Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

mac2766

(658 posts)
4. Keep in mind...
Tue May 18, 2021, 09:32 AM
May 2021

10% of $20,000 is $2,000 - leaving only $18,000 for the wage earner. 10% of $10,000,000 is $1,000,000 dollars - leaving $9,000,000 for the wage earner. Of the remainder, the percentage of remaining wages that is put back into the economy from the lower wage earner is almost always going to be 100%, while the percentage of remaining wages that is put back into the economy from the lower wage earner is much much less. Meaning that a flat tax is felt more dramatically by the low wage earner. Along with gas taxes, sin taxes, healthcare costs, etc, etc...

Also keep in mind that those who earn more take a much greater advantage of the facilities and infrastructure that is paid for with public money, meaning that they see a much greater benefit coming from the public funds raised in the form of taxes. Like roads and bridges being used by their employees, transport/delivery trucks, air freight vehicles, etc.

What I would like to see is a breakdown of the actual benefits being taken advantage of by different wage earning categories, as well as a breakdown of the over-all taxation of the American wage earner - to include every tax on income. Especially health care costs.

I'm okay with the poor and middle-class paying for infrastructure and for the services being taken advantage of by the wealthy, as long as the wealthy are willing to actually start providing proper wages and benefits to the very people who are allowing them to amass such great wealth. Or... start taxing the hell out of the rich.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»By the numbers: U.S. lose...»Reply #4