Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

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.

The nation was more prosperous when in the Reagan years, capital gains
were taxed at or near 28%. And I believe there was no "carried
interest" then either.

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.

Never got there and don't expect to get there ever either.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid