It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We hear a lot these days about how government spending has led to a deficit that could pose a major long-term threat if it goes unaddressed. It's true that government has of late grown under both Democratic and Republican presidents. But deficit hawks often sidestep a no-less important trend: In recent decades, tax rates--especially for the rich--have been on the decline by historical standards. Everyone likes getting a tax cut, but it's worth remembering that the shrinking of tax revenue has contributed to the deficit problem, just as spending has.
What to make of all those swirling lines? The chart shows how tax burdens for different income levels have fluctuated over the last century, adjusted for inflation. Blue areas represent a historically low tax burden for a specific income level, while red areas represent a historically high burden.
So in a nutshell, the chart shows that until around 1940, tax burdens were low for everyone, in historical terms. Then they rose sharply for everyone until about 1970. At that point, the rich and poor began to diverge.
Those making around $10,000 to around $50,000 per year enjoyed a comparatively low-tax period in the 70s, but by the early 80s they were taxed slightly higher than the historical average. In the 2000s, their tax rate came back down a bit.
Government should force the rich to pay the taxes for the poor from now on.
Not only does it appear the middle class shares the highest burden...but it also seems to act as a bottleneck...
Originally posted by Wildbob77
Almost 1/2 of US households pay 0 federal income tax.
Almost half pay no tax
Personally, I think that everyone should pay the same percentage. Flat tax. No more whining about the rich not paying their fair share.
The top 10% of income earners pay almost 70% of the federal tax. LINK
Originally posted by ldyserenity
Personally, I think that everyone should pay the same percentage. Flat tax. No more whining about the rich not paying their fair share.
And how do you think they'd go about getting that from someone who has no money at all, no job, let's say he/she is disabled, now let's assume because of the tax being flat that there'd be no SSI SSDI (there'd hardly be enough to keep such programs) or whatever, how praytell would they seek to get money from the disabled individual? How high would the flat tax be? Say 2,000 every year, so if you work at walmart, bk, or mickd's you'd bring two thousand less home a year so that would be let me see 10,000 - 2,000 = 8,000 poverty level is ten thousand and what 562 something in that range give or take. So they'd be even less able to support themself. Yeah, have you been dropped on your head as a child?
Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by ldyserenity
Most flat tax proposals are in the 17 - 22% range. For someone making $1M/year that is roughly $200K sent into Uncle Sam. A flat tax is by definition progressive. When liberals claim they want a progressive tax what they are really calling for is a punative tax. Our current tax policy is punative. It penalizes success and rewards a lack of achievement.
Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by ldyserenity
Most flat tax proposals are in the 17 - 22% range. For someone making $1M/year that is roughly $200K sent into Uncle Sam. A flat tax is by definition progressive. When liberals claim they want a progressive tax what they are really calling for is a punative tax. Our current tax policy is punative. It penalizes success and rewards a lack of achievement.
Don't trump out the old and disabled folks. That is a tired old argument and there is no reasonable person who does not think that the government needs to provide for folks who can not provide for themselves.
And how do you think they'd go about getting that from someone who has no money at all, no job,
let's say he/she is disabled, now let's assume because of the tax being flat that there'd be no SSI SSDI (there'd hardly be enough to keep such programs)
how praytell would they seek to get money from the disabled individual?
How high would the flat tax be?
Say 2,000 every year, so if you work at walmart, bk, or mickd's you'd bring two thousand less home a year so that would be let me see 10,000 - 2,000 = 8,000 poverty level is ten thousand
It would be funny except most license fees, use fees and sales taxes, are A FLAT TAX.
The guy that goes camping in a 30$ tent pays the same fee as the guy in the million dollar
motorhome ,thus he subsidizes the rich guy.
"A flat tax is by definition progressive."
That is double speak. A flat tax is a flat tax. It remains the
same percentage. A tax whose percentage increases with income is a progressive tax.
Logic tells us that if you put more money in the hands of more people they could use it to create
more NEW businesses instead of buying 200 million dollar yachts and mansions.