SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SecularBull who wrote (358475)2/12/2003 9:56:53 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
I will look for documentation on the web but I believe that when you lump payroll taxes in with federal income tax, the of overall taxes between the rich and the middle class is roughly equal.

Somehow I remember something like 10% overall tax burden for poor, 25% middle class, 25% highest income.

The entire argument that the rich pay such a huge proportion of taxes is a scam, lying with statistics and incorrect anyway because they leave off fica.

A more fair distribution would be something like 10-10-30 if you were going to gradiate things.

The thing that bothers me the most is this stupid notion of a flat tax that conservatives have... a good idea - oh, except it doesn't include the fica/SS scam at which point "flat taxes" actually create a regressive tax burden against the poor!



To: SecularBull who wrote (358475)2/12/2003 10:10:27 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
His point is that the non-"rich" bear the burden, and that's not true

Clinton mentioned that specificly, he grew up poor in Arkansas and is doing alright for himself now. "Rich and burden" just don't fit together like "cold and hungry".

TP