The bottom 50% percentile isn't likely to receive inheritances, interest income, dividends or capital gains at all, and thus, doesn't pay those taxes either.

Only sales taxes. Sales taxes, however regressive, are only a relatively small fraction of State revenues.

The bottom 50% of the US population pays the lowest amount of taxes of all types (combined) than any other person in the western world. Darn close to zero, and no more than 2-3% of income maximum including sales taxes (since the largest portion of low income spending goes to non-taxable items - rent and food).

I know this really sucks the wind out a lot of leftwing arguments, but a fact is a fact.

It is because only the wealthy pay those taxes that the elimination of them makes the tax scheme even more regressive. As I said.

According to The Tax Foundation the bottom 50% pays 3% in income tax alone.

Taxes such as car registration etc which are the same for everyone obviously add more to the regressiveness of the tax burden.
All business taxes are passed on to the consumer while the business share of payroll taxes is routinely absorbed by workers in the form of lower wages.
Most people receive all their income from working which means they pay income and SS taxes on all of it. Only a small minority receive any significant income from the lower taxed income from dividends etc and untaxed income from bonds.
Most people spend almost all their income to support themselves. That means they pay sales taxes and the passed on business taxes on almost everything they earn. Only a tiny percentage are able to invest a large portion of their income.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Please cite a reference for the assertion that the bottom 50% pays even 3%. This last meagre contribution of the bottom 50% was eliminated within the last three years (parceled in with Bush's high end tax cuts). Pre-2004 data perhaps.

As for the rest of your statement, you are floundering trying to show that the bottom 50% of the US citizenry pays some taxes, however meagre.

Yes, they do pay some few taxes - sales taxes, but only if they live in a state that has them. And automotive license fees, etc.

That is only a tiny fraction.

I know leftwingers don't like it, but the reality is that the bottom 50% of US citizens don't pay much in the way of taxes - zero in federal income taxes to be specific. Yes, they pay a few taxes, but overall, US citizens of the bottom 50% pay the lowest portion of thier income as taxes in comparison with any other western country - by a long shot - no one even comes close.

You'd have to get yourself into the top 1/10th of 1% of income to get your tax bill this low (like Warren Buffet noted, he doesn't actually pay taxes). But I'd bet that the sales taxes that Buffet pays would trump the total tax contribution of several thousand other people - unless Nebraska doesn't have a sales tax (I don't know off hand).

Floundering? Not unless you can show that something I said isn't true.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

You are desperately trying to show that my statement isn't true.

The best you can say is that the bottom 50% of Americans pay less than 5% of their total income in taxes of all kinds (not withstanding property taxes - which of course they are least likely to pay as well).

That's a mere fraction of the value of the services they receive (welfare, social security, medicare, highways, FDA, etc).

The average tax bill in the USA is about 27% of income (last figures I've seen on this which was 2004 data).

Poor people in the USA pay less taxes in the USA than poor people anywhere else in the western world. That is a fact.

The fact that this contradicts most assumptions on the left is particularly important. One has to have the facts. In the USA, it is the rich that pay the vast majority of taxes.

Remarkably, the USA has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. The richer you are, the more you pay. Up until Bush's latest round of tax cuts, the top 1% rich were rather heavily taxed compared with the top 1% in Canada (for example).

Even the middle class in the USA is remarkably lightly taxed. It is the upper middle class and the wealthy that pay the lion's share of taxes in the USA.

In Canada for example, even if you make minimum wage, you will have to pay income taxes (around 11% rate I believe, notwithstanding possible deductions). Minimum wage in the USA is totally income tax free.

This applies only to federal income tax.

I have already explained how the middle class and poor pay a larger percentage of their incomes in total taxes than rich people do. You have posted nothing here that contradicts any of the claims I made. Your pretence that federal income tax is the only tax americans pay is ridiculous. And your pretence that only direct payments like welfare can be considered "benefits" is just as ridiculous. The billions in government subsidies to business, money for infrastructure improvements, market stabilizing federal regulations etc all pay huge dividends in the form of corporate profits which end up in the pockets of shareholders. Clearly the people who "benefit" most from our tax supported government are those with the most money.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

If anything I posted actually suggested anything even remotely like this you would have a point. As it is.....

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

"Plan uses Global Warming taxes to line pockets of congress through clandestine agreements for carbon credits, industrial contracts, and endless useless research grants, while industry is crippled by idiotic new laws based on a myth."

__________________

You had me right up until "crippled" and "myth". These industries own congress. There is no way they will ever be "crippled" by legislation. And the "myth" is believed by the acadamies of science of all the developed countries on the planet. Unless you are ready to supply evidence of a global conspiracy among thousands of otherwise upstanding and respected scientists, this is a foolish claim to make.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

I agree with your notion that there are problems with introducing a new tax. However, the biggest problem is that it gives the government it is the large likelihood that the tax will lead to a "permanent" increase in taxation. Any incentives that it gives government to increase pollution are counteracted by the incentives that individuals face to reduce pollution. I would expect there is ample empirical evidence to confirm this.

In dealing with gasoline consumption issues there are many effective was to reduce consumption. Government research while important in the initial push for developing technology is of limited value beyond that. Governments are generally not good at developing finished products so while more funding for research into renewable energy may help they can only go so far in the development of alternative energy sources. In the end it is the profitability of these methods that determine their viability. Again a gasoline tax would help to bridge this gap.

It should be noted that it is quite likely that the gasoline consumption is being subsidized with out considering the risk posed by greenhouse gas emissions. When you compare transportation of goods and people by train to transportation by vehicle you notice that the tracks and land are usually owned by the train company while the roads are usually publicly owned. In this sense vehicle transportation is being subsidized when the gasoline tax is too low. There are economists who I have talked to who believe that even in the absence of issues related to greenhouse gases vehicle transportation is being subsidized.

the ethanol boondoggle for midland- richards et al, is a farce....congress is doing its level best to screw up again...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

agreed...

and for those struggling with this...


TAX CUTS EXPLAINED

Because it is tax season. . . Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can
understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill
for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Because you
are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

This is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor