🚀 go-pugleaf

skg@sadr.com (Keith Graham) writes:

>>> Ah, the "Let's give the rich even MORE money, screw the poor
>>> and middle class" tax.

>> How does this compute?  If I make 10,000 a year, I would pay 1,500.00
>> Now If I made 100,000 a year I would pay 15,000 a year. 
>> Fifteen percent is fifteen percent.

> For whatever it's worth, the vast majority of the taxes paid in this
> country are by the top few percentage of wage earners.   We'd hardly
> notice if the bottom half of the families (ranked by income) stopped
> paying taxes.

That is the misconception right there.  While someone poor may not
pay much, there are many poor people.  There are very few rich people.
If you could charge the rich 100% it wouldn't make much difference.

> Given that you're "paying your share" when your tax rate is equal to
> the total income taxes divided by the total national income,
> the bottom three quarters (4/5's?) of the population isn't "paying 
> their share".   The top 10% is paying something like 75% of the taxes
> in this country, and the top 50% is paying something like 98%.

Nope.  The top 10% is not rich, maybe the top 1% is rich.
That of course depends on your definition, but most people
would put most of the top 10% in the (upper?) middle class.

> Almost any scheme that reduces the high end rate below the current
> 30'ish percentage is going to reduce the taxes on the wealthy.  And
> if the government keeps it's budget the same, that means that other
> people will have to make up the slack.

> The previous is entirely intended to be "facts", and is not intended
> to promote any given tax scheme.   

> Personally, I'd just as soon the government audit businesses for 
> sales tax, rather than private individuals.  None of their business
> how I spent my money last year.

No kidding.