The facts support raising revenues from the highest-income households

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Effective and fair strategies for reducing the deficit necessarily include revenue increases on the highest-income households, particularly now, when income distribution is extraordinarily skewed to the top and federal revenue is at the lowest level relative to the economy since 1950. The facts support raising revenues from highest-income households discusses the key facts that indicate why taxes should be raised on the highest-income households:

• Meager revenues and Bush-era tax cuts contribute greatly to the deficit.
• The top one percent of households benefited disproportionately from the Bush-era tax cuts.
• Recent income gains for the highest-income one percent have far exceeded gains for everyone else, leading to dramatic income concentration at the top of the scale. Now, more than ever, the highest-income households are in a better position to pay taxes.
• Wealth is even more concentrated at the top than income, and the main wealth tax—the estate tax—has been sharply reduced in recent years.
• Reasonable proposals for taxing the highest-income households can raise significant amounts of revenue.
• By not taxing the highest-income households, deficit reduction relies too heavily on spending cuts that harm low- and middle-income Americans.
• Raising taxes on the highest-income households reduces the deficit without having much impact on the economic recovery or job growth.
• Few small business owners have exceptionally high incomes, and thus few would be affected by these tax increases on the highest-income households.
• Even if taxes on those with the highest incomes are substantially increased, income gains at the top over time would still dramatically outpace gains among the rest of the population.

The progressivity of the federal income-tax system offsets the regressive nature of federal payroll taxes and state and local tax systems.

Read issue brief

Edited August 9, 2011 by DFH

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Effective and fair strategies for reducing the deficit necessarily include revenue increases on the highest-income households, particularly now, when income distribution is extraordinarily skewed to the top and federal revenue is at the lowest level relative to the economy since 1950. The facts opinions support raising revenues from highest-income households discusses the key facts that indicate why taxes should be raised on the highest-income households:

• Meager revenues and Bush-era tax cutsOut of control spending contributes greatly to the deficit.
• The top one percent of households benefited disproportionately from the Bush-era tax cuts.
• Recent income gains for the highest-income one percent have far exceeded gains for everyone else, leading to dramatic income concentration at the top of the scale. Now, more than ever, the highest-income households are in a better position to pay taxes.
• Wealth is even more concentrated at the top than income, and the main wealth tax—the estate tax—has been sharply reduced in recent years.
• Reasonable proposals for taxing the highest-income households can raise significant amounts of revenue.
• By not taxing the highest-income households, deficit reduction relies too heavily on spending cuts that harmforce low- and middle-income Americans to get up off their lazy butts and get a job.
• Raising taxes on the highest-income households might reduce the deficit without having much impact on the economic recovery or job growth. However it may also stop growth and further throw the economy into turmoil.
• FewMany small business owners have exceptionally high incomes, and thus many few would be affected by these tax increases on the highest-income households.
• Even if taxes on those with the highest incomes are substantially increased, income gains at the top over time would still dramatically outpace gains among the rest of the population.

The progressivity of the federal income-tax system creates a regressive system in which the Federal government has too much control over the entire country.offsets the regressive nature of federal payroll taxes and state and local tax systems.

Read issue brief

fixed.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Most households know that too much spending is harmful.

[mawilson 2,133]

We need a constitutional amendment that requires than any tax increase be applied across the board.

If taxing the rich also meant taxing the poor, I wonder how popular these taxes would be.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We need a constitutional amendment that requires than any tax increase be applied across the board.

If taxing the rich also meant taxing the poor, I wonder how popular these taxes would be.

We need to stop demanding a constitutional amendment for everything. And we should stop pretending that the poor don't pay any taxes. They most certainly do.

[Zero Sum 305]

We need to stop demanding a constitutional amendment for everything. And we should stop pretending that the poor don't pay any taxes. They most certainly do.

The rich should just ante up and become poor if the poor have it so well off.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The rich should just ante up and become poor if the poor have it so well off.

Really. It's ridiculous how these nonsensical talking points about the poor not paying any taxes have been elevated to accepted facts. This may be true for federal income taxes but for not much else. Gas tax, sales tax, FICA tax, property tax (whether directly or via rent), etc. are all paid by those on the lower spectrum of the income scale. And relative to their income, it impacts them much more than those with higher incomes.

[mawilson 2,133]

We need to stop demanding a constitutional amendment for everything. And we should stop pretending that the poor don't pay any taxes. They most certainly do.

So do the rich. You want to raise their taxes, raise everyone's taxes.

[Dan J 277]

So do the rich. You want to raise their taxes, raise everyone's taxes.

I the the tax rates/brackets should be responsive to economic growth and changing wealth distribution. If the wealthy get wealthier but no one else does, then their taxes go up, but no other tax brackets do. If the wealth distribution moves down, the wealthy max see tax cuts while everyone gets tax increases.

That would be a way to incentivize the wealthy to create jobs using taxes. Cutting taxes on the wealthy and then hope they take the extra money to create jobs is like giving a child allowance and then hopping they do their chores.

[mawilson 2,133]

That would be a way to incentivize the wealthy to create jobs using taxes.

They don't owe you any jobs.

[웃 910]

Over the past couple of decades, taxes on people at the very top have fallen dramatically, even as their incomes have soared. Recent IRS data on the nation's top 400 households — whose incomes averaged $270 million in 2008 — show that the average share of their incomes that they paid in federal taxes dropped from 26 percent to 18 percent between 1992 and 2008, while their annual incomes shot up by over 700 percent, after inflation (see chart).

[Dan J 277]

They don't owe you any jobs.

Of course not, then they can pay higher taxes.

[^_^ 5,021]

Of course not, then they can pay higher taxes.

Stop trying to make rich people your slaves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Slavery is not cool.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The rich should just ante up and become poor if the poor have it so well off.

QFT!!!! :thumbs:

So do the rich. You want to raise their taxes, raise everyone's taxes.

They also have more programs to avoid paying tax than any other segment of the populace.

They don't owe you any jobs.

With the tax code, apparently they don't owe any taxes, either.

[Zero Sum 305]

With being rich so poor, I certainly do not ever want to be one of them. We should all strive to a life of poverty to get the good life, not paying 'any' taxes.