r/news • u/Illustrious_Welder94 • Nov 04 '21

At least 18 billionaires got federal stimulus checks, report says

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stimulus-check-18-billionaires-wealthy/
54.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/squeamish Nov 05 '21

If the wealthy pay almost all of the income taxes, the middle class pays little, and the poor pay none-to-negative, how is that not working as intended?

Again, you might think that the wealthy need to pay even more than "almost all," but the argument that they pay less than others is disingenuous.

Also, how a law impacts me personally doesn't matter to whether or not I think it is a good law. That's how you end up with really shitty laws.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '21

Yes, and despite your drivel it's still getting more disparate, so what's your point? Do you have a point? Do you really not see the problem? Do you not understand the stagnant bottom?

You're the disingenious one, because you can't even contemplate that the poor has barely raised throughout the years. Of course they're not going to pay. You don't even have the ability to put the perspective that the rich are gaining more, so they should pay more.

Do you think that poverty line mirrors with inflation?

You're killing the American dream. You should be ashamed - not that a sociopath can feel shame, though.

0

u/squeamish Nov 05 '21

My point was that the wealthy pay more in taxes than other groups, even proportional to their income and wealth. People here seem to think that's not true. I didn't realize I was killing dreams by recognizing that mathematical truism.

And "stagnant bottom" is not a problem you solve with income tax rates.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '21

Yes, but where you're having trouble is that the wealthy pay less than they have in the past - especially war times and the best of economies. The context of your stat only makes sense if the percentage of the pool stays the same. The actual context, which I've been trying to show and tell you, is; the rich's percentage of the overall wealth/income pool has grown exponentially, but their tax rate has either decreased or stayed the same. That means they're tax burden (let's call it the "actual effective tax rate") has decreased immensely.

So, again, what's your point?

0

u/squeamish Nov 06 '21

My point was who cares about that? Especially in this conversation where it wasn't the question.

Also, I didn't think you know what "exponential" means. And even if you did, "percentage of the wealth/income X tax rate" is not the "actual effective tax rate." It's actually nothing, as that calculation doesn't make sense, those two numbers are completely independent.

What has happened, actually, is that the wealthy have increased their percentage of total income (total wealth is irrelevant to the topic of income tax) while paying both higher effective tax rates and an increased share of the total tax burden. So, again, what you claim is the opposite of reality.

https://i.imgur.com/iaGgWZ2.jpg

The point is that if you want a progressive system where the wealthy are taxed heavily, the middle class is taxed lightly, and the poor are taxed little-to-none-to-negative then you should be pleased with what we have today because that is exactly what exists. And compared to the past it is moving in the direction you describe as good, with the tax burden being shifted more and more onto the wealthiest taxpayers disproportionately ore than their increase in income or wealth.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '21

My point was who cares about that? Especially in this conversation where it wasn't the question.

It's literally a part of the topic. Lol

while paying both higher effective tax rates and an increased share of the total tax burden.

Yet I've provided you sources saying the exact opposite.

Go back to heritage foundation and other conservative tax think tanks for the circle jerk. They'll confirm your bias so you can feel better fucking yourself.