Any other cons out there still want to argue that the rich in this country pay an unfair share of taxes? If anything, this analysis shows that federal taxes fall disproportionally onto those without dependents.

If you think this is a just state of affairs say so, everything else is just noise.

So his actual overall tax burden is closer to 32% of his total income, and probably a bit smaller since I didn’t take into account deductions for state tax.

Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs. DINK with an AGI of $80,000 are paying a federal tax rate of about 12% on their $104,000, for an overall tax burden of 31%

The truth of the matter is that the U.S. has one of the lowest tax rates and most regressive tax structures in the developed world.

The economy is regulated by the Fed to keep unemployment at a target rate of around 10%. “Full employment” is not a desirable state of economic affairs given the the problems with extreme wage inflation in such a scenario. Therefore at any given time approximately one in ten people will be out of work. This is by design. Phil, am I being uncharitable to guess that your reaction would be the English equivalent of c’est la vie?

One of the problems is that America has the most bloated, over-priced system in the world. It’s highly non-efficient for what it is, and it only covers 4/5 of Americans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html?sub=AR

People in France, Korea, England, etc. not only get better health care, but they pay less per person than Americans do.

35% to the Feds

He pays 35 percent on the entire $275K? He needs to find a new accountant.

You know what? You’re absolutely right. The $200 billion figure is caused by obesity, not the uninsured (although the obese also include some of the uninsured as well).

Also, the uninsured are being treated for late stages of preventable illnesses, which they couldn’t get fixed because they were, you guessed it, uninsured.

What did I get wrong? Good fucking grief, all I wrote was “goods are scarce and therefore rationed.” What, exactly, was incorrect about that? Holy fucking shit are you ignorant.

Nothing is free in this world and someone needs to pay for the product or service called medicine.

No shit, Sherlock. This is why I favor a health care system which is less expensive to run than the current one run by Hugeass Insurance. See also Wendell Potter.

35% to the Feds
15.3% to FICA
3.6% to NYC

So we’re already at 54% paid in taxes, and we haven’t paid our property or sales taxes yet. Add those in and we’re looking at 60-75% of your paycheck going to the “general welfare”. And according to you, they’re STILL not paying their fair share.

I guess this is just one of those issues where we’ll have to disagree.

3% of $25,000 is $750/year.

And yeah, I’d say that’s fair, considering the tax code for the last two decades has largely benefitted the wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle classes.

Listen bud, I am neither unskilled nor lazy. I work in the field of architecture, certainly not rocket surgery but by no means a vocation that does not require one to be skilled. A couple of years ago I left the firm at which I had been working to start my own business. And insofar as far as I understand it, the idea of capitalist entrepreneurship is something that both Glibertarians and Republicans hold in some esteem.

But here’s the rub: while at that last job, I made the mistake of actually using my health insurance. I went to see a mental health professional, using both first the limited benefits promised (and delivered) under our group policy and then paying out of pocket…with my own dollars that I earned.

Nevertheless, this resulted in my otherwise spotless medical records – clean as a whistle stretching back to my college days – now having a mark for “depression”. I’ve since applied for individual health insurance but the various underwriters have declined to offer me a policy at any price, despite even having offered to sign their waivers declining any sort of mental health coverage.

Pre-existing conditions, well ain’t that just a bitch…

So interestingly I find myself in the position of only being offered the option to purchase insurance by a single entity, the government of the beautiful state in which I live, via their “high risk” pool.

Extrapolating your inane comment to address my particular situation, perhaps it is your position that I had no business leaving someone else’s employ. Perhaps it is your position that is the exemplar of a well-functioning market. Perhaps you don’t even care that being yoked to someone else’s employ when I would rather not would rob me of my freedom just as certainly as some pernicious (& I might add, hypothetical) action by the government. I don’t know because the position you stated was binary, when the world is wonderfully cloaked in a thousand shades of grey.

This is not abstract theory. This is my goddamned life, right now, empirically described. And in light of such you will have to do much better job of persuasion if you ever expect those of us caught crossways in this ‘market’ to take your arguments with any more seriousness than a toddler’s temper tantrum.

In your view, what is “their fair share”? And, please, (please please please) provide a link to support your view.)

Phil, do you truly believe the only reason someone doesn’t have a job is because they are too lazy or lack skills?

Do you truly believe that anyone who DOES have a job but is not satisfied with the benefits they get from their employer remains in that job because they are too lazy or too unqualified to get a different one?

Do you really believe there are some employers somewhere with great benefits who have lots of job openings that they can’t fill because they can’t find anyone driven or skilled enough to hire?

What makes them less capable of paying taxes? While by no means perfect, there are many places in the current US tax code where a taxpayer with 5 children gets deductions and credits not available to the DINKs. So the immediate comparison of 2 people making $80k vs 7 people making $275k ($40k per person vs $39.3k per person) isn’t as straight-forward a compare as it may seem. For example, a house suitable for 7 people is unlikely to be 3.5 times as expensive as a house suitable for 2 people. Nor are the utilities that go with it.

To begin to start having something more reasonable to compare between the two families, you’d have to look at something other than just gross income. AGI, for example would be at least a better place to start.

That’s assuming a few things:

A. That the case will be resolved before the person keels over.
B. That they can afford a good attorney in the first place.
C. That they can win a case against a multi-million dollar corporation.

What makes a family of five, where the father is the sole breadwinner and he brings home $275K a year, more worthy of taxation than a childless couple who both work but only pull down $80K?

Because they can afford it?

If you want single payer because you’re too lazy or too unskilled to hold a job with decent medical benefits, go live somewhere that has it.

So you’re saying that there are over 300 million jobs with great health benefits, even after you guys fucked up the economy? No? Then what’s your point?

Don’t burden the American taxpayer with your Utopian myths that will only leave them diseased, maimed or dead.

So paying a little extra money in taxes will cause the country to keel over? Is this some sort of veiled threat?

Phil, apparently you don’t understand the existing costs of health-care. We’re wasting $200 billion a year on health care, due to the uninsured driving up the costs on the insured. Also, what portion of your income are you paying in health insurance premiums? Go ahead, tell me, I’m dying to know.