| Income level | Average Income | Percent of total US income | Percent of total US taxes paid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest 20% | $15,700 | 3.30% | 2.00% |
| Second 20% | $31,900 | 6.90% | 5.10% |
| Middle 20% | $50,500 | 11.10% | 9.80% |
| Fourth 20% | $84,200 | 18.60% | 18.40% |
| Next 10% | $129,000 | 14.25% | 14.80% |
| Next 5% | $183,000 | 10.10% | 10.70% |
| Next 4% | $322,000 | 14.20% | 15.30% |
| Top 1% | $1,827,000 | 21.70% | 23.80% |
Note that the top 20% pay a disproportionate share of the taxes. You apparently think that the harder someone works the more of the fruits of his hard work should be taken away and given to others. How very Democrat of you. I think maybe you must have voted for Bernie. If not you should, because he represents your way of thinking a lot more than Trump.
Adrian Rogers
- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity
- You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it
- The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else
My problem with you and people like you is that you do see something wrong with someone making more money getting a larger tax break. Like I said before - Bernie is your man.
Actually it's driven by questioning the stupidity of our Senators. Stupidity that seems to have escaped you.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it is the government's job to provide a subsidy for children, with the justification being to provide extra tax breaks for families with children, why should this tax break be unlimited? Does a family earning $1 million a year really need the tax break as much as a family earning $50,000? If the government is going to provide the subsidy at all then shouldn't it be means tested? Please justify the credit in the first place, then provide your reasoning why it should apply to literally anyone?