Flat tax would be way better than the fiasco we currently are enslaved under, but still makes it too easy to hide certain types of income. With a consumption tax (something like fairtax.org), everybody pays.
1. Raise taxes on established corporations. 2. Stop spending on welfare and similar programs. 3. Subsidize new small businesses that actually do something. (Not marketing industry) Long term this is the way to go.
Flat tax all individuals and corporations - no deductions. Corporations that homesource previously outsources positions: Y deduction per head Corporations that assemble goods in the United States: X deduction. Corporations that assemble goods from raw materials and components of US origin in the United States: X times 2 This gooses the entire scenario: We have to manufacture goods and export them. Quality products. Leave the crap stuff to the Chinese. Poach German and Japanese manufacturing.
I will take the fact that you have had to resort to petty 1 liners to mean you have no argument left, and that i am correct, thank you for conceding the argument.
Actually, it means that I have given up on you and view further effort on my part as adding to a misguided sunk cost. And by "petty," I'm sure you meant "poignant."
Looks like we were both wrong, i got my numbers wrong when i said the tax cuts on the top 5% only accounted for 25%, it was the tax cuts on the 1%ers that accounted for about 25% of the cost. Taxes for top 5% ended up being 44.2% of the cost, but seing as how the top 5% also pay more than 50% of the taxes in this country, that would still mean that the tax cuts favoured the poor by a very small proportion. Half true according to politifact, though politifact never got into the fact that the 5%ers pay more than 50% of the taxes, which would infact make the statement false, because if they got 44.2% of the tax cuts, and they pay more than 50% of the taxes, then that means they got a little less than what they should have, if they were trying to make the tax cuts proportional in terms of how much everyone pays in. Jim McDermott says to 3 percent got majority of benefit from Bush tax cuts Share this story: During an interview with MSNBC host Ed Schultz, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., took aim at a series of tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush -- tax cuts that backers say energized the economy but which critics assailed as a giveaway to the rich. Schultz and McDermott were discussing Republican opposition to extending unemployment benefits without reallocating money already included in the economic stimulus package passed in 2009. McDermott, like other Democrats, decried that rationale for blocking unemployment insurance, saying that Republicans have consistently supported tax cuts that benefit richer Americans. "Those tax cuts, most of it, went to people above -- at the very top, in the top 3 percent of this country, and they simply are unwilling to be even-handed," McDermott said. "Treat the workers like you treat the rich in this country, but they don't. They give to the rich and take it away from the poor, and then cluck their fingers and say, we shouldn't give you an unemployment check because you might sit at home and wait for this little check and not go out and look for a job. You can't find a job today in most parts of this country. You've got six people looking for every job that's out there, and to put the blame on the workers is absolutely wrong." We thought it was worth checking his claim that a majority of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts flowed to the richest 3 percent of Americans. To do this, we looked at figures compiled by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. In one chart, the center compares how big a share different economic groups got from the series of tax cuts enacted under Bush between 2001 and 2008. The center didn't look specifically at the top 3 percent, but it did look at the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent. The top 1 percent took 29.5 percent of the benefits, and the top 5 percent took 44.2 percent.
The gap between rich and poor would have skyrocketed regardless due to asset inflation, the rich always distance themselves during times of asset inflation, last i checked the distance didnt exactly correct itself in the 90's P.S. you must have been waiting to respond to something with your damn finger on the trigger, as you answered before i posted the artilcle in my post feel free to go back and read it.