Who pays the highest taxes?| Reuters

Earned income shouldn't be taxed at all.

Well, I won't go nearly that far, BD Styers, HOWEVER, almost all capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income (and be subject to other taxation (e.g., Social Security taxes)), and we should have a TRULY progressive taxation system that does NOT allow tax breaks for the rich to enable them to reduce their effective income tax rate significantly - especially to the point where a multi-million dollar income maker (sometimes an earner, often times not an earner) is paying a lower effective federal income tax rate than someone earning $250k or less per year - and the same thing should be happening on the state level as well.

Sounds good, go to a use tax instead.

Sounds good, go to a use tax instead.

Nope, sorry, a use tax is INCREDIBLY regressive and makes little sense given that the federal government is supposed to implement taxes for the general welfare and national defense of the US (i.e., the people of the US as a whole).

A use tax makes perfect sense to everyone that A) understands the purpose of taxes (covering the bills of government) and B) is more interested in responsibility for their own wants than greedily wanting to force others to buy stuff for them.

A use tax makes perfect sense to everyone that A) understands the purpose of taxes (covering the bills of government) and B) is more interested in responsibility for their own wants than greedily wanting to force others to buy stuff for them.

Sorry. The founding fathers embraced progressive taxation for the exact reason of eliminating concentration of wealth. Which is the system they were getting out of remember? They understood progressive taxes were needed to balance the misuse of wealth begeting wealth and excluding opportunities for others by use of that wealth.

I don't see those with capital gains taxes so low embracing their responsibility to pay for a system they control and benefit massively from. Fair treatment from court systems to financial protection.

Aside from a use tax proportionally impacting the lower end. Gas, food, car, housing, etc are all much larger portions of our budgets. The very wealthy spend proportionally less on consumption. A use tax just rebates them even more.

Sorry. The founding fathers embraced progressive taxation for the exact reason of eliminating concentration of wealth. Which is the system they were getting out of remember? They understood progressive taxes were needed to balance the misuse of wealth begeting wealth and excluding opportunities for others by use of that wealth.

Might want to go back and reread your history books a little. The founding fathers thought that the tax burden should be external. That's why they got most their revenue from tariffs and didn't even have an income tax.

Earned income shouldn't be taxed at all.

It is almost like that We earned 91K and paid 6.13% in taxes.

Might want to go back and reread your history books a little. The founding fathers thought that the tax burden should be external. That's why they got most their revenue from tariffs and didn't even have an income tax.

Though, in libertarian paradise you do understand 99% of people paid 0 taxes at all during those days.

If you look over the long debate though, taxing income was always *legal*, which was upheld on rulings on the governments taxes on income during the civil war. Which were challenged in court.

Also the guy who is held as the leading figure of libertarianism...

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

Since property and income earned from it were the primary sources during those days, that's what was taxed that way.

Today, wage income/investment income are the primary sources, and would fall under the same treatment.

Income tax is really telling people to earn less so they can pay less taxes.

I think capital gains is one of the largest problems. Specifically, capital gains on stocks.

It has encouraged people to earn exclusively from this form of income, rather than actually earning wages which are taxed at higher rates. It's detrimental cause it has a higher barrier to entry for people who must spend wages on necessities, and also it's a manipulated market that widely benefits one group.

Though, in libertarian paradise you do understand 99% of people paid 0 taxes at all during those days.

There has never been a libertarian paradise. You speak about something that has never happened as though it is a historical event.

Also the guy who is held as the leading figure of libertarianism...

Sorry, but slaverholding and forcing the first peoples to assimilate or leave are not the actions of a libertarian.

Since property and income earned from it were the primary sources during those days, that's what was taxed that way.

At the state and local level, and as only a small fraction of taxes collected. The large majority came from tariffs.

Is that really all you have, though? Does your argument for what we should do in the future simply boil down to what you heard someone else did in the past?

At the state and local level, and as only a small fraction of taxes collected. The large majority came from tariffs.

Is that really all you have, though? Does your argument for what we should do in the future simply boil down to what you heard someone else did in the past?

Saw a bunch of dodging in that response.

It's been held since the beginning that income could be taxed. One of the key elements was the apportionment on burden to the states. A lot of that gets lost because Southern states obviously wanted to count their slaves.

So, in your ideal of libertarianism (you might as well be saying anyone who says socialism can work doesn't have to look at real world application) who is paying taxes?

This ultimately, still doesn't answer the original point.

That usage taxes are bogus. You have to have a mechanism that allows wage gains for productive efforts that offsets concentration of wealth to the detriment of the overall economy. Usage tax, isn't it.

So, in your ideal of libertarianism (you might as well be saying anyone who says socialism can work doesn't have to look at real world application) who is paying taxes?

The people that want the services.

That usage taxes are bogus. You have to have a mechanism that allows wage gains for productive efforts that offsets concentration of wealth to the detriment of the overall economy. Usage tax, isn't it.

You're confusing the purpose of taxes with your personal social agenda. The purpose of taxes is solely to pay the bills incurred by government. Using taxation as a means to funnel things your way is just unabashed greed. 'You should give it to me because I want it' might sound good to a five-year-old, a criminal, or a spoiled brat, but mature adults would be embarrassed to ever try something like that.

@I'm Ringo -

You're confusing the purpose of taxes with your personal social agenda. The purpose of taxes is solely to pay the bills incurred by government. Using taxation as a means to funnel things your way is just unabashed greed. 'You should give it to me because I want it' might sound good to a five-year-old, a criminal, or a spoiled brat, but mature adults would be embarrassed to ever try something like that.

WRONG!!! YOU'RE the one who is confusing the purpose of taxes with your personal social agenda!!!

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution EXPRESSLY provides: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ....

At the time the US Constitution was adopted and ratified, the language of the Constitution provided, and many of the founding fathers (Hamilton being one of the most notable ones) believed and understood that taxation was intended to be used to raise federal revenue to provide for and try to improve the general welfare of the people of the US as a whole. Many of the founding fathers also believed in progressive taxation and estate/inheritance taxes because they knew of the problems of having wealth concentrated in "the few", and such taxation policies would help to reduce the risk of the US turning into an oligarchy/plutocracy.

While there were certainly founding fathers on both sides of the issue, the US Constitution was written in VERY BROAD language giving the federal government VERY BROAD powers. By the early 1800s, the views of the role of the federal government and the powers of Congress for which Hamilton and other founding fathers like him advocated began to gain traction. There were many times where things went back and forth between Hamilton's view of the Constitution and the federal government's powers and Madison's view of the Constitution and the federal government's powers, but ultimately Hamilton's view won out. The US is a FARRRrrrrrr better country for it!!!

WRONG!!! YOU'RE the one who is confusing the purpose of taxes with your personal social agenda!!!

Ah yes, because if you spout nonsense in bold with lots of exclamation it will magically become correct. Oh wait, despite your apparent belief, it doesn't actually work that way.

At the time the US Constitution was adopted and ratified, the language of the Constitution provided, and many of the founding fathers (Hamilton being one of the most notable ones) believed and understood that taxation was intended to be used to raise federal revenue to provide for and try to improve the general welfare of the people of the US as a whole. Many of the founding fathers also believed in progressive taxation and estate/inheritance taxes because they knew of the problems of having wealth concentrated in "the few", and such taxation policies would help to reduce the risk of the US turning into an oligarchy/plutocracy.

While there were certainly founding fathers on both sides of the issue, the US Constitution was written in VERY BROAD language giving the federal government VERY BROAD powers. By the early 1800s, the views of the role of the federal government and the powers of Congress for which Hamilton and other founding fathers like him advocated began to gain traction. There were many times where things went back and forth between Hamilton's view of the Constitution and the federal government's powers and Madison's view of the Constitution and the federal government's powers, but ultimately Hamilton's view won out. The US is a FARRRrrrrrr better country for it!!!

Ah, so instead of having any real reasoning of your own, you'd prefer to simply lay your argument on the back of a bunch of people that supported slavery and conquest/murder of the locals.

Ah, so instead of having any real reasoning of your own, you'd prefer to simply lay your argument on the back of a bunch of people that supported slavery and conquest/murder of the locals.

No, I refer to those founding fathers because they were instrumental in the writing of the Constitution. The VERY BROAD language stating that Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare speaks for itself.

No, I refer to those founding fathers because they were instrumental in the writing of the Constitution. The VERY BROAD language stating that Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare speaks for itself.

Which is a fancy way of saying Yes.

Instead of coming up with any rationale, you rely on 'well the guys that said those with dark skin were property and those with a medium skin tone should be conquered and either assimilated or sent packing also said this'.

That's kind of like basing an entire criminal case on the one eye witness with a history of lying to police and heavy use of hallucinogenic drugs.

The ONLY issue is whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. The Constitution CLEARLY does give Congress that power.

The ONLY issue

Oh yeah, heaven forbid anyone discuss anything 'crazy'....like the topic of the article, or anything.

But don't worry, despite having no argument of your own, you'll always have pointlessly bolded text.

As for the topic of the article, I strongly believe in a TRULY progressive tax system instead of the half-assed progressive tax system we have now, wherein our current tax system starts out progressively until you reach the rich, and then it is no longer progressive, but actually allows many of the rich (not so much at the low end of the Top 1%, but at the upper end of the Top 1%) to pay taxes at a lower effective federal income tax rate than many of the middle class, and even allows some mega-multi-millionaires to completely avoid paying taxes.

I also believe that the biggest problem we've had, particularly over the last 30 years or so (since we've had the idiotic supply-side economics fraud going on), has not been being taxed too much (which relatively speaking we're not), but being taxed too little as a nation. Everyone keeps saying the US is broke, or this country or that country in Europe is broke, blah, blah, blah - that's complete nonsense!!! There's only a finite amount of wealth in the world - if one person or a nation of people doesn't have money, it is only because someone else does. (By the way, that's not to say that I believe it's necessary for the federal government to have to balance its budget every year, because I don't - I believe that the federal government should try to balance its budget or keep a low deficit in good economic times and do deficit/stimulus spending in bad economic times.) The main reason the federal government has deficits as high as they are is that the federal government is not taxing higher incomes at a high enough effective tax rate (putting aside for the moment the current loss of revenue due to the continuing effects of Bush's Great Recession and the continuing costs of the wars (the completely unnecessary and ill-advised war in Afghanistan and the completely illegal, unnecessary, and ill-advised war in Iraq)). Unfortunately the very wealthy and multi-national corporations have been able to use their economic power to unduly influence tax and trade policy to great benefit for the very wealthy and multi-national corporations, BUT to the great detriment of the people of the US as a whole.

As for your snide comments, they don't phase me, I know I can run circles around you intellectually.

Well, I have to run and contribute to our nation's GDP.

As for the topic of the article, I strongly believe in a TRULY progressive tax system instead of the half-assed progressive tax system we have now, wherein our current tax system starts out progressively until you reach the rich, and then it is no longer progressive, but actually allows many of the rich (not so much at the low end of the Top 1%, but at the upper end of the Top 1%) to pay taxes at a lower effective federal income tax rate than many of the middle class, and even allows some mega-multi-millionaires to completely avoid paying taxes.

Wow, so you strongly believe in forcing someone else to pay for you. Well I guess that pretty much sums up the basis of our disagreement. You see, I hold the opposite view. I'm strongly pro-responsibility, respect, and liberty.

As for your snide comments, they don't phase me, I know I can run circles around you intellectually.

Yes, while mature adults choose to move forward, you choose to run in circles chasing your tail. They do say that admitting your problem is the first step, but that still leaves a lot of steps left to catch up.

Wow, so you strongly believe in forcing someone else to pay for you. Well I guess that pretty much sums up the basis of our disagreement. You see, I hold the opposite view. I'm strongly pro-responsibility, respect, and liberty.

I'm one of those in the upper tier (and I would be in the Top 1% were it not for the effects of Bush's Great Recession (thankfully things are majorly back on the upswing for me again)), and my effective federal income tax rate is higher, and in some cases significantly higher, than many of those with multi-millionaire dollar incomes. I pay more in federal taxes in a year than many people make in income in a year. I believe it's fair and just to have a progressive tax system that taxes higher incomes at higher tax rates than lower incomes. I think it is not fair and just to have everyone pay the same amount in taxes without regard to income, or to have those with higher incomes pay taxes at lower effective tax rates than those with lower incomes. I don't mind paying the amount of taxes I pay, but I do mind it when someone making 50x or 100x more than me is paying taxes at a lower effective tax rate than me, and mind it even more when that someone pays a lower amount in taxes than what I pay.

RE: #1.21 -

That is based on only the Top 2% being taxed. Further, the cited figures appear to be from the worst economic point for the rich during Bush's Great Recession (although the article doesn't say what year those figures are from). I would note that, in the 3 years just prior to Bush's Great Recession, the Top 1% alone was pulling in over 20% of all annual income, and even still managed to pull in 20% of all income in 2008.

With the projected pace of economic recovery, if we let the Bush tax cuts expire, the federal deficit is already projected to drop to about $533 billion by 2014 (and that's with the US still not being fully recovered from Bush's Great Recession yet). If on top of that we had a millionaire's AMT, taxed most capital gains (e.g., capital gains obtained from the secondary market, except for qualified dividends) as ordinary income (since almost all transactions on the secondary market do very little to benefit the US economy, job growth, etc., and certainly don't do enough to justify the preferential tax treatment such gains currently get), and taxed multi-national corps the way they should be taxed (cut out all of the transfer pricing nonsense that let's them offshore billions of dollars in US profits without paying any income taxes whatsoever on those profits; disincentivize offshoring jobs instead of incentivizing the offshoring of jobs like we do now; get rid of a lot of their tax breaks; etc.), we would bring in about another $200 to $300 billion per year in federal revenue.

Amazing thing really, if you want the government to have more funds, there is nothing preventing you from donating as much as you want. Interesting bit, almost nobody in the country is ACTUALLY interested in that. Those calling out for more taxation aren't really interested in giving more to the government, they want someone else to do it.

If every American donated a nickel, that's just 5 cents, it would add up to a bigger donation than they ever actually get.