Because the rich have a much higher level of disposable income than the poor.
Additionally overall they usually pay tax at about the same rate as everyone else.
Hence my comment. If the tax loopholes were closed (as they should be!), then those same rich people would be paying much more than the poor, percentage wise. I still do not believe economic disparity is an appropriate banner for inequality, though I do understand the sentiment.
Profits can't be used to pay wages...
Says who? It's called bonuses, and they happen every year at many companies. Company does well? Bonus time. Company does poorly? No bonus. Of course there's other political and social factors involved in the decision, but if a company is now consistently earning a windfall of 300m per quarter extra, that very company can decide to promote or readjust salaries, and easily through end of the year bonuses.
Because that isn't how the world really works. The class system exists at least to some degree.
Only because we as humans (hence society as whole) reinforce that behavior. It doesn't have to be really, and though you are correct that socially the idea has been entrenched for centuries as a way to keep people repressed (ala caste systems), it should
not be legally enshrined in this day and age. We could of course get into a large discussion about socioeconomic factors and how they correlate to success, but I think that would be entirely off topic.
You are aware of the global financial crisis? And that that effectively necessitates high (temporary) deficits?
Your emphasis is noted, but not at all enforced. If history is any indication, those debts (at least the US) are here to stay until we default. Deficits are exactly what got (some) of the countries into this crisis in the first place. Overspending and poor fiscal responsibility by a few nations has hurt the Euro greatly, for example. While Keynesian economics calls for government spending to stimulate the economy, that is not the only school of thought. Overspending can further damage the long term recovery of the economy. During the initial financial crisis, some European nations opted to become fiscally responsible instead of throwing money around. Whether that was the right choice? Ultimately time will tell, but I think those nations are going to be far more insulated against hyperinflation and future recession.
Surely by taxing everyone the same amount you would exacerbate the gulf between socioeconomic groups. Basically everyone would be taxed the same so either the state would be short changed while the lower earners would have some leeway, or the state would be ok and the lower earners would be borderline. In both scenarios, the percentage of take home pay going to the state would be dramatically greater in the lower earning versus the higher earners, exacerbating the gap between the extremes.
When I say same amount, I mean percentage. Lets say we have two families -- one earns 90k cumulative, one earns 2mil cumulative. If we're at a flat tax of 20% lets say, then yes, the take home pay of the 90k family will be 72k, but the millionaire family is still contributing far more tax dollars per household (in this case 18k vs 400k). There seems to be some notion that the rich can finance the country, when in fact the majority of tax money necessarily comes from the middle and lower "class," which makes sense considering the population proportionality. Furthermore, the notion of bankrupt state from a flat tax is incorrect from what I've read, but I'm not an economist and I haven't crunched the numbers. In terms of economic mobility -- I view success in this realm independent from tax code; certain social programs would have far more impact than simply saving lower income families some money.
This is the most illeterate argument. It is not how much you pay, it is the percentage you pay matters.
Let's say you bought one stock for 100k and sold for 110k another bought another stock for 10k and sold for 30k. Which one is more profitable.
Similarly a person making 100k W2 salary is paying minimum 25%. Only major deductions are 401k and mortgage interest deduction.
A person who makes 10 Million pays less than 15%. Can hire one of the four large consulting/auditing firms to find every possible loophole and tax haven around the world.
How is that fair.
For calling some illiterate, you certainly didn't read and understand what I wrote. To be clear, I support:
-Closing tax loopholes
-A flat tax (which means a flat percentage)
I don't think we're very much in disagreement -- everyone should be even before the tax code, so the 100k person and the 10 million person BOTH pay 25%.
1. Jealousy. Simple as that. Some people are poor because of experiences beyond their control. Those folks should be helped by us and we need a system for that outside of government. Some people are self destructive and F them but they will whine endlessly. Some folks are moderately successful and some for all practical purposes "hit the lottery", due to position, work, and persistence. That deserves compensation.
You forgot the biggest issue:
People are lazy.
Anytime there's a free lunch, people want in. I don't blame them really; we're all hardwired to be opportunists. The problem is, there's undoubtedly a certain percentage of the population who are just plain lazy. They blame their economic plight on others while being jealous of those who are successful, when in fact their lack of success is their own fault. They think they deserve something for nothing -- especially the most recent generations. The amount of self entitlement nowadays is appalling.
2. Legally a corporation is a "legal person" not a "natural person". For purposes of the law. I guess that is not perfect because if they commit a crime of violence they are only fined not dissolved and the persons in the corporation who effectuated it are persued if they can be caught. But for IRS purposes a corporation is effectively the exact same thing as a trust. That's a distinction with a difference.
For the IRS a company is defined as an individual and thus is subject to taxation, which is what I meant before. That wasn't always the case. I don't think they should be consider natural person(s); in fact, I don't even think they, as an organization, should be held liable for taxes or many legal issues. The people within the organization though? Undoubtedly. The one who made the decisions or were implicated/aware should take the fall for all things criminal, not the organization as a whole. Same goes with the tax code.
3. The US does not define class. Be accurate. Politicians, persons, institutions define class for selfish and self-serving reasons contrary to their oath or subjection to the constitution. Lets make a law about that!
Apologies, but the tax code does. It's called brackets. The politicians and publication perpetuate the social construct created centuries ago to repress people. All should be equal before law.
While I understand your **** the government attitude, I'm certainly not "anti establishment." I think government and regulation has it's time and place, and necessary for an ordered society for the foreseeable future (unless man changes- unlikely). Those that run the government and it's various branches should be held directly responsible to the people, especially when they're spending (and wasting) the people's money. We could discuss possible solutions for quite some time, but the hard reality is that in the US the only path to change is either through Congress (which would never restrict its own powers), or through the people demanding such (which would require far more civil participation and intelligence than present).
