of the problem with these debates is that they start off on one subject and move to several others. Then you only get pieces of the whole puzzle. What needs to happen is better wealth equality overall. We're pretty bad in that department as compared with many industrialized countries. Think of it this way:
On one end of the spectrum you have a third-world country like Somalia where wealth equality is horrible and you have warlords in power. On the other end you have a complete communist state. Ideally what you want is somewhere in the middle. You don't want communism because the ability to better your situation is important. But you also don't want a system that's just dog-eat-dog and anything goes like Somalia. You want a good amount of wealth equality, because it's good for the economy and good for the country as a whole, but you also want the ability to move around economically. If you're lower class, you want to have the possibility of moving up economically.
So, the higher taxes would be a means to that end, but they'd also be a means to the end of balancing the budget. As I said, we'd still need a good bit of cuts. But yes, we'd also need some extra measures for the lower classes.
The word "fair" implies morality. By saying the rich have an un-fair share, means their not meeting their moral obligation to pay whats "fair." YOUR the one framing this as a moral duty. If this wasn't about morality, I would just reply with, who said the "rich" had to pay what was fair? Whats the problem with the "rich" paying an un-farily low tax rate? It would be "wrong" You've made it a question of morality.
No. As I said, they're playing by the rules. If you want to bring up morality, it has to be in reference to the rules themselves, not the people following them. Saying the portion the rich pay is unfair is not implying that they're doing anything immoral.
I would expect the upper income earners to shoulder a higher tax burden, yes. And they currently do.
OK, and here is the biggest problem we're having. When I do break it down in detail for you, all you do is misinterpret it and then later say I need to explain what I've already explained.
The point of that part was not that you'd expect the upper income earners to pay more, but you'd expect them to pay a huge amount more when the income disparity is that great. My point is in the specific numbers and how they apply, not a general "more or less".
But you still claim this is not enough. The answer I've been trying to get out of you is, why? Why the top 1% paying 40% of income taxes collected un-fairly low? Why do you not consider that a "fair share?" And what do you consider a "fair share?" 50%? What moral reasoning states that 40% is un-fair while 50% is fair?
Then that will logically lead us to, after we have established what is a "fair share," to what tax rate will achieve that "fair share?" Will taxing less than 1% of tax payers at 40% increase their percentage of all income tax collected to that magical "fair share" level?
See what I mean? I just explained it in full detail. You then ignore my explanation, post a stat that I used in my explanation, and ask me to explain my position...again.
I'll try again, but please listen this time.
Let's assume an average household needs $20,000 to survive on. Now let's see the average income of a household in each group - the lower 50% and the top 1%.
Lower 50% - $20,000
Top 1% - $1.81 million
So, after subtracting enough money to live on, we see that the 50% have $0. We also see that the 1% have (rounded off very generously) $1.8 million.
If we only consider income above that $20,000 to be tax liable (since it's hard to ask someone making just enough to eat, have shelter and clothing and transportation to pay taxes, even though they do pay 3%), then we get a much different story than "They make 5 times more and pay 20 times more".
When we have 50% of the country making just enough to get by, there's a problem with the wealth distribution. 40 years ago, almost no CEO made over 30 times more than his average employee. Now it's not uncommon for a CEO to make 235 times his average employee. The problem is that for the average American the cost of living has gone up more than their pay has.
But you haven't come to any conclusions... except their not paying enough. You haven't claimed why it's not enough.
The conclusions I've come to are that we have too much wealth inequality, and part of that is the tax burden being unfairly divied out.
You've said you think a tax rate of "about 42% for everything over $2 million" seems "fair." But you've failed to explain why. You mentioned the deficit before, which would logically bring the question, will that tax rate on that small percent of the population do anything to help the deficit? If not, its a moot point.
Unless you think its unfair, not because we have huge deficits and that the lower wage earners are stuck unfairly taxed to make up for it, (which we've shown isn't the case) but that you just think "rich" people have too much money. Then its not a question about taxation, but a question about how much private property value is one allowed to have in our society... a VERY different issue.
The point is that we need certain things. We need to balance the budget, and we need to make life easier on people making below the average salary. Part of that is getting a bigger contribution from the people at the top.
