I think taxes should be based on a 5-year rolling average, to ease the burden for people who have high income only once in their life. Winning the lottery or patenting an invention that makes you rich is the American dream. Let’s tax high earners but show some lenience for folks who have a once in a lifetime windfall.
Top 1% in the US pays 40% of all income tax and top 10% pays 70% while the bottom 50% pays 3.3%
The bottom 50% holds 2.3% of the wealth. So if your 3.3% is correct then that would say they are paying at least 43% to much.
We shouldn’t be taxing basic necessities, we should be taxing things that accrue wealth.
If someone owns a shabby house and their income only makes ends meet they should be paying nothing in taxes.
If you want those people to pay more taxes, the wealth needs to be spread to those groups so that wealth can be taxed.
Different argument. The implicit narrative here is that the rich don’t pay taxes when in reality they pay almost all the taxes. If you want them to pay even more then that’s fair but the reality is that most people don’t have the faintest clue what the actual numbers are to begin with.
It’s only a different argument because you want it to be. You’re selectively choosing which percentages you want in the argument, and which ones not. I’m not that versed in the different logical fallacies, but I guess this is a straw man fallacy? Atleast, that’s one of the strategies I get for this fallacy; oversimplifying an argument, and then attacking this argument.
How much is that in percentages of their income, disregarding artificially deflated incomes of the rich?
Removed by mod
Why do you think that matters more than how much they contribute?
Your question is tied to the idea that their contribution is only contrived of their income taxes, and ignores the fact that 2 people working the same hours contributing the same amount don’t receive the same income.
If you want equal contributions from all income taxes them you would have to have equal pay for all jobs.
“But my job contributes more to society”. No it doesn’t.
The doctor needs a roof just like the roofer needs a colonoscopy.
It literally, mathematically, does if their wage is higher. Even if there were no tax progression, they pay more taxes, which the society uses.
Because the bottom 50% couldn’t pay 40% of all income tax, they’d have a negative net income. That’s why tax brackets exist, once your basic needs are met you can contribute more to society as a whole. It sucks to pay more if you’re earning above median, but it’s the cost of living in a society.
Because if you could contribute more, you should.