Is taxing the rich really the answer?

I'm confused by your question, you're kind of all over the place it seems.

Look I can do some math:

For 2007, based on the average take-home of:

$76,400

I can say the "total" income is:

76,400 * 100 = $7,640,000

The average income for the top 1% is:

1,319,700

This means that the top 1% account for 1,319,700 / 7,640,000 ~ 17.27 % of the wealth.

Now, first off, of course they pay more than 17.27% of the total amount of taxes (if they didn't then it would be a regressive flat tax, then they would pay the percentage that reflected how much more wealth they made).

Of course, if you look at the top 1%, they only pay ~28% (on the total federal taxes), this means that on average they are only really paying ~28/17 ~ 1.6 times the amount of normal (struggling) Americans.

Look at it this way:

For the top 1%, their average income from 1979 to 2007 went from:

$346,600 to $1,319,700 --> that means it's ~3.8 times as much as in 1979.

Now look at the share of taxes from 1979 to 2007:

15.4% to 28.1% --> 1.824675325

That means that while their average income nearly quadrupled, they only payed twice as much taxes...basically their tax burden (as a percentage of the total) grew HALF as fast as their income!

Here is a chart showing, graphically, the share wealth over the years:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/Congra...

Notice what happens when the share of wealth for the top 1% peaks? Notice how the top 1% SKEW the incomes of the top 10% (notice that when they break it down)...look at the second graph and notice that the 1-5% and 5-10% are essentially flat from 1940 onwards, yet if you look at the graph of the top 10% it looks identical (in shape) to that of the top 1% curve in the second graph.

Edit:

And you admit that the gap between the super rich and middle class is growing. If this is the case, then 1 of three things is true:

1. The rich have too much money

2. The poor don't have enough (don't really see how that's different from the above)

3. This is proof of a healthy capitalistic economy.

If 3 is the case (which, in fact, it is), then you must say that if we are to continue having a healthy capitalistic economy then the gap will continue to increase...and increase...and increase, until, eventually the rich have (essentially) infinitely more money than the working middle class.

The funny thing about 3), is that this is exactly what I expect from a capitalistic economy. I have tried to make it as simple as possible, but most people just cannot bring themselves to admit that the system they are so fond of actually makes neither moral sense nor mathematical sense:

There are two things that I expect from a capitalistic economy, the first is easy:

1. Capitalists will constantly gain more money than the working class (i.e. the gap between the working class wages and capitalist wages will increase).

2. Because of 1), the only way to sustain the economy is for inflation to occur. This way, because you are constantly pumping more money into the economy, the capitalist is able to continually grow their wealth.

There's no point in me restating my arguments here, but you can read my other response to see why the above should be obvious to anyone:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqv5N...

And, btw, you do agree that the gap between the wealthy has been steadily growing AND that inflation has also steadily occurred.

For the Obama worshipers that believe Buffet pays less "INCOME TAX" than his secretary are in an uninformed coma ! The Obama lie about this false statement he claims is the fact that Obama has used the figure that Buffet pays on his "CAPITAL GAINS TAXES" , not on his "INCOME TAX" . SInce the "CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATE" is lower than the "INCOME TAX RATE" , Obama can lie about them both being the same , and all the Obama`s serfs and lackeys follow blindly into the abyss of bullshit ! Liberals are too lazy to check out the facts of what Obama says , and what Obama does !! You libs want a fair share ? Have at it ! Here`s a "FAIR SHARE" solution for y`all lib boy`s ; why don`t you propose that the 50% of citizens that pay "NO INCOME TAXES" be required to pay 5% ; Where`s their "FAIR SHARE" ???? Multiply that out by appx. 75 million citizens and see what you come up with for an positive increase to the US Treasury !!!

The elite rich will only get richer under............... really? Seems unfair, they got filthy rich under Dub? How could they use more money now? I believe when the wealthiest Americans come out and say, hey, we need to pay a higher percentage of our income for taxes, even the less astute in our great nationa should say hmmmm............ maybe we should raise their tax rate a bit to at least help out. It may not pay us out of debt, but, every bit helps?

>>Those making a little above 200k-250k a little above, say big lawyers, and doctor's or surgeons, or chemical engineers, are essentially being punished.<<

Agreed. It's a joke that these people are considered "rich." They tend to be highly educated professionals with six-figure student debt. Do we really want to discourage people from becoming doctors and scientists?

These statistics regarding medical school graduates are from the Association of American Medical Colleges:

$157,944 – Average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2010.

78 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000.

42 precent of graduates have debt of at least $150,000.

85 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-peop...

It is, under Clinton, who raised taxes on the rich, 22.7 million jobs were created in America. Bush lowered taxes on the rich, and only 1.08 million jobs were created, and, if we remove government jobs from that number (as, according to many republicans, they are not real jobs), the country actually LOST 653,000 jobs under Bush. You can draw your own conclusions from this, but I think it is fairly obvious: when we regulated the economy and increased taxes we created jobs, when we removed those regulations and lowered taxes we lost jobs.

Those numbers are CRAP. They exclude many taxes and are all massaged to make the rich look like they pay huge amounts more taxes than everyone else.

You cut and pasted from a very sloppy writer who had a lot of fun with creative math.

Do those numbers include payroll taxes ? NO.

Do those numbers even consider the massive amount of assets the person has? NO

Do those numbers include sales tax which the poor pay on almost 100% of their income? NO

No taxing everyone the same is the answer. Rich, middle or poor, one rate, no exemptions and no exceptions. Then we can stop having this fight and hating one another and move on.

The rich pay allot of taxes because you get taxed on what you make so sense it is done that way there is no reason to tax rich people more.

Ending all tax loopholes is the answer . The Simpson / Bowles Plan has it all spelled out 67 pages .

In simple terms; Ask your boss for a raise in this Economy...

In Jan. of 2013 Do the same; Results are all that matters.

Obama is done for; American's aren't stupid; just Yahoo!Liberals.