Ron Paul is wrong on one major thing...tax rates for the top bracket must be increased.

[JebSanderson]

Fun with numbers:

Are you advocating that the bottom 50% pay 50% of the total taxes? Because they only make 9% of the total income, whereas the top 1% comprises of 22% of the total income. In fact, if the bottom 50% were to be responsible for 50% of the federal taxes, you'd have to tax them at roughly 110%. Unless Bernanke can help out with his counterfeit machine, I'm not sure how that'll work.

(http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html)

No, but if they make 9% of the income, they should pay 9% of total income taxes. If the top 1% makes 22% of total income they should pay 22% of total incomes taxes, as opposed to 38% which they currently pay.

Obviously, I'd rather no one pay any income tax whatsoever.

 

[Flugel89]

They're citizens, and are part of this country. If they don't like it, leave.

Yeah, run all the major job creators overseas. That's a wonderful plan that has worked oh so well in the past.


/sarcasm

 

[Brian4Liberty]

That won't fix everything. You still have to increase taxes on the rich, or else the deficits won't go away.

The rich write the tax code. If you are getting taxed, you ain't rich.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

No, Ron Paul is right, get rid of the income tax.

There's the answer that brought many of us to Ron Paul...

 

[Havax]

The guy is a troll. Just look at his post history. He posted 3 times "great info" in different meaningless threads so that his post count wasn't 1.

 

[DEGuy]

No, but if they make 9% of the income, they should pay 9% of total income taxes. If the top 1% makes 22% of total income they should pay 22% of total incomes taxes, as opposed to 38% which they currently pay.

Obviously, I'd rather no one pay any income tax whatsoever.

I agree that should be the case too (barring elimination of taxes). I was pointing out the misleading inference in the previous chart that the top 1% in income brackets pay 38% of the total tax, which implies it must be unfair because 38% >> 1 %. But it's comparing apples to oranges.

 

[r3volution]

obama troll would be less obvious if you did not start threads right away with 1 of his top agendas . you also need to realize the the majority here want less government , so you will need to explain how that can be accomplished by giving them more money ?

 

[The Free Hornet]

Are you advocating that the bottom 50% pay 50% of the total taxes? Because they only make 9% of the total income, whereas the top 1% comprises of 22% of the total income. In fact, if the bottom 50% were to be responsible for 50% of the federal taxes, you'd have to tax them at roughly 110%. Unless Bernanke can help out with his counterfeit machine, I'm not sure how that'll work.

The federal government used to get most of its money from tariffs (95% or so in some years):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States

After 1917, when income taxes exceeded tariff taxes, it was all over. Stealing from citizens' income became far preferred to stealing from the imports or sales of booze.

A tariff or excise tax was required to be uniform so it didn't matter if a rich man or poor man drank that bottle of wkiskey. Of course, we wouldn't have to tax anybody at 110% if the scope of government was reduced.