This is the new tax structure

[jbander]

Well you see, the cost of government isn't proportional to GDP. It's all about gross dollars per citizen and %s how that tax burden will fall. Right now the marginal tax for those top income earners pay is 26-37%. You're suggesting we should try to push that up, yes? That number restricts income mobility into these outliers, less income is less wealth accumlation, pushing more people into the middle this can be seen in case after case. So I hope we agree there, yes?

Those high end income outliers even at lower % pay a lot of the gross. If those reduce the burden shifts more onto the middle/lower end, which requires higher tax rates as they have less income. For example in 2018, fed, state and local spend ~7.12 Trillion or $55,805 / household. The majority households could not afford their public share hence progressive taxation[a luxury of healthy top end income mobility with a healthy middle].

Median being in 2017: $61,372 per household $31,786 per capita. That puts the top end of the middle class at $122,744. You must get the current rate would have to raise if you reduce those at the top to a range of $47,372-$122,744. Which is even more distorted when you take into account these are gross income dollars not net and not taking into account demographic factos.

Maybe you think, the same amount of income would come in absent the top end. That though is a proven falsehood. Foreign capital enters via the 0.1% as they have investment capacity to be overseas and patriate that income.As to your chart which suggests Sweden has a less healthy middle class than Brazil or Mexico. It is obviously is too superficial to be meaningful.

What do I mean?

Let's look, how demographics compare between a $200,000+ income household to a $20,000-$25,000 household, shall we:

$200,000+: 6% rural, 51% from lower cost living areas(south/midwest); 6% single person households; 14% seniors. Two earners+: 77%. Work full-time: 80%. University educated: 76%.

$20,000-25,000: 17% rural, 64% from lower cost living area(south/midwest); 49% single households, 40% seniors. Two earners: 8%. Work full-time: 31%. University educated: 17%.

You just not comparing apples to apples here assuming that those in $20,000-25,000 are going to be magically transported to higher brackets if you higher the taxation at the top to the point of being punative to incme mobility about 300% of the mean [hughy long rule].

You have no clue I'm done. anyone can put up a wall of gibberish to hide the fact that they don't have a clue. Lest try this , when the hell did I ever say that I wanted to raise taxes on the poor and middle class as you said. If you won't answer this, your done.

 

[apdst]

View attachment 67248392
This is what the tax structure has done for the last 55 years . my tax structure will turn that 180 deg for the next 55 years. Only seems fair. we as a country simply have to honor hard work over living off the money daddy gave them.

Communism doesn't work.

 

[jbander]

Communism doesn't work.

You associating communism with what I'm saying, show one thing, you have zero clue what communism is. Its hilarious. Not a clue buddy.

 

[Conaeolos]

When the hell did I ever say that I wanted to raise taxes on the poor and middle class as you said.

You didn't have to you implicated it by going after the top rate. Again, the total tax burden in 2018 was ~7.12 Trillion or $55,805 / household. $7.52 T this year. That's got to be raised one one or the other. How do you think that can be paid by a middle class without a healthy top(above middle) who are currently reducing that burden by over 70%? You think in those more equal countries their top 20% pay 70% of the burden?

anyone can put up a wall of gibberish

The fact you call that gibberish is concerning. Most of what I did was post some US census data on demographic differences between households stats of two income blocks: 200,000+[top 0.1%] and the 20,000-25,000[bottom 15th].

Let's talk that bottom 15th currently paying <1% of that tax burden shall we:

1/5 of those households are headed by people with less than a high-school diploma. Half are single person. They are more rural, more commonly from lower cost of living regions and are composed of 3x as many seniors [mostly living off fixed benefits]. Only 1/3 work full-time. 1/2 have no actual income earner[mostly seniors]. Only 1/5 have a family. 1/5 have a university education.

Bottom line is the amount of people in this group with the possibility of a higher income in the middle class zone is about 1/20th. The rest are pretty much fixed plus or minus a few thousand unless of course we significantly raise the tax burden by giving out better seniors benefits, and we have no idea if that 1/20th is even there by choice(wealth =/= income).

Meanwhile, these families you want to have a 180 in furtune with lowering buying power from already giving more ~40%(plus higher usage) and cutting the middle class tax burden by 85% income, 70% total. These households who are mostly working full-time plus, are mostly duel income, are over 90% married families with children, are overwhelmingly university educated…if you think they are not going to choose to work less, spend more time with their children or many consider emigrating (easy for the university educated) your kidding yourself.

The result of your policy is very little movement from the bottom to the middle class as you can't force those on fixed income or part-time workers and the tax rate is already low(although i would argue should be zero). The bills got to get paid so that tax burden will shift down as those high top rates to get your "180 change" over 55 years inevitably means giant increases just down the line on earner who can least afford it(middle class/lower).

It's been shown time and time again countries the world over.

You should be proud to be in a country that has a rich government, healthy top, healthy middle and relatively wealthy bottom. The data certainly shows there is work to be done, but it's not radical and as the top remains strong we can lower taxes and raise benefits for all! Unless you feel like paying the true bill. I for one like having the luxury of progressive taxation even if it means I have to sacrifice some of my yearly gains.

 

[apdst]

You associating communism with what I'm saying, show one thing, you have zero clue what communism is. Its hilarious. Not a clue buddy.

Tooooo easy:

Yup a tax structure that will turn around the distribution of family income 180 deg. from the chart below and to be fair we will do it for the same 55 years that the wealthy were handed all the new profit in this country.

Communist Manifesto
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

 

[jbander]

Tooooo easy:

This guy has no clue what communism is, but I will give him the chance to prove that he does, Go to a encyclopedia, get the main tenets of capitalism, come back and with that tenet show us where in this country there is communism. Bring your source. No personal definitions allowed. And I'll give you a tip the first tenet that is on every list I looked at,has to be there for communism or socialism to exist at all. Now we get to see this guy disappear, come back without a answer, try to bull**** his way through this, say he knows but doesn't have to tell us but he won't come back with a real tenet because he can't.

 

[veritas1]

Half the people pay no tax. That would seem rather unfair to the half who do. The top 1% pays 40% of all taxes. The solution to more even tax distribution is growing wealth from the bottom up, particularly in the middle class. The answer is not stealing from some to give to others, however popular it is in some circles.

 

[jbander]

You didn't have to you implicated it by going after the top rate. Again, the total tax burden in 2018 was ~7.12 Trillion or $55,805 / household. $7.52 T this year. That's got to be raised one one or the other. How do you think that can be paid by a middle class without a healthy top(above middle) who are currently reducing that burden by over 70%? You think in those more equal countries their top 20% pay 70% of the burden?


The fact you call that gibberish is concerning. Most of what I did was post some US census data on demographic differences between households stats of two income blocks: 200,000+[top 0.1%] and the 20,000-25,000[bottom 15th].

Let's talk that bottom 15th currently paying <1% of that tax burden shall we:

1/5 of those households are headed by people with less than a high-school diploma. Half are single person. They are more rural, more commonly from lower cost of living regions and are composed of 3x as many seniors [mostly living off fixed benefits]. Only 1/3 work full-time. 1/2 have no actual income earner[mostly seniors]. Only 1/5 have a family. 1/5 have a university education.

Bottom line is the amount of people in this group with the possibility of a higher income in the middle class zone is about 1/20th. The rest are pretty much fixed plus or minus a few thousand unless of course we significantly raise the tax burden by giving out better seniors benefits, and we have no idea if that 1/20th is even there by choice(wealth =/= income).

Meanwhile, these families you want to have a 180 in furtune with lowering buying power from already giving more ~40%(plus higher usage) and cutting the middle class tax burden by 85% income, 70% total. These households who are mostly working full-time plus, are mostly duel income, are over 90% married families with children, are overwhelmingly university educated…if you think they are not going to choose to work less, spend more time with their children or many consider emigrating (easy for the university educated) your kidding yourself.

The result of your policy is very little movement from the bottom to the middle class as you can't force those on fixed income or part-time workers and the tax rate is already low(although i would argue should be zero). The bills got to get paid so that tax burden will shift down as those high top rates to get your "180 change" over 55 years inevitably means giant increases just down the line on earner who can least afford it(middle class/lower).

It's been shown time and time again countries the world over.

You should be proud to be in a country that has a rich government, healthy top, healthy middle and relatively wealthy bottom. The data certainly shows there is work to be done, but it's not radical and as the top remains strong we can lower taxes and raise benefits for all! Unless you feel like paying the true bill. I for one like having the luxury of progressive taxation even if it means I have to sacrifice some of my yearly gains.

Go away you can't bull**** your way to be right. I'll make it simple for you and everyone else , you say I said or implicated that I was going to raise the taxes on the poor and middle class. Which is the last thing I would do, here is your quote on me telling you I never supported increase taxes on the middle class and poor. that you simply made that bull**** up ."You didn't have to you implicated it by going after the top rate." That is a biggest pile , there is absolutely no correlation of what I said about taxing the wealthy with automatically suggest that would mean a tax on the middle class and poor. Hell you can't even get past your first sentence with this goofball stuff.

 

[jbander]

You didn't have to you implicated it by going after the top rate. Again, the total tax burden in 2018 was ~7.12 Trillion or $55,805 / household. $7.52 T this year. That's got to be raised one one or the other. How do you think that can be paid by a middle class without a healthy top(above middle) who are currently reducing that burden by over 70%? You think in those more equal countries their top 20% pay 70% of the burden?


The fact you call that gibberish is concerning. Most of what I did was post some US census data on demographic differences between households stats of two income blocks: 200,000+[top 0.1%] and the 20,000-25,000[bottom 15th].

Let's talk that bottom 15th currently paying <1% of that tax burden shall we:

1/5 of those households are headed by people with less than a high-school diploma. Half are single person. They are more rural, more commonly from lower cost of living regions and are composed of 3x as many seniors [mostly living off fixed benefits]. Only 1/3 work full-time. 1/2 have no actual income earner[mostly seniors]. Only 1/5 have a family. 1/5 have a university education.

Bottom line is the amount of people in this group with the possibility of a higher income in the middle class zone is about 1/20th. The rest are pretty much fixed plus or minus a few thousand unless of course we significantly raise the tax burden by giving out better seniors benefits, and we have no idea if that 1/20th is even there by choice(wealth =/= income).

Meanwhile, these families you want to have a 180 in furtune with lowering buying power from already giving more ~40%(plus higher usage) and cutting the middle class tax burden by 85% income, 70% total. These households who are mostly working full-time plus, are mostly duel income, are over 90% married families with children, are overwhelmingly university educated…if you think they are not going to choose to work less, spend more time with their children or many consider emigrating (easy for the university educated) your kidding yourself.

The result of your policy is very little movement from the bottom to the middle class as you can't force those on fixed income or part-time workers and the tax rate is already low(although i would argue should be zero). The bills got to get paid so that tax burden will shift down as those high top rates to get your "180 change" over 55 years inevitably means giant increases just down the line on earner who can least afford it(middle class/lower).

It's been shown time and time again countries the world over.

You should be proud to be in a country that has a rich government, healthy top, healthy middle and relatively wealthy bottom. The data certainly shows there is work to be done, but it's not radical and as the top remains strong we can lower taxes and raise benefits for all! Unless you feel like paying the true bill. I for one like having the luxury of progressive taxation even if it means I have to sacrifice some of my yearly gains.

Whats nuts about this gibberish is no one would continue reading after the persons first sentence being a lie. The point is I read the first sentence and responded , the la la land rest of his comment was never read , probably by anyone.

 

[apdst]

This guy has no clue what communism is, but I will give him the chance to prove that he does, Go to a encyclopedia, get the main tenets of capitalism, come back and with that tenet show us where in this country there is communism. Bring your source. No personal definitions allowed. And I'll give you a tip the first tenet that is on every list I looked at,has to be there for communism or socialism to exist at all. Now we get to see this guy disappear, come back without a answer, try to bull**** his way through this, say he knows but doesn't have to tell us but he won't come back with a real tenet because he can't.

You got busted pushing the communist agenda. Deal with it.

 

[jbander]

You got busted pushing the communist agenda. Deal with it.

So we found out the he will try to bull**** his way though it. Actually I thought he would disappear but as long as he is on this thread everyone knows that he has no clue what communism is- but i'll tell him, I'm that kind of good guy. There are multiple main tenets but on those lists the top one is always that the means of production and the sale of that production is owned by the state. Without which it's not communism or socialism, not only have I never seen that in this country, in fact I never even heard a person suggesting it as a idea. . this right wing goofball idea that there is a commie behind every corner is a hoot , to achieve this they simply make up their own definition of socialism and communism. It's fun to make fun of them. Its like the threads that are about President scum bag and they respond about Obama and the Clinton s , having absolutely nothing to do with the pumpkin man.