cicerone imposter wrote:ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:You missed the last comparison.
I did not miss it. It looks to me like an irrelevant comparison. Please explain why you think differently (if in fact you do think differently).
By the way, in order to compute average incomes one must first know how many people have each income.
It matters not how you compute "average" income for each income range just as long as you apply it the same for both income levels.
The average tax rates for both levels of income are not consistent with the relative income levels. The lower income tax rate is approximately 13%, and the highest tax level is about 24% of income. In other words, the lower tax rate is over 50% of the wealthiest tax rate while their income represents only about 8 percent of the the wealthy people's income - before or after taxes.
If you bothered to read the post about "who benefits from taxes," it's favored towards the rich; they should also shoulder the larger share of income taxes - or all taxes. But that goes way beyond your ability to comprehend our tax/benefit system.
Thank you. I understand your point. However, I reject it because I think it irrelevant that the tax rate of the lowest group is more than 50% of the tax rate of the highest group.
I advocate the same tax rate on each and every dollar of income regardless of whose dollar it is, regardless of how many dollars income are earned by any individual, regardless of how much wealth any individual has accumulated, regardless of how much debt any individual has accumulated.
I advocate this for two reasons. The
first reason is it is a violation of the "supreme law of the land" to hava any tax levy that is not uniform throughout the USA. The
second reason is that allowing/requiring selected groups of people to pay different tax rates on each of their income dollars depending on their personal circumstances is an invitation to our Congress to buy votes by benefitting one group and buy campaign contributions by benefitting another group. In other words, my
second reason is I want to minimize opportunity for corruption of our government.
I have not yet been able to reliably determine what is total annual USA personal income. However, until I learn otherwise, I'll assume it's 15 trillion dollars excluding all deductions and exemptions and not including any business income whatsoever. Taxes on business income amount to nothing more than hidden sales taxes so we should cancel them altogether.
Current annual federal expenditures are about 3 trillion. So with a 3 trillion annual federal expenditure, and a 15 trillion total annual personal income, the uniform tax rate would come to 100% x 3 / 15 = 20%. But it doesn't require a genius to figure out that at least half of federal expenditures are federal grants and other forms of federal charities not authorized by our Constitution. If they were to be discontinued, the uniform tax rate could safely be reduced to 10%.
To really help the poor's children, give them an education not corrupted by our Congress. In other words, to help those who have achieved less to achieve more, force our federal government to obey the 10th Amendment to our USA Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
) .