The $1.5 trillion question (in Debates)

The majority of us want lower taxes.
The majority of us want more service from our government.
The super-majority of us were educated in the American, arithmetic-weak school system.

The congressional super-committee charged with coming up with $1.5 trillion in cuts [ed.: cuts or savings, not clear] is due to report eight weeks from now, so ... what would YOU cut?

Some cake. And eat it too.

Red tape, and the loop holes the super rich have. ;)

Paranoia and defence.

well living in canada... all border crossings XD

seriously though, Im not sure about the states, but I feel that the people living off the system (IE welfare, disability, unemployment, etc), that DO NOT require it, DO NOT require it, should be cut and booted.

Those utilizing the system to get back on there feet, or the people that actually have a disability are fine, those using the system for the intended purpose are fine. its the people that abuse the system and suck funds out of the system, lots of money is dumped there.

Without making cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, the only way I see it working is to raise taxes -- not that the committee can do that.

cut out the entire space program for starters. cut out that high ranking gvt officials don't pay taxes

Let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% expire, and close loopholes.
End subsidies for big corporations.
Big cuts in defense.
End the drug war (not a big spending pit, but hey, while we're at it..)
Medicare needs a fix as well, but beyond letting government negotiate for lower prices with drug companies and importing drugs I don't have much to offer on how to do this.

Close loopholes, certainly. If you want the Bush tax cuts to expire, do it for everyone. Not a class warfare type of solution. All or nothing. I prefer a flat or fair tax to do this and end loophole and end corporation subsidies.


Fine if you do it for all corporations. Do not just go after Big Oil. Do it for GE, Microsoft, Google etc..


Defense cuts are certainly on the table. Big cuts, nope. We still need a strong defense. Gutting it will make us weak, both home and abroad.


Agreed. I am for the legalization of pot. Not for the stronger non-medically proven effective drugs.


Repeal Obamacare with its 500B in new taxes and its 1T in new entitlements.

Other ideas:

Raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare. Not for those over 55. But gradually for those under 55 to keep up with the increased life expectancy. When these programs were enacted, the average age of death was under 65. And the retirement age has only minimally crept up. Not fast enough for our aging population.

65 is the new 45 :)

Here, this is the solution to the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGN8cKcSPuQ&feature=player_embedded

During the last extension I was perfectly willing to sacrifice my meager, barely there Bush "tax cut" if it meant raising revenue and not going another $420 billion in debt to China, among others. I stand by that, though it isn't the optimal solution. After killing the ridiculous Bush tax cuts, I still favor another round of targeted, progressive-leaning cuts.

This is not class warfare. Cutting programs low income people rely on and attacking unions while funneling more wealth up the chain is class warfare.

Absolutely! I originally wrote "big oil" but backspaced it because the problem is much broader. The huge handout GE got last year absolutely sickens me.

Agreed that we need a strong defense. I do not want a weakened military. However, there is tons of waste and bloat in the defense budget, programs for weapons that have never been used and will never be used, and wasteful private contracts that just need to go. This is about making the defense department more efficient and cost-effective, not weaker.

Socialize healthcare. Use the savings from tax spending and other cuts to pay for this.

Also yes. I hope that by the time I retire the age will be lifted to at least 70.

Great! Should I post about what that lunatic Hank Williams said this week, and point out Fox & Friends' total hypocrisy on their reaction? Or should we just stick to the thread topic and quit hijacking with wacky tabloid celebrity hijinks?

Really only 2 things I strongly disagree with you LB.

The first of course is the tax cuts.

When 1% of the population pays 40% of all federal income tax and 10% pay 70% while the bottom 50% pay less than 3%, how much more progressive do you want?

We have in America the most progressive tax system in the world.

The Bush tax cuts did lead to over 50 months straight of economic growth, let us not forget about that. Till the mortgage situation drove the economy off the cliff. And that has both Republican and Democratic fingerprints.

The second, of course, is health care.

If we want to duplicate the system in Europe we will have those problems. Like what is happening in Britain right now.

Or how the Lockerbie bomber is alive due to pills he gets in Libya that he could not get in Scotland.

When there is a single payer, that payer knows they are the only game in town. And over time will cut without recourse for the population.

Certainly we may possibly could see saving over time, but care will significantly be impacted. Decisions on your health made by the government which I have never trusted.

Other than that, it seems we both agree on a lot of possibly ways to balance things.

Hank said nothing bad, it was completely taken out of context by the left. He was using an analogy that got totally misread.

They own 40% of the nation's wealth. Seems fair.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans/?page=entire

If that true, then good.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906152459.htm

I remember hearing this was due to Conservatives going after NHS. Someone posted it the last time we had the discussion here. I will leave the rest of this to somebody from Britain.

"We're keeping bad people alive" is not reason enough, for me, to deny good people health care.

Absolutely!

Hank absolutely, 100% meant what he said. This is incredibly obvious if you see the full interview.

He also calls Obama and Biden "the three (yes, three) stooges." He meant what he said.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

Beee,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-14580118

LB,


I do not understand that statement. I am saying what is happening to the bomber could happen in the US if we go to a socialized type of healthcare. Where the government is the sole arbitrator of what is covered and what is not.

Perhaps I misunderstood you as well. I'll look at the bbc article when I get a chance and get back with you.

LB,

I was stating that a person in the UK system could be denied access to drugs and therapy that could potentially save their life or increase their lifespan. Things that occur in a socialistic type of medical system.

The drug that the bomber had access to in Libya is available also in the US. But one does not have to be a national hero like the bomber to get such a drug in the US. It is readily available if you have prostate cancer as treatment.

Question about Defense:

Why exactly do we need such a strong military?

We already spend more on the military than just about the rest of the world combined.

We spend six times as much on defense as the next highest nation.

Considering those facts, what exactly are we defending against, if no one else is spending like we are? I won't even get into how our geographical location lends itself well to preventing random invasions/skirmishes (I am not talking about ICBM warfare here, obviously, which is comparatively cheap, anyway).

And no, "terrorism" isn't an answer. Terrorism isn't an army, it's an idea. That means a couple things. One, it means you can't really fight it with weaponry, no matter how much you spend, and two, it means whatever battle you proceed with cannot be won until you stop what is causing the sentiment. You can't beat an idea with war.

And no, "world police" isn't an answer. Why are we playing that role when we have a financial crisis we need to take care of here at home?

So, why so much spending on the military? Who are we defending against, and WHAT are we defending if we are letting personal liberties slip away here at home and having continuing economic struggles? Because let's not forget: a "successful" military usually means death and destruction -- that's what it does, by and large, at least that's what costs the most (unless we're spending a lot more on intelligence than I am thinking).

Other than that, Lord Bob pretty much said all I would say, except I think the DoD could stand to have massive cuts over time (not all at once, but over time).

It's more likely it's just not been passed yet by our medical board. Whatever that's called.

That being said, we do have a 'postcode' lottery, but that's rather more down to bad management, and too much spend on red tape and hitting targets, than being made available for medical needs.

Remove the 'for profit' links, and the wealth of middle management thats not needed, and there will be less treatments unavailable.

If you can afford it?

These things occur in this nation as well.

Ranger,
Seemingly that drug (discovered in the UK) was only approved in the US in April of this year. If that's the drug he's taking to stay alive then for sure it wasn't available in Scotland - it appears not to have been available anywhere at the time of his release.

It was slow tracked in Britain. Due to the cost involved. The longer they could slow down its approval, the less they would have to spend.

But we can chat about cataract surgery delays or joint replacement delays in Britain as a cost containing measure.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906152459.htm

As to that article.

I would like to see the happiness quotient broken down by income.

With much more people with less income than the rich, of course they would be happier paying nothing, like 47% of the people in the US (federal income tax). Vs having to actually contribute to the system.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906152459.htm

As to that article about wealth in the US.

I think this is a point LB and I will never agree on.

I personally do not care that 1% of the population owns x amount of the wealth. If they earned it, great for them.

But this is a better and more accurate statement on how much the "rich" should pay: The Top 1 Percent of Americans Take Home 24 Percent of National Income. So should my tax rate be only 24%?

I begrudge the super rich nothing. Great for them by being successful. I hope to emulate that someday. However, if they break the law, then they deserve the full punishment. Long jail terms and forfeiture of all their ill-gotten gains.

But it is easy to say increase taxes on the rich when it does not effect you.

Of course. That's just it, they didn't "earn" it, necessarily, or work any harder than anyone else, necessarily.

You never did answer my question from a thread a couple weeks back. Or, I should say you write something entirely mealy-mouthed and unintelligible (I can dig up what you said if you like). If two people work the same amount, but end up with different amounts of wealth, then what do you tell the person who has less? Or do you think such a scenario never happens?

Furthermore, what if someone with more wealth actually worked LESS than the person with a smaller amount? I am assuming that by your rationale it should work both ways -- let those who truly worked harder keep their gains, but if they worked less, they should have to give up MORE, no? You can't make a work = kept wealth argument without it working both ways. That's inconsistent.

That's the problem with "worth" and "earn" and "deserve" arguments, Ranger. You are assuming everyone is on an even playing field in terms of history and opportunity. That is not the case. Not by a very long shot.

And like I've said before -- you have no idea how much money I make. And I'm for a progressive tax on the rich. So what's your point? That I must not make very much money and so that's why I'm for it? I find it so odd when you defend your opinion simply by its existence. You beg the question with most everything you post.

I did not read it then, sorry. Or did not give an answer you liked, sorry. etc..

But I will try again. My personal feeling is that the government should try to make a starting line equal for everyone. Where people finish is up to them. If 2 people work the same amount, great. But there are other decisions that are involved.

If someone works his or her butt off to be the best professor of 14th century Chinese literature and the other works just as much to be the best engineer possible, of course there will be a difference in wealth. It is called choices. If someone puts everything they have into an art career and sucks at it, o well, it is their choice.


Trying for a gotya!! moment are we? How people end up can be do to a number of factors. Be it luck (right person at right time), skill, good choices etc...

I am sorry to say that I should not have to give money to that struggling artist so he can ply his trade making nothing. Unlike what Nancy Pelosi stated during the health care debates.


Now who is not reading posts? I have stated that there are people who due to circumstances beyond their control have little or no chance for success. Most are in the inner cities. Moms with kids who have 5 baby daddies. Lost kids as I call them. There are people with severe disabilities they cannot help themselves. But as someone with a moderate disability myself, it is possible to even overcome that with enough effort.


No, I have no idea how much you make. But in past posts you have stated make less than 100k a year. And have indicated you have struggled in the past.

But if you find it odd I defend my opinion simply by its existence, you should then call yourself odd as you have done and continue to do the same.

I have stated that I find it wrong to just tax the rich as a panacea for our debt and problems. Especially when 47% of American pays no federal income tax and some of that 47% actually get money back from the government.

With 1% paying 40% of all federal income tax. How much more do you want them to pay? 50%, 75%, 100%? You have never given me an answer to that question.

Why should nearly 50% of Americans be exempt from paying federal income taxes?

Just for reference, here was what you said before, Ranger:


Only I didn't say two people did their best. I said they both worked exactly the same amount. I said nothing about how that compared to their potential.


I assume that "always" should be "allows".

Even after that substitution, the above statement makes zero sense.

You say America "should" have a system in place that is 100% equitable in regards to people starting in the same place (by that I assume you mean starting point and opportunity). Except, as we both well know, that is not the case. I had a much better starting point than a black baby born with a crack addiction. And a son of a billionaire probably had some opportunities I didn't have.

You plow forward anyway, but don't do much but state what is essentially a Buckaroo Bonzai axiom: "Wherever you go, there you are."

To put it bluntly, you didn't answer my question at all.

Care to take another crack at it here, since you were the first person on this thread to re-kick up the term "class warfare"?

perhaps he meant the government should take all babies and raise them in equal settings... ; )

No Sut, I gave my answer. Too bad it is not what you wanted to read.


I know it is not the case. But we strive for it with things such as Affirmative Action programs, Anti-discrimination laws, and the American Disability Act. While we will never get to the same start, we try to make things as equal as possible for everyone to have a chance.


Ok, fine. Change potential to work. People make choices which should matter.

What is your point? That someone should work as an artist making little and the person working as a doctor should have to pay 75% or more in taxes to pay for it?

And you have never answered my question about how much is the appropriate tax rate for the "rich" to pay?

Because they haven't the disposable wealth to pay such taxes even though many of them have "worked" just as hard as those in the upper 50%. Next question?

I don't know when I wrote I made less than 100K, but it was a while ago. Old info. You have no idea how much I make now, and aren't going to know. It doesn't matter how much anyone on this thread makes. And despite not knowing that, knowing I might be filthy rich, I still believe in a progressive tax (and always will, no matter how wealthy I am). Bottom line: please stop assuming people only want a progressive tax because it wouldn't affect them. It's untrue and insulting when you say things like that.

That's nice that you have a name for people who start off worse and have less opportunity. You still didn't answer the question, though, except to finish with a statement that leads me to believe you think even the "Lost Children" can overcome their hardship with enough willpower and elbow grease. Fine. STILL didn't answer my question. Will that hard work, more work than, say, you did in your eight years of college, lead them to the same wealth as you? If it doesn't, what do you tell that person about the wealth disparity?

Also, my original query on the other thread wasn't struggling artist vs. engineer (nice attitude about the arts, though). It was same field, same amount of work. I am guessing at this point you would say those two people would have to make the exact same amount of money?

Let me get more specific. I write computer programs. I have a colleague who is here the exact same amount of time per day, has the same types of degrees I have, is my same gender and race. We are even about the same age and job experience. Yet, somehow, if we both just sit down and code for eight straight hours, I can guarantee you that my output will be better, more maintainable, more business-focused, and deliver better end results for my company. And because of that, I'm pretty sure, I am compensated better.

So, same everything. And we both work the same. No choices here, we both code for eight hours a day, it's not like he decides to slip out for a drink over lunch or falls asleep because he stays up all night. So where does the disparity come from? Where does his work end up less deserving of wealth than my work?

(And I only said I work the same eight hours for illustrative purposes. I could actually "work" far, far less, and often do, and still end up with superior output. So, I'm actually getting more wealth for LESS).

Why would I have to answer that? I don't think I've ever actually stated disliking the current progressive rates. Let tax cuts expire, cut out loopholes (that the rich can generally take more advantage of), and I'm fine. I don't need any more than that. To put it another way, you can look at the rates I think are fine over on the IRS web site, and then just make sure the rich are paying those full amounts. Is that a clear enough answer?

The only other thing I've ever stated differently in terms of revenue is to cut subsidies for corporations who no longer need them.

You can ask all the questions of me you want, but if I never stated a contrary opinion to the current state, I've no need to answer. I am asking you questions about which have clear, contrary opinions.

About the artist, read my previous post. The question is not about artist vs engineer (and never was). And even if it were, you can't prove an engineer is more "important" than an artist, so it's a moot point.

About opportunity, you can speak all you want about how we TRY for opportunity equality. My point is that we aren't there. Not in starting points and not in ongoing choice-potential. And last I checked, you disliked things like Affirmative Action (though I might be assuming there, correct me where I'm wrong). So, even some of the striving appears to be something you already don't care for, and the striving hasn't even gotten us close yet.

Yet you persist in saying those who are wealthy have worked harder and so deserve to keep it in the exact same proportion as everyone else. Something isn't adding up here.

As long as you only choose to answer what you choose, it is foolish for me to continue.

What are you talking about? I did answer your question. I said I didn't have to, and explained the reasons why (let me know if you need clarification of my explanation). But I answered, nonetheless.

You are right, however, there's no need for you to continue considering the fact you are doing something worse than not answering questions -- you're answering with sideways, off-point answers in order to make other points and muddle the very simple, original scenario. In that regard, "foolish" might just be word I would use, too.

Wrong Sut,

I am answering your questions. They are just not the answers you want to read.

Open your mind to other people's opinions instead of your own as the only answer. It will better serve you in life.

Ranger,

I asked this question, put simply:

Given that opportunities are not equitable, what do you say to someone that, because of that inequitability, has less wealth than someone else, even though (in the same work area and with making good choices -- at least, the ones available to them) they worked just as hard as someone else?

You answered by saying: we're trying to make opportunities more equal, so we're OK.

That's not an answer to the question. You can see that, right? My eyes are wide open (but thanks for tending back trolling behavior again, calling me closed-minded). Answer the question. Opportunities are not equal (a fact your "but we're trying to fix it" tacitly admits). Therefore, the same work does not equal the same wealth for some people. What do you tell those people, and how do you defend the "work always leads to wealth, so wealth must mean you worked" circular logic? Answer. Directly. And stop saying I'm the one not answering questions, because I have answered every one you asked. Directly.

If you prefer a more specific example, you can answer the question related to my specific work place. Why does the same amount of work for two white guys in the same location, industry, and educational background result in different output and therefore different wealth accumulation? How is this possible?

And back on topic, has anyone thought about my defense question way up there? Why we have to spend so much? To reiterate that question, simply:

What are we defending against that we need to spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, and 6 times more than the nearest spender?

If we cut defense spending by 25% or so, we could save 1.5 trillion in 7-8 years (not sure what the timeline is on these cuts -- is that for the yearly budget itself?)

Ranger, I always wondered something about this. You question about why 40% or so people don't pay any federal taxes at all, well I can help answer that. They are the people making below the poverty level. They make 25k or less per year and try to pay their bills. Every penny is used week in and week out and yet you feel their pain is a way to help make the top 1% pay less??

When the top 1% has 40% of the wealth of the nation that is a sickening number. Lets lower it to simple numbers. If we take 100 people and 1 million dollars.. You are saying that 1 person having 400k of the money and the 10 people have over 700k of the money and the other 300k is divided among the other 90 people and everyone should pay the same % of tax.... that is just crazy talk.

I'm a bit tired and might respond later with something more, but just wanted to get this out on the thread.

sox, a recent study said 1 in 6 people in the US live in poverty.

I am not sure about how that all roughs out in terms of children, families, employable people, immigrants, etc. But 1/6 is only around 17%, not 40.

I believe the rest is made up with various deductions, such as having children, home mortgage interest write-offs, etc. Otherwise I'm not entirely sure how 40-50% of people pay no taxes (but that's what a lot of folks tell me).

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/americans-paying-no-taxes/

Interesting dudemus, though three years old. Since I am lazy and you are awesome, is there a more recent assessment of the situation around, or is the tax structure similar enough to November of 2008 that there is no need for a refresh?

Thirty-eight percent, then, doesn't sound that odd to me (especially when more and more I hear people saying it is FIFTY percent, not even forty (so that's just not true, then, or an exaggeration using statistical tweaks). With almost 20 percent living in poverty, I can imagine another 18% having enough deductions (children, homes, interest) to end up coming out even on the pure income portion of taxes (and therefore not owing anything) while still paying the other Federal taxes out of their paychecks.

Something else to keep in mind is that, for any given year, there is always going to be a fraction of folks who, though they have a lot of gross income, can make the figures for a certain calendar year look like a loss. Living on a farm and seeing 50K spent on a tractor (business-related liability) while selling 900 bu of soybeans at a time (a semi, probably around $6500 in gross profit at that time, prices are higher now), it wasn't hard to see how timing all the liabilities in one year while spreading income into the next year could make that previous year look like we didn't make a thing. Of course, that next year would put the farm WAY up into the 62% that DID pay taxes, but that fraction isn't nearly as dramatic as the zero-payers.

All told, it is easy for me to see why a third of people would end up breaking even after deductions, and getting up to 40% from there isn't all that hard to imagine, either.

Thanks for the link!

that is the most recent breakdown i have seen. given the economy for the last 3 years, i doubt it has changed very drastically though.

With the increase in deductions such as the earned child credit, etc.. the number not paying taxes is now at 47%. And some of those actually get money back from the government.

Perhaps the top 1% earned that money. Legally and with hard work.

I am an advocate of a flat or fair tax. With a floor of poverty under which you pay no tax or get a rebate depending on the type of tax system.

But why should not everyone pay the same % when making over the poverty level? The person making 700k a year will of course pay more than the person making 50k, no? Why should they pay an extra premium? Do they get more services from the goverment than the person making 50K? I think actually they get less.

Do you have a link...just curious (I plan on getting off my duff and doing some research after this..)


Perhaps. And perhaps it is some of my tax money, too.


So I've read.

Here Sut:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

Remember we are typing about federal income tax. Everyone pays other taxes, such as Medicare, payroll, gas etc..

Thanks, good link. Found several others, too. And yes, several make clear that Medicare and SS is left out of that. From there, various pundits go in a LOT of directions.

To be frank from my own opinion, 47% does not sound all that outrageous now that I have beefed up a little on all of what people are talking about, especially considering all the other taxes people pay, and the disparity in ways wealth can be camouflaged. Not to mention the fact that it isn't that much more than in years past. I guess that is probably the most disingenuous part, is what a big talking point it has suddenly become when for quite a while a third of folks were already not paying anything or very little. When people hear the FORTY-SEVEN PERCENT!!!!!!111! out of the blue, with no context, it seems shocking. But if I said, "yeah, it's 47%, a moderate climb from the 38% three years ago..." fewer folks would probably succumb to the instant "say what now?" aspect of it.

I wonder what "percentage of people paying no income tax" has looked like historically? Anyone find a chart or table to that end?

I have not been able to find a historica table. Only statements via various articles and links that state 47% is the highest in the last 50 or so years.

Remember federal income tax was started in 1913 and was only 1% for the very top earners.

1/6 is 20.... ?

Also, this:

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in absolute poverty."


In terms of what actually constitutes poverty, here's a chart:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines

Persons in Family	48 Contiguous States and D.C.	Alaska	Hawaii
1	$10,890	$13,600	$12,540
2	14,710	18,380	16,930
3	18,530	23,160	21,320
4	22,350	27,940	25,710
5	26,170	32,720	30,100
6	29,990	37,500	34,490
7	33,810	42,280	38,880
8	37,630	47,060	43,270
For each additional person, add	3,820	4,780	4,390

Ok, that chart isn't true... those are poverty guidelines, which are different from poverty thresholds....

Thresholds are only available for 2010 and prior, and as an Excel spreadsheet (Go Microsoft!)

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

Hm? Yeah, I rounded up a bit before when I mentioned 20%, 1/6 is actually .16666666, or around 17%.

I tend to speak in round numbers to get a feel for orders of magnitude. Like I said, the part that usually gets to me is that suddenly !!!47%!!! is being thrown around as if the previous number were zero (in other words, very few outlets, regardless of left or right, seem good at context these days -- sensationalism is just so much more fun!). The previous number, three years ago, was already 38%. So it doesn't seem odd, shocking, or unjust that a few tax credits took that number up to 47.

On the contrary -- it goes to show how many people were/are still "on the bubble", how flat the wealth curve is down there before it starts shooting up for that final 1-5 percent. I need to find an income distribution chart...

Here you go Sut:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/542.html

Till about 1990 it was about 15-22% that paid no taxes.

From 1990 to about 2000 it was increased to about 25%

It has been rising steadily since 2000 to its present 47%.

That chart only goes to 2004. But the recent numbers have been discussed in previous posts.

OK, good to know it isn't really a party thing then, if it was also rising through the Bush years.

Sounds like it is just as much an overall shift in the wealth curve as it is in policy changes. And the increasing poverty numbers would certainly support that (at least at the low-end of the non-paying folks...)

One also needs to look at the threshold compared to the poverty level of those not paying taxes. I do not have those stats.

Not sure what you mean? I was just assuming that the 17% of folks in poverty were automatically a part of the 47%.

Ah, or if you mean changing goalposts on what "poverty" is? Yeah, that would be good to know.

The ratio of income level not paying taxes/poverty level.

With all the new tax credits given in the latest stimulus, I suspect more and more people above the poverty level paying no taxes.

I full well understand and accept the fact that those in or near the poverty level will pay and should pay no federal income tax.

But the amount/bar is rising.

I completely agree. The jump from 38% to 47% is most definitely related to that. Though, lots of stats talk about how even the employed have stagnating wage rates, so that makes the wealth bulge slowly creep up the scale (or lack of wealth creep down, choose your poison). It's all about the curve!

To be clear on my stance, I'd love to have the number of people paying taxes be 100%! That would mean folks have the not-needed-just-to-survive wealth to do so!

I agree.

But in the absence of utopia, we do need to have a floor below which people do not have to pay fed income tax.

But see, we agree!!