mrstickball said:
HappySqurriel said:
ImJustBayuum said:
mrstickball said:
Except they don't.
According to actual tax returns analyzed by the American Tax Foundation (TaxFoundation.Org), the following income brackets paid the following effective tax rates:
- Top 0.1% - 22.7%
- Top 1% - 23.7%
- Top 10% - 20.8%
- Between 5% and 10% - 12.4%
- Between 10% and 25% - 9.3%
- Between 25% and 50% - 6.8%
- Bottom 50% - 2.6%
That is the hard data from 140 million returns. Warren himself may not pay as much as some of his employees because he has more accountants finding each and every loophole for him, whilst his employees are going to get a big fat check back from the government in April each year which greatly diminishes the taxes they pay.
I do not disagree that revenues need raised - but we can do that without simply raising taxes. Our entire tax code structure is ripe for loopholes and to be taken advantage of. We need a simple flat tax system and/or an NST. That way, people like Mr. Buffet do pay their 'fair share' without dodging taxes. Additionally, Mr. Buffet's company uses loopholes to pay no corporate taxes - they dodged over $1 billion last year. Rather stupid of him to say taxes need raised when he knows good and well they can be avoided easily.
|
Changing the structure of America's tax system...How costly would that be in this current volatile economic environment??
|
If done properly, the net benefit would be far greater than the costs ...
The reason for this is that, if you look at the number of hardworking, intelligent and educated people who are employed trying to enforce or circumvent the overly complex tax and regulatory structure and consider how much larger the economy would be if they were focusing their efforts on producing the products and services of the future, it becomes clear that that a large portion of the greatest resource in a developed nation is being wasted for no gain.
|
I can't even see a scenario that there is a cost, other than the political capital of "Hey, we're gonna end the loopholes and institute a very fair tax system". That may get people riled up, but within a few months, I think everyone would recognize it was superior.... Except for those evading the system.
The real cost would be hundreds of thousands of fly-by-night tax preparing agencies. They would be out of a job... But the reality is that most jobs like that aren't viable. The offset would be more money in peoples' hands because they weren't paying for said services and there'd be a bit of savings as the IRS would dwindle down to a minor enforcement agency rather than a harbinger of big government.
|
It all depends on how it is measured ...
If you measure the output of the economy without consideration of the value of the work being done then the loss of a job, even an entirely pointless job, would be measured as a loss. On the other hand, if you only included the labour that was going towards the production of goods and services that people want to pay for then the loss of jobs that do not contribute to the production of these goods and services have no cost associated with them.
