Top 3% of Taxpayers paid majority of income taxes in 2016.

I think the solution is to dramatically limit the government to only it's core functions and then the top 10% pays 100% of the cost to operate the government. Done.

 

You lost:

Next thread.

 

I mostly agree with you. But who wants to live in a society with children starving and the elderly dying in the street? We all have moral obligations to our country.

 

That is an issue with the people in the country, not the government. There will always be hungry people. There will always poor people who put themselves in a hole. The entire creation of welfare was to help the people that need it, short term, not to use it as a way of life. Food banks, shelters, charity are helping people at unbelievable rates and have throughout history. The government has done a considerable job with entitlements for those that need it.

It's time people become responsible for their own actions and choices in life.

 

Yep, we have a moral obligation to help others with our own money. It’s not charitable to share other people’s money. It’s theft.

 

I’m beginning to understand why the story of Robin Hood is retooled and retold every decade.

 

I agree. What to do if there's not enough charity to keep kids from starving?

 

If there are that many children starving it’s intentional child abuse. There is more than enough charity to cover legitimate hunger problems in this country. Even charity should not enable bad behavior. Government programs less so because it isn’t their money—it’s mine. Neither private charity or government should create codependency.

 

Using new technologies, or things that we can easily build as many of as we want to, is not the best example.

Why don't you think about things like scarce housing space around a highly populated city where better job opportunities exist?
It's not as easy to stretch the supply of things like that.

To some extent many agricultural commodities are also a little bit like that. They can expand production, but it's not as efficient to do so, because there are finite things like optimal farmland and water supply. So there obviously is some degree of zero sum component to that. Not a big degree, but this can make a big difference if you're an impoverished person in Mexico and a small cost rise would pose a burden to you.

 

Because of course if the government income is based on consumption a method of accuratly tracking consumption will become a necessity. That should be obvious.

 

And yet, what I've proposed -- a tax code with no 'goodies' or 'special treatment' in it for anyone is the only one that would be FAIR. I'm interested in a tax system that treats you, me, and every other citizen of the United States completely fairly. Don't worry -- it'll NEVER happen.

As it is, we've already seen that beginning in August 2007, the Federal Reserve started smashing interest rates on savings into the dirt, even though the demand for real, spendable dollars was ACUTE. So, the Fed simply created hundreds of billions of new dollars from their imagination, stuffed the money into client-banks (and throughout the world), and saved those who they considered to be "too big to fail". How was that fair to people who actually SAVED money in order to build wealth (and, maybe to buy one of your houses)?

Fair and equal -- that's what I want the U. S. Tax Code to be. Yes, it'll have to have several different 'brackets' in all likelihood, but if all the special 'breaks' and write-off's are done away with, at least it would be FAIR.

 

"Top 3% of Taxpayers paid majority of income taxes in 2016."

they also took in most of the income... duh

the sad thing is they payed less per dollar earned then many of us did

are you seriously saying the super rich like this 3% should pay less tax per dollar they earn then you or I do?

why so some on the right always attack the middle class and what to take away their social security and stuff, but think the top 3% need more then they already have

little hint, the 3% are doing just fine, they don't need any more tax cuts

 

Trump says that makes them smart....

I think everyone should make enough money to pay taxes, let's raise the min wage to a living wage

 

exactly, if I go to a store and buy $1000 of stuff, and you buy $10.... that doesn't mean I was unfairly taxed cause I paid more tax, it means I was taxed on more dollars cause I spent more dollars.. we were both taxed exactly the same

I really do not get how so many republicans fall for this nonsense about the rich paying more taxes then the rest of us

it's almost like some on the right want the rich to be richer and the rest of us to be poorer

 

ROFL well no it is not, how do you think state and local governments finance themselves? Consumption taxes, sales and excise taxes. Businesses ALREADY report sales tax collections to state and local they could just as easily report it to the US Treasury. It's also called a gross receipts tax.

 

If you had to pay 20% sales tax on your $1000 of stuff and the the person who bought $10 actually got a rebate of $2, would you consider that fair?

 

And paid disproportionally more, HUGELY disproportionately more in taxes.

 

So you want to raise taxes on the lowest earners, how telling.

 

And how fo you propose to audit?

 

they did not, in fact we saw Romey's taxes and he paid less taxes per dollar then I did

trump wont show us his, but he said paying less taxes makes him smart....

I think the middle class should be taxed less then they are and the 10% should pay more tax then they do per dollar they earn

 

LOL - I paid less "per dollar" than you did too. But you didn't give $4 million to charity like Romney did, either.

 

It isn't about a "fair share". Tax law is not used just for raising revenue. It can and should also be used to prevent the corporate elite from using related law to amass unreasonable wealth to the point where we have the huge income and wealth disparity that we have. It is harmful to democracy and it is closely entangled with the destruction and diminution of the middle class. If the top tax bracket were, say, 80% on income over $1 million, history shows that the top corporate elite would invest that excess in business for a tax write-off and grow the business instead of taking it as taxable income.

And that process of increasing income disparity didn't lead just to the top 1% paying more in taxes than the bottom 90%, but at least as importantly it also led to the bottom half of workers earning so little that they not only don't qualify for payment of income taxes, but they also DO qualify for public assistance.
So if you don't like the top 1% paying so large a share of income taxes, do something about the bottom half earning so little.

 

Tax law to limit wealth, wow at least your honest I guess. Sir this is America and wealth is the very reason why we're the greatest nation in the world.

 

Socialists and Marxists never get it. Destroying the wealthy doesn't fix anything.

 

You're (I mean "your") forgetting that this is exactly what was done in 1944, 45, 46, 47, ........ up to 1981. And because it was smarter to invest business income back into the business for a write-off rather than pay the high personal income tax rate, the nation thrived and grew great. The wealth you refer to which made America great was not personal wealth so much as it was business wealth.