OK. An overly simple example. Boudreau makes $10 million dollars a year and pays less taxes than he did 10 years ago due to tax cuts for the rich. He gets richer even though he has done nothing productive for it. He votes for more tax cuts for the rich, obviously. It's in his best interests. Thibodaux makes $50 thousand dollars a year and pays more taxes than he did 10 years ago. He gets poorer even though he has been as productive as before. He votes for less tax cuts on the rich, obviously. It's in his best interests. Arceneaux makes $120 thousand dollars a year and pays more taxes than he did 10 years ago. He gets poorer as a result. But he votes for tax cuts for the wealthy even though it is not in his own best interests. He admires and envies the rich and is willing to vote their way because he likes to think of himself as "rich" instead of "middle class". Boudreau sees to his best interests. Thibodaux sees to his best interests. Arceneaux envies.
i dont see why we have these discussion when the tax rates are what they are. the rich pay all the bills. i can see if there were a flat tax rate, then maybe we argue that the rich should pay a little more, percentage wise. but as of now the rich are pretty much paying everything. as of now the boudreau in the example is paying far, far, far more than the other two. so a cut in his taxes will still leave him paying far more than his share. we are really far from the point where a tax cut for the rich will leave them paying less than their share. the rich are he ones financing the whole country.
I understand the example but no matter how rich Arceneaux thinks he is, he would still have to realize what tax bracket he was in and vote accordingly. I just can't see a marginally informed person willfully voting for something that doesn't help themselves just because it makes them feel like they fit in with a different crowd.
I must be looking at a different graph because what I see is that when the rich get richer, the middle and lower class have more money too. Obviously they don't have the massive increases, nor do they have the massive down swings but we're not talking percentages here, we're talking real dollars. That is, in 1999 when the rich were making 300% of what they made in 1979, the middle and lower class had a slight bump as well. And as the rich were making more money in 2002 to 2006, the lower and middle class were making more money too. Why does this graph indicate that when the wealthy make money, the non wealthy lose it? To me it indicates just the opposite.
I am not actually sure how this would effect the tax burden. It is not something I ever studied, so I can't really answer the question. I think there are improvements that can be made in every aspect of taxation in America. In general opposed to regressive tax systems, but that being said I don't think progressive systems are much better. I think a better soloution is to take less of money from everyone.
