Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: A new progressive tax

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 13, 2012, 9:45 p.m. EST by highlander (-163)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I did some number crunching and plugged in what, I presume, to be a fair tax on the 1%. In a 10/28/11 New York Times article, there was a breakdown of the top 1% as of 2006. Here are some figures:

  1. 14,000 families have an average income of $31 million. that amounts to a total annual income of $434 billion.
  2. 135,000 families have an average income of $3.9 million that amounts to a total annual income of $525.5 billion.
  3. 1.35 million families have an average income of $717,000 that amounts to a total annual income of $968 billion
  4. 13.2 million families have an average income of $167,000. that amounts to a total annual income of $2.2 trillion. If the total annual income of the above were taxed at 50%, that would bring in roughly $2.1 trillion a year. If, gasp!!! we were to tax the remaining 99% at 10%, lets look at what the federal government would get: again, based on that same article, there are 132 million households that earn an average of $36,000. that amounts to a total income of $4.75 trillion. A 10% tax on that would bring in $475 billion. the total income would come to around $2.6 trillion.

According to the 2011 federal budget, $3.5 trillion was spent. That means that under the new progressive, fair tax, there would still be a $900 billion deficit. That deficit would be tacked to a $16 trillion debt.

With a fair tax like that, how long would the greedy, parasitic rich keep their ill-earned earnings within the borders to pamper the poor?

A fair tax like that might bring in $2 trillion in the first year, but it would not be $2 trillion after that.

Sorry, guys, but it appears that a progressive tax where the 1% pays their fair share.amounts to a steaming pile of progressive shit; it may be progressive and fair, but it is still a pile of shit.

Everyone, I mean everyone, needs to pay a tax of some amount AND the government needs to seriously cut spending!!

That is why I do not back your movement.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 5 years ago

Another look at taxing our way out of the deficit:

To best understand this spending aspect of the current budget negotiations in Washington, we must answer one crucial question: how much taxation on the top income-earners would be required to fully fund the present level of government spending?

To do so, we must first make the unreasonable assumption that the rich will not respond to confiscatory tax rates and hide money from being taxed. This is unreasonable because no scheme of taxation since WW2 has been able to capture more than 21% of GDP. With current spending levels around 23% of GDP, history suggests that no level of taxation we have yet tried would actually fully fund our current level of spending. But if we indulged some "static scoring" and assumed a static tax base, what would a zero-deficit, soak-the-rich taxation scheme look like at current spending levels?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/how_much_taxation_would_fund_current_spending.html#ixzz2EzXjabD5