Who Pays Taxes in America? America’s tax system as a whole is just barely progressive.

[dalegg 143]

1) The tax cuts get more and more expensive each year to finance. We'll be paying over $600 billion a year in debt interest by the early 2020s (currently about $230 billion)...So quoting "the next two years" at $558 billion is still barely off from my $500 a year estimate. Throw in the wars and I was even more accurate which is the part I mistakenly left out. Bottom line is we can trim hundreds and hundreds of billions off our deficit if we adjust these 2 policies. It would be the conservative thing to do but in modern day politics fiscal conservative = what conservatives think liberals are (big spenders). It is now the complete opposite, a liberal is really the fiscal conservative!

2) My left leaning source says war + tax cuts will make up about $10 trillion of our estimated $20 trillion debt by 2019. And they are very accurate in my oppinion!

Well, sure, but I don't see anyone seriously talking about adjusting these policies, so you can just count that out. A $500 billion a year estimate only happens 10 years from now. Currently it's about 250 Billion and I can't see how being off by 100% is "barely". War costs were not part of your original assertion either..so no fair citing those now!

"Get rid of Bush's Tax Cuts and you would immediately "shrink government (reduce deficits)" by, oh, about a half a trillion (with T) dollars each year from the budget"

I don't see anything about war costs in this statement here.

Edited April 8, 2012 by dalegg

[Póg mo 1,749]

The rich still pay most of the taxes.

From a very superficial prospective I'm sure they do, but then again I'm also quite sure they benefit on the whole a lot more from government spending, tax incentives, than people on a lower income. Simple fact is, rich people are more likely to vote, contribute to political fund raisers etc, so it's hard for me to believe that wealthy people are somehow going to create a system by choice, where they pay more taxes than people much further down the proverbial totem pole than they are, without some form of extra benefit in other areas.

[mawilson 2,133]

From a very superficial prospective I'm sure they do, but then again I'm also quite sure they benefit on the whole a lot more from government spending, tax incentives, than people on a lower income.

They do? How so? They don't need welfare or handouts, don't use public transport and don't send their kids to public schools.

If anything, they benefit less from government spending, while paying for most of it.

[Póg mo 1,749]

They do? How so? They don't need welfare or handouts, don't use public transport and don't send their kids to public schools.

They don't use public road, employee people who were educated in public schools or attend universities largely underwritten by government taxes, how about benefiting from the police and fire departments, or the prison services, the coast guard, the navy, the armed forces, the forestry services, Marshall services are all I guess self funding and provide no benefit to wealthy Americans, nor I'm sure do any of these institutions award private contracts to wealthy people either. The defense department I also suppose doesn't award contracts either, and every dollar spent by each of the agencies that I've listed above is always accounted for without a single penny going missing.

If anything, they benefit less from government spending, while paying for most of it.

Grow up.

Edited April 9, 2012 by InKorea

[james&olya 1,121]

They do? How so? They don't need welfare or handouts, don't use public transport and don't send their kids to public schools.

If anything, they benefit less from government spending, while paying for most of it.

Without the societal structures in place, also known as government, they would not have a basis to become millionaires. Of course they benefit from government spending, hugely!!!

[mawilson 2,133]

They don't use public road, employee people who were educated in public schools or attend universities largely underwritten by government taxes, how about benefiting from the police and fire departments, or the prison services, the coast guard, the navy, the armed forces, the forestry services, Marshall services are all I guess self funding and provide no benefit to wealthy Americans, nor I'm sure do any of these institutions award private contracts to wealthy people either. The defense department I also suppose doesn't award contracts either, and every dollar spent by each of the agencies that I've listed above is always accounted for without a single penny going missing.

Everyone benefits from the armed forces, the police, fire department, public roads, etc. You still haven't explained how the wealthy use these services more than the poor.

[mawilson 2,133]

Without the societal structures in place, also known as government, they would not have a basis to become millionaires. Of course they benefit from government spending, hugely!!!

The choice need not be binary - government vs no government. We had societal structures in place a hundred years ago, when the federal tax was 0 (yes, zero) percent. (The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913.) Millionaires existed then too.

[slim 1,533]

From a very superficial prospective I'm sure they do, but then again I'm also quite sure they benefit on the whole a lot more from government spending, tax incentives, than people on a lower income. Simple fact is, rich people are more likely to vote, contribute to political fund raisers etc, so it's hard for me to believe that wealthy people are somehow going to create a system by choice, where they pay more taxes than people much further down the proverbial totem pole than they are, without some form of extra benefit in other areas.

So, rich people, who "benefit" from all this public money and infrastructure do moreso than poor people who also benefit exactly how the rich people do - and on top of it take all the free money from the rich people for their very existence.

One of these groups can exist without the other.

One cannot.

They don't use public road, employee people who were educated in public schools or attend universities largely underwritten by government taxes, how about benefiting from the police and fire departments, or the prison services, the coast guard, the navy, the armed forces, the forestry services, Marshall services are all I guess self funding and provide no benefit to wealthy Americans, nor I'm sure do any of these institutions award private contracts to wealthy people either. The defense department I also suppose doesn't award contracts either, and every dollar spent by each of the agencies that I've listed above is always accounted for without a single penny going missing.

Grow up.

So, let me get this straight... the poor people, who benefit from everything you listed above, are somehow not benefitting as much from all the free money taken from the rich people as the rich people themselves who make it on their own?

I'm fascinated by the lefty argument of "Well, the rich didn't get that way on their own." because that's not an American argument. That's a socialist/fascist argument and it's one that has no place in our society. We collectively own the infrastructure of our country. We collectively own the defense and interstate commerce. What you do with it is entirely up to you.

It's so easy to be rich in America that it's like cheating. If you're poor in America, you've chosen to be that way. You've made the active choice to make stupid decision after stupid decision and live an unprofitable lifestyle. That's completely within the realm of personal freedom and it's not my choice to make for anyone. Yet, I'm stuck with the bill. Why is that?

The choice need not be binary - government vs no government. We had societal structures in place a hundred years ago, when the federal tax was 0 (yes, zero) percent. (The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913.) Millionaires existed then too.

You and your pesky facts.

I've been baffling my lefty-** buddies the past few months with such queries as, "Are we safer in the skies than we were in the 1990s? Do we have less drugs now than we did in the 1980s? Is the education system better now than it was in the 1970s? Are we less dependent on foreign oil now than we were in the 1970s? Are poor people better off today than they were in the 1960s?"

Of course they say no and I take that opportunity to remind them of all the "new" government agencies created to help us deal with all these big "problems" we've been having. Most of the young folks never realized the majority of our federal government is less than 100 years old. Most of the old folks yearn for the days of yesteryear...

[Póg mo 1,749]

The choice need not be binary - government vs no government. We had societal structures in place a hundred years ago, when the federal tax was 0 (yes, zero) percent. (The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913.) Millionaires existed then too.

That's great, now explain how exactly the US government is supposed to fund the military industrial complex, public highways, education, etc without major cutbacks and last I checked, Republicans and most Democrats weren't exactly falling over themselves to cut military spending. Quite the opposite in fact. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of smaller government, but until such time as when somebody comes up with actual workable plan to cut spending, and not just taxes, while increasing borrowing then I believe taxes must be levied and paid.

It is simply not fair to expect the poorest sections of society to shoulder all of the pain of cutbacks whilst, saying that ya, you guys are stupid and therefore less worthy of government spending, than that of the people who helped drive the US economy into a wall.

[mawilson 2,133]

That's great, now explain how exactly the US government is supposed to fund the military industrial complex, public highways, education

Transport infrastructure is supposed to be funded by the gasoline tax (which is a user fee - if you don't use it, you don't pay for it.)

The Constitution places responsibility for education in the hands of state and local governments and administrators. The federal role in education should be limited to developing national standards, possibly a national education curriculum. The bureaucratic monstrosity that is the (Federal) Department of Education (a Jimmy Carter creation) should be reduced in size or eliminated completely.

The military industrial complex? You got me here. We're probably stuck with it for the foreseeable future.

[mawilson 2,133]

It is simply not fair to expect the poorest sections of society to shoulder all of the pain of cutbacks

But that's exactly what's going to happen if we do nothing to reform the entitlement programs (biggest driver of the deficit).

[Póg mo 1,749]

But that's exactly what's going to happen if we do nothing to reform the entitlement programs (biggest driver of the deficit).

Okay, which "entitlement"(I really do love rightwing terminology) programs do you have in mind?

[Póg mo 1,749]

Everyone benefits from the armed forces, the police, fire department, public roads, etc. You still haven't explained how the wealthy use these services more than the poor.

Well if you own a business that say supplies the Army with certain services, it only stands to reason that you will benefit more than private citizens who don't own or are part of your business. All those lobbyiests in Washington aren't doing what they do, just for the good of their health. Anybody who contributes a small fortune to a political campaign wants something in return.

[slim 1,533]

Well if you own a business that say supplies the Army with certain services, it only stands to reason that you will benefit more than private citizens who don't own or are part of your business.

Is there something specifically prohibiting those poor people from starting businesses and supplying the Army with stuff?

[luckytxn 2,265]

I am just curious. The rich pay most of the taxes now. What higher percentage of the taxes doe's everyone want the rich to pay? Now remember almost half of the taxpayers pays no taxes at all.