Taxes rise for almost everybody, except the ultra-rich, who already are not paying much (on a percentage basis). The graph pretty much speaks for itself, so go look.
(I couldn't get the graph to show properly on my blog, so you'll have to click on the above link. Suffer.)
(H/T.)
Jumping To The Wildest Possible Conclusion
1 hour ago
7 comments:
A blog is the perfect way to display such an awesome graph, because you can see what seems like most of it, but then you scroll down to see the rest... and you just have to keep scrolling and scrolling until you feel like throwing up!
Agreed, but I could not get it to come out properly on my blog.
I saw displayed correctly, at first, although I'm sure it borked the rest of your page.
Comrade Misfit, I have only one beef with that graph, and the author's comments. Look at who he is. He's writing from an intrinsically biased perspective. He's right that the 9-9-9 plan will remove a great deal of the tax burden from richer taxpayers: but he won't (can't?) tell the other side of the story, which is that far too many people who should be paying taxes are evading them. 9-9-9 would bring them into the net, and by greatly increasing the number of taxpayers, also increase the Treasury's income.
I've also yet to see any commentator on the Left acknowledge that Cain's 9-9-9 plan exempts basic foodstuffs and necessities from consumption tax, meaning that the poor (the genuinely poor, that is) won't suffer under his tax system. Instead, they're all bleating about how the poor would pay more.
I'm not sure I like 9-9-9, or Cain as a candidate. I distrust both political parties equally. Nevertheless, I wish those who attack (or defend) a particular policy would make it clear how their own biases affect their analysis, and color their opinions.
There's nowhere near enough honesty in politics. May I suggest, with genuine respect, that it behooves us to do what we can to encourage and uphold it in our own comments?
As first put forth, the 9-9-9 plan taxed everything but used goods. So as long as you got your car parts from the junkyard, your food from a food bank and your clothes from a second-hand shop, no tax.
Tell me, Peter, who out here pays zero taxes? Income is taxed for Social Security an Medicare. People living strictly on Social Security aren't taxed, but that's easily fixed by just cutting their benefits by 10%. And they are paying Federal excise taxes, as well as state and local taxes. Governments, from the Federal on down, have no problem with taxing the primary vices of the lower income classes (smoking and drinking). And then there is the tax on hope (state lottery games).
You want to take more from those at the bottom? Fine, but then you're going to have to fix the crap that the hedge-fund guys and the trust-fund babies and all of the others of that ilk are paying 15%.
You really think that George Soros and David Koch should pay less than they do now?
I had a week when I was 12 that I thought a flat tax was a good thing. Everyone should pay the same percentage.
But then I thought about taxes and what they are used for and what the total tax load that we all pay regardless of our incomes and realized that ANY flat tax is very regressive and very much benefits the few rich at the expense of the huge numbers of whom can least afford it. And the benefits are not just the amount of taxes paid, but include things like having a military (staffed by the less than rich) that can protect offshore interests (mostly the rich own those), etc.
So after that week I decided that I didn't need to support rich cocksuckers at my expense, they have enough resources to do that themselves.
Stolen from the Daily Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0CfhdkrEmU
Post a Comment