If the idea is to tax the rich more, then why not limit it to those that will never feel the effects?

Someone making 250k is not wealthy enough to take an increase without feeling it. Make the cut-off 5-10 million and then only the elite will pay. Why make the average business man or family practice doctor pay more

Craig F2011-11-04T09:33:05Z

Favorite Answer

ok you do realize that the top 1% of the population pay 43% of the US taxes - right? If we do anything to get them to leave then who will pay?

The flat tax is a fairer idea - Cain's 9% - because 9% of a million is alot more than 9% of 100k -

Terd Mcferguson2011-11-04T16:34:07Z

You would have to take a disproportionate amount from those individuals because there are far fewer of them. a 4 percent increase they could stomach, an 8% increase would lead to much wailing and gnashing of cosmetically straightened, pearly white teeth.

In response to craig f: the top 1% pay 43% of the taxes because they control 52% of the nations wealth. They have been paying well above 40% of our nations taxes for well over two decades, yet in those two decades, they have also seen a 257% increase in wealth, while the low and middle class have only seen an 18 and 27% increase in wealth, respectively.

Heres a radical idea, tax rates should be directly proportional to value margin, i.e., the top 1%, controlling 52% of the nations wealth, should pay 52% of the nations taxes.

Anonymous2011-11-04T16:31:28Z

The tax proposal rejected by Republicans yesterday that was going to pay for infrastructure was only on income over 1 million per year, and it was only 0.7%. No one would have "felt the effects" they probably wouldn't even have known if no one told them

Cart2011-11-04T16:31:53Z

Less tax money coming in = higher deficit. The debt isn't going to pay itself off, and we can't constantly be lowering taxes for people.