This is a premise I generally hear espoused by Democrats. That is not meant to be a slam. It is fertile ground for discussion. I believe it is one of the inequities that inspires lower wager earners to aspire to a better position. If people who live in the lower tier income wish to, they can take classes to better themselves. They can start their own businesses, small at first, then build.
There are a number of factors that go into this equation, not the least of them the idea that many who earn income in the bottom tier of society, are employed in transitional or entry level jobs. There are some professions where even those with college degrees can earn wages that are quite low on the first rung of their professions.
It would take a certain amount of study to honestly give this whole topic a fair review.
There are issues of income redistribution at the lower incomes. There are issues of lower tax rates in the lower income tiers. There are issues of transition, or entry level work. Then there’s the issue of two people becoming one and actually having twice the income they did before, and sharing expenses.
It may in fact be true that the lower income group pays a higher percentage for Social Security, Medicare, State Disability Insurance. They are also paying a much lower rate of income taxes, and in some instance getting income redistribution payments once a year.
I am inclined to not be quite as certain that there is a glaring inequity here that is scandalous in nature. I’d have to take a much more in depth look at all the factors and wage groups to see it more clearly than I do now. I’m just telling you what my gut says at this time.
In an ideal society, I am not convinced that it is always optimal to level out the playing field. The playing field was leveled out very nicely in the U.S.S.R. for instance. This defeated ingenuity, aspiration, dedication...
I’m not trying to imply that you are advocating this at all. I am merely stating that if we make things entirely equitable and easier for the lower tier, what inspires them to advance?
I’m going to have to admit that CalCowGirl’s figures in post 22 were impressive. It’s hard to take into consideration that the bottom 75% of our nation’s workers, pay only 14% of the income taxes, and not think that’s a fairly reasoned ratio. There’s also the issue of how far down the scale the top 25% goes too. I’ll bet you and I would both be surprised to know how low the wages are of the person who makes just more than 75% of the rest of the population.
Perhaps I digress. It’s an interesting topic. About mid week last, I found myself wanting to do a bit of research to find out what the situation is like in the $15 to $30k income bracket, as it relates to earned income tax credits.
In January I’m going to be reviewing the current tax tables in order to look at what is going on in the lower brackets. It should be an enlightening experience. I may drag out last years tax papers to give them a review, before that.
Take care.
I’m not sure you understood my point on the statistics.
Many declare that “the top 1% pays 39% of our Federal Taxes.” But what if we found that “the top 1% makes 50% of all income.” Would it still be a lefty argument to suggest that there is an inequity there or to acknowledge that the statement is misleading when presented alone?
Or, conversely, what if the remaining 75% of American wage earners are paying 14% of taxes while making up only 10% of income?
Without knowing the total income numbers, declaring that “the top 1% pays 39%” is unfair is based on nothing more than emotion (or propaganda). It is trying to evoke the same type of emotion as the “spread the wealth around” crowd talking about “economic justice.” Neither of these camps seem to present the real numbers as C.O. suggested.