I was showing that your statement in the OP was wrong. Pure and simple.
You said the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes.What am I not being consistent on?
And you’re still ignoring the question. Why are they not paying enough?
What would you think of a federal consumption tax (flat for all) that kicked in any time the federal deficit exceeded a specific % of GDP?The true solution is to make deficit spending only allowable if it passes by the same requirements of amending the constitution. I am not saying we should never deficit spend. But it should take both the Feds and States being on board. Pipe dream I know.
My data wasn't just about Sweden.Okay so your point, according to you, is that I’m wrong regarding how progressive our tax system is. And you proved that by showing me that Sweden has a less progressive system?
How did your “data and Sweden” do anything other than strengthen my argument?
Luther, that was an honest mistake on his part in that one single post. You know that, but you’re being an a$$ about it. His post should have said the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes or the Top 50% pays almost all income taxes. Move on so you can continue to dodge other direct questions or provide nebulous, non-commital answers.You said the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes.
you later said 1% pays almost all of income taxes.
Unless you are claiming that 40% is almost all then you are being grossly inconsistent.
It's actually humorous to see someone be so consistently wrong.
I am a massive fan of the Fair Tax. Ignore the name it's pandering. But it's great policy IMOWhat would you think of a federal consumption tax (flat for all) that kicked in any time the federal deficit exceeded a specific % of GDP?
Might cause the citizenry to take more notice of how we are allocating tax receipts.
My data wasn't just about Sweden.
You didn't say America has one of the most progressive tax systems, you said America has the most progressive tax system.
Give me a break.Luther, that was an honest mistake on his part in that one single post. You know that, but you’re being an a$$ about it. His post should have said the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes or the Top 50% pays almost all income taxes. Move on so you can continue to dodge other direct questions or provide nebulous, non-commital answers.
The ones most consistently misspeaking, are those claiming, the wealthy aren't paying taxes. Who are dumb enough, to perpetuate the idea, that Warren and Mittens Secretary pay more in taxes Or that Amazon pays none. It's truly deceitful dangerous, nonsense that if you had morals, you would shout down. It's dangerous. And it's on purpose.That would at least be more accurate and consistent.
If you want to poke fun of people who misspeak, it's best to not be one of the most guilty.
Give me a break.
He wants to claim in a post that everything I say is wrong, and then you want me to let his mistakes go unnoticed.
No. I believe in property tax.
Give me a break.
He wants to claim in a post that everything I say is wrong, and then you want me to let his mistakes go unnoticed.
I WISH that was true.Maybe I lost track, but we don't have a federal wealth tax other than a graduated income tax scale of which no rich asshat pays. People that are middle to upper "middle class" are the ones that get F'd every year. The really rich like some pilots on here get away with paying little to no taxes.
And what is that 'fair share'. And don't start with your 'whatever society determines' horseshit. They already shoulder 40% of the burden, how much more is 'fair'?I'm saying what I've always said. That the wealth inequality in our country is obscene and the wealthiest need to shoulder their FAIR SHARE of the burden.
What mistake did I not own up to?The difference here is simple. I owned up to it. I should’ve said they pay a plurality or that the top 50% pay the vast majority.
When do you plan on manning up? Or are you going to continue lying about Sweden