Screwed who over? The middle class might be out a few grand the super rich might be out millions... And so you like to chalk things up to percentages. If all I have is 10 doughnuts and you take 3 away that is quick swing of the percentages. If I had 1000 doughnuts and you took 50 away it wouldn't be the same percentage but you took 40 more from me than him. THAT is unfair and I don't agree with it. I have no interest here. I want people to pay for what they use.
Oh, that's what that article said? I thought I was being very clear. The article you cited is vague, unsubstantiated, agenda ridden, and misleading
It is specific, it cites the General Accounting Office (GAO) as its source, so its not unsubstantiated. How is it agenda-ridden and misleading? You just don't like the data. I don't blame you.
Red, it says nothing about profits of those companies. Just because you assume a company is profitable does not make it profitable. It does not take into account those companies that buy tax credits bringing their liability to zero although they are still very much paying for their tax burden. And finally it counts LLC's that go through to the individual. Hell in that scenario alone, i have four companies none of which pay taxes, but I sure as hell do because of those companies. The guy obviously has a bone to pick. Read his comments.
I said in a post above about 50% of US corporations are S Corps. It is probably closer to 55%. S Corps don't pay taxes as earnings are distributed to shareholders, and the shareholders pay taxes. That is a huge chunk of the 66%. The blogger you quoted does not know what he is talking about and is quoting a report he does not understand. It is pretty clear you don't understand it either. You are grabbing the headline and inferring it means something it does not.
The source was the GAO, not a blogger. Here is the same thing as reported by Reuters. From the Congressional Quarterly
i dont know. do you think i do this for a living? youd have to define "rich" but ive never thought the average rich guy is paying a lower rate. but i think its possible depending on what group you are comparing the avg rich guy to. are you really trying to argue that regressive taxes are not unfair? at the very least they are as unfair as progressive taxes and it can be reasonably argued that they are more unfair. at the simplest level it is uncategorically unfair that someone with 1,000,000 income pays 0.5% payroll tax but someone with 20, 50 or 90k income pays 6%. sales taxes are not unfair, but i believe them to be cruel. they are clearly regressive and obligatory since few places ban them on necessities. it has always seemed like a contradiction that conservatives arent generally against sales taxes since they would only apply pressure to decrease sales. i do not want poor 80--yr old pensioners getting $1200/month to have to pay an extra 8.5% for their milk. the gov should take what it needs out of income (and that shouldnt include pensions, btw.)
You cited a blog referencing a GAO report incorrectly. Again you refuse to move past the yellow headline. Just because Reuters reported it incorrectly also does not give it any credence. Companies are not taxed on their revenues or their assets. They are taxed on profits. Show me some evidence that profitable companies are not paying taxes.
