|
|
At Least We're not Debating What "is" is
Those of you who strongly think our current tax structure unfairly favors the rich may wish to peruse this fact-based op-ed:
The C.B.O.’s most recent calculations of federal tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.At the very top of the income distribution, the C.B.O. reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.
This is not the first article I've seen debunking the idea that the rich somehow get a free ride. That many people continue to hold this view speaks more about their own intransigent beliefs than any series of facts they may find.
Via Instapundit.
The latest round of arguments I've heard on this tend to focus on the following:
1 - Who cares? They can afford it and should be taxed at an even higher rate. Note that this is usually put forth by the "entitlement" group.
2 - Another group argues that the rich actually receive more direct and indirect benefit. In essence, this focused on the rich having more to lose due to theft and the like. If there was no police force, military, and fire department, they'd have to acquire their own. As this would be much greater due to the greater potential financial loss, they're getting a greater benefit. As for other public infrastructure, the argument focuses on the rich receiving greater benefit as not only do they use the same roads, but their investments reap the increased efficiencies that said roads and the like provide.
#1 is sanctioned thievery, IMO.
#2 is a very interesting take. When asked where that fits in the balance sheet, I've gotten no response.
Then there's group #3... "But there are still people in America that have less money that everyone else, and since equality of opportunity can't exist without equality of results, that means we have to take more money from the rich, until everyone is equally poor."
Tatterd has the right idea. The problem is that people say "tax the rich", but what they mean is "take all of the stuff that the rich currently possess, and give some of it to me."
Posted by: DensityDuck on July 16, 2007 04:42 PMThat's my #1 group, typically the entitlement folks. The argument goes that everyone deserves to have a "decent" wage, full health care, etc. The problem being that when pushed, these tend to be folks* that got degrees in something less than useful (like art, psych, or something like that) in the business world. They then complain that the MBA types are running around $80K cars while they have to work, etc.
That whole work hard, save money, plan appropriately thing is lost on them.