How will the Dems manage to muck THIS up?- Page 2

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 4/22/11 at 4:56am

Cher and Stephen King have both basically said publicly, "I make more money more easily than the average American. I should pay more taxes." I can't help but to agree. A CEO making millions isn't working harder than the mother of four I know who just had to take an 8PM-4AM shift at McDonald's to make ends meet.

The fact that there are large for-profit corporations that pay NO taxes is baffling. The US can't provide healthcare to their citizens. People are DYING because they can't get coverage. Others are fighting to put food on the table. What they can afford is so full of preservatives and growth hormones that 50% of the country is obese. The more you make, the more you should be taxed.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/22/11 at 3:43pm

JerseyGirl - that's the argument that pisses me off more than any other: "Why should the rich who earned the money they made have to pay more?"
The CLEAR implication is they worked harder than those who didn't make the same money. I'm sorry, but a hedge fund manager did not, has not, and will never work harder than teachers, cops, or firefighters.

My wife and I were talking about this earlier - how most of the rich celebrities will say right out: tax me more, I make enough.

If I ever get rich, I will have no problem paying more.

2% to someone who has a million dollars is 20,000. 2% to someone making 60,000 is 1,200. 1,200 is (most of) a mortage payment, or part of a vacation, or a month's spending money.
20,000 to a millionaire is a part of fourth car's payment.

Yes, let's heap the taxes on the middle class.

[Q]

Posted: 4/22/11 at 3:51pm

"the top 2 % pay 40 % of the taxes"

The fact that those two figures both use the percentage sign does not mean they have any relationship to each other - in fact, they most definitely do not.

[jasonf]

Posted: 4/22/11 at 4:51pm

Let's imagine the total taxes taken in were 1,000,000.
According to the 2% paying 40%, that would mean 400,000 of that was paid for by the top 2% of earners.
Let's pretend the country was made of 100 people.

The 600,000 remainder would be made up by the other 98% - a total of about 6,100 dollars per person on average. Since we need an average here, let's say each person is paying a flat 20% (an average of those who make between 8000 and 82000). That would mean (again, average) each person made 30,500.

The 2% will be charged 35%.

To pay 200,000 on taxes, each of those people will have made 571,000 dollars.

So to clarify.

98% of people, each making $30,500, make up 600,000 of the total.
(spending 6100 each on taxes) -- They are now each making 24,400.
(which, by the way, is slightly above the poverty line for a family of 4 - http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2010/03/what-is-poverty-in-america-national.html)

2%, each making $571,000, make up 400,000 (each spending 200,000, and taking home 371,000 each).

Let's say we had to make up another million dollars. Let's say simply DOUBLE everyone's taxes.

Now the rich are each taking home 171,000, the poor are now taking home, on average, 18,300 per year, or the poverty line for a family of 3.

We now have 2 people making 171,000 dollars, still pretty damn well off even now, while 98 people are at the poverty line. And - AND - this is with the rich actually PAYING that extra percent, which they DON'T!

Explain to me again why the rich shouldn't get taxed more to fix our problems, and why the poor and middle class should be shouldering this entire burden without increasing the rich people's taxes?

Of course, this is a vast over-simplification of the problem. The rich have WAY more money than what my sample shows here, and the poor have WAY less. Even in this example, it's hard to argue that that 98% should be taxed more heavily and the rich given so many breaks.