If the top 10% earn 45% of all income and pay 82% of all income taxes, that means the bottom 90% are earning 55% of all income and paying 18% of all income taxes. Which is another way of saying, the bottom 90% are paying a very low tax rate.
And in fact, another important thing is extremely obvious as a connection to this:
The bottom ~50% in the US pay nothing net in income taxes. This is a pretty well known tax fact.
That means the bracket between 50% and 10%, that 40% group, is paying an increasingly very low rate as you go down the income scale, as the 10% to 20% bracket is carrying a high share of that remaining 18% income tax revenue base just as the top 10% group is. Put a very simple way: the bottom ~70% of income earners in the US, pay an extraordinarily small share of all income taxes, and inherently must have a low tax rate given their share of the income base (but that's also another trivially easy stat to retrieve).
Explain to me again how anything I said is incorrect or disingenuous, and or how the rich aren't paying their fair share of income taxes. The sole argument you have left that I can see, is to claim that the top 10% should go from paying 82% of all income taxes on their 45% income share, to paying 100% of all income taxes off of that 45% share of national income.
This however comes close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivity_in_United_States...
A fair tax system would not have a hump, or a ramp that then levels off, but would instead be a slowly rising graph with a continuously accelerating rate of being taxed, such that past some arbitrary point that extra return for every unit earned is virtually nothing (reflecting the stratospheric difference that already exists).
I say that would be fair because I believe that even a truly exceptional person, let us say that they are unquestionably a genius instead of merely someone particularly good at business, is not worth 1000s of times or more what someone else is worth.
If you're earning more than 1000s of peoples worth of taxes, you should be /paying/ like you're 1000s of people (without the per person tax credit).
In absolute terms yes. Individually, and as a proportion of their total income the bottom 90% are paying more than the top 10%.
I may be in the minority but I believe governments shouldn't discriminate based on income for the same reason they shouldn't discriminate based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. All people should be treated equal in the eyes of the law.
While I do think that there is room for individuality and competition, I don't think that it's logical that someone can be three orders of (base 10) magnitude better than average. Any such level of compensation / wealth is surely an irregularity that should be corrected by tax (law).
What you are talking about is equality of outcome.
I'm talking about equality before the law.
They are 2 different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law
I'm not sure what you mean by better but it's perfectly logical to me that someone can provide 3 orders of magnitude more economic value than someone else. The more leverage there is the more the differences between people will be exaggerated. By leverage I mean capital, education, technology, outsourcing, etc. I find it perfectly reasonable that someone who builds a product that enriches millions of lives should be paid orders of magnitude more than someone like a waiter who only services 1 person at a time.
It doesn't make sense to me that someone providing more value to society should be forced to pay more. That seems unfair to me.
HN: the place to go to hear rich people described with a straight face as an oppressed class.
> The best approach that I've seen so far mentioned is to tax assets.
How do you propose to automate the taxing of assets? I have a piece of artwork. How much is that worth? I have a fairly complete set of mechanic's tools. I have computing equipment. I have... I'm in favor of taxing consumption (as proxied by a VAT), but taxing assets seems like a senseless boondoggle, especially if that now means there's a database of what people own sitting out there.
If you have money to pay for experts in knowing all of the loopholes to exploit, and the types of investments / 'responsibilities' that special interests have had written in as possible deductions (the top n%) then the effective tax rate (per unit of currency) paid is less.
Edit, adding this:
I suppose you've also asked what I would consider fair. I find it easier to reach a stance of agreement that the current system is /unfair/ and needs a fresh start, so I hadn't elaborated on the outcome I'd like to see from such a process.
I would find a system with a simple, preferably automated, process to be more fair.
I would find a system where the more you make, the more you take home, to be fair.
I would find a system where the more you make, the higher your relative rate of being taxed to be fair. (Is anyone REALLY worth 100 other people? 1000? At what point to you reach the true value of life: priceless (free)?)
The best approach that I've seen so far mentioned is to tax assets. Property, objects, financial instruments (dollars to contracts of various sorts) all have a market value. You are not directly taxed on your income, but your net worth. Obviously there would be some forms of shelter (deferred net worth, like for retirement. Insurance buffers, etc).