In article ,
Han wrote:


But neither is the current system where the top 1% pay twice the %age
of income taxes as they have %age of income (34,3% of taxes versus
16.8% of income. I find it hard to suggest that rich aren't paying
their share when they pay 34% of taxes and 40% of the worst off
actually have a NEGATIVE tax rate because the credits are more than
their taxes.

If one's income is so low, it is totally eaten up by housing, food and
other necessities (defined narrowly), why would you have to pay taxes
too? Even the flat taxers would institute a no tax zone, so to speak.
In order to protect their condition, the rich do have to pay a greater
share.

Which isn;t what I said. This wasn't a suggestion that the poor pay more
taxes, just that it hard to suggest that the rich aren't already
approaching it, especially given that the really poor are not only
paying taxes, but are making a profit off it.


mortgage types. BTW: Those in the top brackets already are finding out
about that since deductions for taxes and charitable contributions
already fade out above a certain income.

Well, I consider myself relatively well-off, but I'm far from that point.
And I have fairly little mortgage interest to pay.

When I was still kinda sorta near the top 5% anyway, there was a couple
of years where I paid an additional 5K in taxes solely and utterly
because of phase outs.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz