Paying Less at the Top

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[rade2rising 205]

disgraceful

[^_^ 5,021]

Those income categories are interesting.

[Danno 1,228]

Get off these peoples back and let them make money, why should they pay a higher percentage than anyone else?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Those income categories are interesting.

According to Steven's chart, all those folks making more than $100K are paying more than their fair share, as a percentage of income, and in total payments. It looks like the progressive taxing scheme is working as intended.

[unlockingsky 94]

time to find more loopholes. lol

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

According to Steven's chart, all those folks making more than $100K are paying more than their fair share, as a percentage of income, and in total payments. It looks like the progressive taxing scheme is working as intended.

In big picture terms, yes. There are these anomalies at the very bottom of the income scale and at the very top. And that's just the federal income tax we're looking at here. Once you look at the total tax burden, the tax system is barely progressive. If you'd take away the progressive nature of the federal tax system, then overall taxation would actually be regressive.

If you look at state and local taxes, this is what the picture looks like:

FICA and federal excise taxes are regressive as well:

[mawilson 2,133]

So basically the so-called "middle class" is hardly paying anything at all (7.5 percent under 100k - what a joke), while the so-called "rich" are getting screwed.

I've been saying it all along.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So basically the so-called "middle class" is hardly paying anything at all (7.5 percent under 100k - what a joke), while the so-called "rich" are getting screwed.

I've been saying it all along.

If your income is ten to seventy seven million a year, or over seventy seven million a year, it is probably erroneous grammatically and financially to use the 'so called' qualifier.

[mawilson 2,133]

If your income is ten to seventy seven million a year, or over seventy seven million a year, it is probably erroneous grammatically and financially to use the 'so called' qualifier.

Those who make between $200k and $77.4 million are getting screwed. Those who make more than $77.4 million have a decent rate.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Those who make between $200k and $77.4 million are getting screwed. Those who make more than $77.4 million have a decent rate.

Seems that total taxation is well in line with income distribution. Why pretend that all that matters are federal income taxes - the only taxes that are somewhat progressive - and disregard all other taxes which are largely regressive? Why not look at the whole picture and recognize that each group pays roughly the same share in taxes that it derives in income?

[dalegg 143]

So this is a push to raise capitol gains taxes. Go ahead, do it, I dare you. Wait until those statistics are pushed out. Maybe finally this discussion will be over.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So this is a push to raise capitol gains taxes. Go ahead, do it, I dare you. Wait until those statistics are pushed out. Maybe finally this discussion will be over.

No, we need to make sure that earned income is taxed heavy and passive income is left alone. Where would this country be if actual work was rewarded?

[mawilson 2,133]

Why pretend that all that matters are federal income taxes - the only taxes that are somewhat progressive - and disregard all other taxes which are largely regressive?

Because once you go beyond a certain income level, state and local taxes are peanuts compared to federal taxes, even in a high tax state like New York.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Because once you go beyond a certain income level, state and local taxes are peanuts compared to federal taxes, even in a high tax state like New York.

They aren't peanuts when you're well below that rarified athmosphere of income. And they can't be dodged by tax gimmicks either.