What's a fair share of taxes? Would the top 1% contributing 40% and bottom 50% contributing 3% of all federal income taxes be fair? (Oh, some myths held by conservatives, too.)
Sue: See the chart under Part 3. The third group from the bottom (in purple) is corporate taxes. It was about 9% for most of the past decade, jumped to 11% last year. You can see the year-by-year percentage by clicking to the table at the link in the first sentence under the chart. Click on the chart . By the way, it's actually somewhat higher than that, as dividends--which are actually profit-sharing with stockholders--are further taxed as individual income.
I’m in the real estate business and haven’t paid taxes since 1973! It’s a mistake to ignore the loopholes that Congress has so graciously provided. See Trump’s returns, like Hillary Clinton demanded without success.
John: Well, so there's a reform you should be pushing for. I don't consider them "loopholes,' however, as those deductions were written into law very consciously to provide specific incentives for development. How would your cumulative tax savings since 1973 balance out against real losses for you? (No answer required).
Restore tax rates to the levels prior to George W Bush's massive taxcuts to the billionaires and big corporations, his disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Trump's giant tax cut to evn more billionaires and you reduce the deficit by approximately $10 trillion dollar. ie, cut it in half.
Musk wants to cut only $2 trillion dollars out of vital services in order to pay for even MORE tax cuts for the stratospherically rich. I think we're on the wrong track here.
Oh, and while we're at it, maybe you could use your excellent an d thorough expositiory abilities to explain that tariffs are paid by anyone in the US who buys anything from other countries. The higher the tarriff, the more WE pay. Trump seems to think that the country that MAKES the things they sell us pay that tax. Wrong. And excpensive- for US!
The disastrous Smooth-Hawley tariffs were passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Herbert Hoover. But after WW2 the GOP became the free trade party while the most progressive Democrats have become protectionists. Now Republicans have come full circle on tariffs. And the Bernie party is quietly delighted. Tariffs have a legitimate role in national security, but overall the US and the world have had a higher standard of living under the WTO rules.
Actually, not so quietly. This is Bernie's statement on tariffs and I tend to agree with him:
“I strongly support imposing stiff penalties on countries like China, Russia, South Korea and Vietnam to prevent them from illegally dumping steel and aluminum into the U.S. and throughout the world. American steel and aluminum workers need our help, and they need it now, but not at the expense of farmers, workers, small businesses and consumers in Vermont and throughout this country. Given Vermont’s proximity to Canada and our strong trade relations with Canada, these policies will be especially harmful to Vermont and other northern border states. It simply makes no sense to start a trade war with Canada, the European Union and others who are engaged in fair trade, are not cheating and where workers are paid a living wage with good benefits."
“If Trump were serious about protecting good-paying American jobs he would sign an executive order today to prevent large companies that outsource jobs to low-wage countries from receiving lucrative federal contracts and corporate welfare. Instead of imposing piecemeal tariffs on our trading partners, he should comprehensively and fundamentally re-write all of our failed unfettered trade policies to stop the race to the bottom and lift living standards in the U.S. and throughout the world.”
I agree that increasing taxes on the wealthiest will not cover the revenue gap, but that doesn't really address whether paying 40% of total tax revenue is the appropriate amount. After all, in a progressive tax system it's not the % of revenue raised, it's whether the amount taxed is fair. Right now it isn't, for the reasons Geoffrey articulates. I share his view on this, but would add the word loopholes to the discussion. There are inexcusable loopholes throughout the tax code that need to be fixed, such as the unconscionable carried interest exemption. Until those adjustments are made, I have no reason to believe that the 40% figure is either unfair or sufficient given how much money the wealthy are making.
I learned something from this thanks, Ben —-but wonder about corporate business taxes. How much do they contribute?
Sue: See the chart under Part 3. The third group from the bottom (in purple) is corporate taxes. It was about 9% for most of the past decade, jumped to 11% last year. You can see the year-by-year percentage by clicking to the table at the link in the first sentence under the chart. Click on the chart . By the way, it's actually somewhat higher than that, as dividends--which are actually profit-sharing with stockholders--are further taxed as individual income.
I’m in the real estate business and haven’t paid taxes since 1973! It’s a mistake to ignore the loopholes that Congress has so graciously provided. See Trump’s returns, like Hillary Clinton demanded without success.
John: Well, so there's a reform you should be pushing for. I don't consider them "loopholes,' however, as those deductions were written into law very consciously to provide specific incentives for development. How would your cumulative tax savings since 1973 balance out against real losses for you? (No answer required).
Restore tax rates to the levels prior to George W Bush's massive taxcuts to the billionaires and big corporations, his disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Trump's giant tax cut to evn more billionaires and you reduce the deficit by approximately $10 trillion dollar. ie, cut it in half.
Musk wants to cut only $2 trillion dollars out of vital services in order to pay for even MORE tax cuts for the stratospherically rich. I think we're on the wrong track here.
Oh, and while we're at it, maybe you could use your excellent an d thorough expositiory abilities to explain that tariffs are paid by anyone in the US who buys anything from other countries. The higher the tarriff, the more WE pay. Trump seems to think that the country that MAKES the things they sell us pay that tax. Wrong. And excpensive- for US!
The disastrous Smooth-Hawley tariffs were passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Herbert Hoover. But after WW2 the GOP became the free trade party while the most progressive Democrats have become protectionists. Now Republicans have come full circle on tariffs. And the Bernie party is quietly delighted. Tariffs have a legitimate role in national security, but overall the US and the world have had a higher standard of living under the WTO rules.
Actually, not so quietly. This is Bernie's statement on tariffs and I tend to agree with him:
“I strongly support imposing stiff penalties on countries like China, Russia, South Korea and Vietnam to prevent them from illegally dumping steel and aluminum into the U.S. and throughout the world. American steel and aluminum workers need our help, and they need it now, but not at the expense of farmers, workers, small businesses and consumers in Vermont and throughout this country. Given Vermont’s proximity to Canada and our strong trade relations with Canada, these policies will be especially harmful to Vermont and other northern border states. It simply makes no sense to start a trade war with Canada, the European Union and others who are engaged in fair trade, are not cheating and where workers are paid a living wage with good benefits."
“If Trump were serious about protecting good-paying American jobs he would sign an executive order today to prevent large companies that outsource jobs to low-wage countries from receiving lucrative federal contracts and corporate welfare. Instead of imposing piecemeal tariffs on our trading partners, he should comprehensively and fundamentally re-write all of our failed unfettered trade policies to stop the race to the bottom and lift living standards in the U.S. and throughout the world.”
I agree that increasing taxes on the wealthiest will not cover the revenue gap, but that doesn't really address whether paying 40% of total tax revenue is the appropriate amount. After all, in a progressive tax system it's not the % of revenue raised, it's whether the amount taxed is fair. Right now it isn't, for the reasons Geoffrey articulates. I share his view on this, but would add the word loopholes to the discussion. There are inexcusable loopholes throughout the tax code that need to be fixed, such as the unconscionable carried interest exemption. Until those adjustments are made, I have no reason to believe that the 40% figure is either unfair or sufficient given how much money the wealthy are making.