• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Who pays more taxes?

Who pays more taxes

  • The Rich

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • The Poor

    Votes: 8 29.6%
  • The Middle Class

    Votes: 11 40.7%

  • Total voters
    27

jzt83

Cyburbian
Messages
21
Points
2
My poly sci professor gave a convincing arguement about the fact that poor people pay more taxes than the rich. Although the poor may pay less income taxes, they have to pay moreof their income on regressive taxes (such as sales tax, excise tax, gasoline tax, property tax etc.) Since income earners of all tax brackets pay equal amount of regressive taxes, the poor end up paying a higher percentage of their income on such taxes.

He also mentioned that the rich use many loopholes and qualify for various deductions when the file their taxes. Thus, paying less taxes. According to an IRS study, 400 of the 1% earners (average income $126 mil) paid on average 22% of their income on taxes. Is that fair to you or what? I'd love to see your folks input.
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
You missed one group, that most of us fall into - the middle class.

From a Canadian perspective.

We make too much for gov't tax rebates (HST/Child Tax Credit/Heating) but don't make enough that we could not actually use that bit of money.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
The income tax is even regressive (in this country) if you look at how much of a person's disposable income is consumed. A guy making 30k per year with three kids may need 90% of his income to not be living in poverty, so when he's taxed 10%, he's down to no disposable income. A rich person may need 3% of their income, so when they're taxed 40%, they still have a bunch of disposable income left over.
 

jzt83

Cyburbian
Messages
21
Points
2
jordanb said:
The income tax is even regressive (in this country) if you look at how much of a person's disposable income is consumed. A guy making 30k per year with three kids may need 90% of his income to not be living in poverty, so when he's taxed 10%, he's down to no disposable income. A rich person may need 3% of their income, so when they're taxed 40%, they still have a bunch of disposable income left over.
Good point. America's poverty levels are on the rise too :(
 

H

Cyburbian
Messages
2,850
Points
24
Can you add the middle-income class to the pole? I will argue that they pay the most taxes. They make too much to receive “freebies” yet they make too little not to be hurt (income wise) by taxes.

I fall in this category. And I guess the majority (minus students) on this board do as well. :(
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
The poor and middle class pay "more" taxes... they pay the same percentages, but it involves much more money for poor people than for the rich people...
 

Super Amputee Cat

Cyburbian
Messages
2,194
Points
29
And I might add that the poor and especially the middle class receive the least amount of "representation" in the amount of taxes they pay. After all, they are the ones that are subsidizing the construction of new roads and water mains to the affluent suburbs and in doing so are forced to sow the seeds of their own destruction as the places they are living in deteriorate.
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,205
Points
28
Planderella said:
Mod note: Middle Class option added to the poll
Why not add "homeowner" and "renter" while you are at it. And don't forget to also add "families with children" versus "childless."

And don't forget the "I have a damn good accountant" option while you at it, too. They're in a class of their own.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
Super Amputee Cat said:
And I might add that the poor and especially the middle class receive the least amount of "representation" in the amount of taxes they pay. After all, they are the ones that are subsidizing the construction of new roads and water mains to the affluent suburbs and in doing so are forced to sow the seeds of their own destruction as the places they are living in deteriorate.
I have to agree with the representation, how the hell can you redistrict to include some of the poorest areas with some of the richest? This dumb bleep congressman(no PC today) Slaughter[D] from Fairport, NY (suburb of Crotchfester, NY) represents a earmuff district that was redrawn to include some of the richest areas in her neighborhood, to some of Buffalo's poorest areas.
-She hasn't done Bleep for the district and until recently the only thing she has done is give some money to a soup kitchen for the poor. At the same time she's out in Grand Island (second-tier suburb of Buffalo) giving thousands of dollars to expand infrastructure to fuel even more sprawl.
-Hey politicians, your not planners and if you want to know how to fix cities, quit directing money for infrastructure out into the once farms and forests for development, and start redirecting it into the cities STUPID! Of course that will never happen because all of the campaign donations come from the wealthy who live in the suburbs.
-Another problem with representation is that there is a lower voter turnout for the poor.

Mod note-watch the language ;-) I bleeped some profanity. We are at work lets keep it work safe kids
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
We have an elected government. For some reason, the electorate voted for a government that is reducing taxes for the very rich -- increasing the disparity between rich and the middle/poor.

I guess it is the tax cuts. A hundred for you, a million for them. And all the tax cut money borrowed. Hmmm. Who will pay for that borrowed money in the future?
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Here are some facts to consider re: federal taxes:

the top 1% highest-earning Americans pay 37% of all individual income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 67%. In other words, 10% of Americans pay two-thirds of the taxes. Half of all taxpayers – those in the bottom 50% of earnings – account for less than 4% of income tax revenues.

Just thought I'd add a little reality to the class wars here in cyburbia.

Cat:

I don't think that the poor subsidizing the construction of new roads is entirely true everywhere. Don't forget that adequate public facility ordinances, impacts fees, concurrancy requirements, developer proffers--are all cases where new, perhaps more affluent owners subsidize the old.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
gkmo62u said:
Here are some facts to consider re: federal taxes:

the top 1% highest-earning Americans pay 37% of all individual income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 67%. In other words, 10% of Americans pay two-thirds of the taxes. Half of all taxpayers – those in the bottom 50% of earnings – account for less than 4% of income tax revenues.

Just thought I'd add a little reality to the class wars here in cyburbia.

Cat:

I don't think that the poor subsidizing the construction of new roads is entirely true everywhere. Don't forget that adequate public facility ordinances, impacts fees, concurrancy requirements, developer proffers--are all cases where new, perhaps more affluent owners subsidize the old.
Going back to the arguments by jordan and others, I have no problem with the rich paying more. $1 million in taxes paid by someone earning $4 million a year is less of a burden that $10,000 in taxes paid by someone earning $40,000 a year. On the other hand, I have no problem with Congress and the president reducing spending to create a balanced budget and lowering the tax burden.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
I don't think that the poor subsidizing the construction of new roads is entirely true everywhere. Don't forget that adequate public facility ordinances, impacts fees, concurrancy requirements, developer proffers--are all cases where new, perhaps more affluent owners subsidize the old.
Heck, I actually agree with you for a change! The "impact fees" on new development in newer suburbs in California are very high. (Approaching $40,000 per home in some cases). In post Proposition 13 California, there isn't much subsidizing going on!

On the other hand, many of our new gentry have a sense of entitlement beyond their impact fees. THEY moved to the big house on the cul-de-sac, but nobody else can, because that might slow THEIR commute 45 miles (each way) to the East Bay or San Francisco.
 

Super Amputee Cat

Cyburbian
Messages
2,194
Points
29
gkmo62u said:

I don't think that the poor subsidizing the construction of new roads is entirely true everywhere. Don't forget that adequate public facility ordinances, impacts fees, concurrancy requirements, developer proffers--are all cases where new, perhaps more affluent owners subsidize the old.
Well, it's true in northwest Ohio - that's what I have to go on. And I have to see it. The developers out here are involved in a feeding frenzy of new construction that is empting out Toledo and has not abated even after the economy went south in 2001. All they do is build, build, build. And they aren't paying jack squat in terms of impact fees believe me.
 

jzt83

Cyburbian
Messages
21
Points
2
The Irish One said:
How about a flat tax for everybody?
I have a solution. We should just have a flat income tax of say, 30% or so, and abolish all other taxes. That way the rich, the middle-class, and the poor all pay equal amounts of tax. Hmm. No wait, paying such a high percent of income on tax would be a great burden on those who make 40k or less. What about a progessive income tax and abolish all other taxes. Ahh help me out here folks!
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
jzt83 said:
I have a solution. We should just have a flat income tax of say, 30% or so, and abolish all other taxes. That way the rich, the middle-class, and the poor all pay equal amounts of tax. Hmm. No wait, paying such a high percent of income on tax would be a great burden on those who make 40k or less. What about a progessive income tax and abolish all other taxes. Ahh help me out here folks!
Well, you could have a progressive income tax with no deductions (progressive flat tax?)

Or you could have a no deductions, all income is "income" tax so that gross income from sales, services, etc. and net income from house sales, stock sales, etc. will be taxed at a flat rate.
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
I think the better option would be a flat all encompassing sales tax, with no income tax. ie You pay 10% or whatever on everything you purchase, but pay no income tax.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
donk said:
I think the better option would be a flat all encompassing sales tax, with no income tax. ie You pay 10% or whatever on everything you purchase, but pay no income tax.
That would be even more regressive than a flat income tax because the poor A) spend more of their money on taxable goods and B) are less able to avoid sales paying a sales tax than the rich.

How about this: The more you make, the greater percentage you pay! Everyone pays what they can. Now dosen't that sound equitable?
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
The advantage of this sytem, no tax shelters. I buy a million dollar piece of art for the business and guess what - 100 k sales tax. I buy my 120K car - sales tax, I eat at the expensive restaurant, have servants, send my kids to private school all taxable, no deductions allowed.

We already have a system where basic items are taxed (HST), it just needs to be exapnded, with a corresponding reduction to other taxes.
 

MennoJoshua

Cyburbian
Messages
56
Points
4
donk said:
I think the better option would be a flat all encompassing sales tax, with no income tax. ie You pay 10% or whatever on everything you purchase, but pay no income tax.
In order to replace current federal government spending levels, it would need to be higher than 10%, but this could work. To make the tax system more progressive, a broad category of staples would need to be untaxed--basically, everything someone who qualifies for the EITC today would buy would need to be exempt from sales tax. There wouldn't be a need to make a new federal taxing authority: just collect the sales tax revenue from the states. (Of course, Delaware and company would have to create a sales tax department, but most states already collect sales tax.) To make the tax even more progressive, slap excise taxes on things you think rich people will buy.

I very much doubt a value-added tax like this would ever work with Americans. Most people would cry foul at having to pay a 30% or 45% (or whatever it would out to) tax on their cheap furniture and kiddie bicycles at Wal*Mart imported from China.
 
Top