I believe that everyone should pay at least a nominal amount in taxes, even those on disability. It is participatory. At every tax cut for those below the median income, the percentage increases of those who pay nothing at at all. This increases the division and resentment in society, not alleviates it.

We don't get much back in dollars for taxing those with lower incomes, but we should do it for the psychological benefit. It is not good for character to be entirely a receiver.

Though there are difficulties with a national sales tax and I prefer other methods, it would at least solve that problem. Leaving necessities untaxed but taxing all elective purchases, everyone contributes.

At what point would you people actually discuss the actual ideas of socialism, rather than just brandishing it as a disinformation club? But I digress.

Nice try with the stats. Reminds me of what Mark Twain said about the three kinds of lies. As anyone with a brain can figure out, your stat or any other related to what percentage of taxes is paid only makes sense when you compare it to the amount of wealth held by the same percentile. Sorry if I'm confusing you with all this logic and analysis, but your site is called Classical Values. What would Aristotle think?

"At what point would you people actually discuss the actual ideas of socialism"

When proponents of socialism are ready to take responsibility for the real world failures of those ideas.

I think the term "socialism" only becomes acceptable to the socialists when they securely hold power. It wasn't always this way, of course - back when they had little track record at maximizing misery they could be open and up front. Today however the term is only non threatening to those with nothing to lose, who wouldn't mind some pieces of everyone else's pie.

Letsreal, whoever told you sneering is a good argument was wrong.

Focusing on just the income tax in this sort of analysis leads to wrong conclusions. The income tax is the only major tax that is progressive in nature; i.e., the rich pay more. Its important to remember that most other major taxes are regressive: social security, sales tax, excise tax, etc. Overall, there is little difference in the total tax rate between middle class and wealthy Americans.

Given the size of the U.S. deficit, I don't think Congress will be cutting the taxes poor people pay, regardless of what Obama wants.

I think we should tax self-identified socialists at a higher rate. I'm sure they won't mind. And if they're good at house painting they should be required to paint my house every four years.

chocolatier, that is a valid point, but most other taxes are not entirely regressive. While the sales tax or the property tax rate is the same for rich and poor, the rich generally buy more things and have more property. Only things like fuel taxes, of which the rich do not pay 10x more than the poor (because they don't use 10x more), fully deserve the term.

It is also fair to point out that for social security, people get more back for paying more - acknowledging, of course, that the balance sheet on that is now thoroughly screwed. I agree, however, that this is much more regressive than the income tax.

And now for letsreal -

Your opening sentence with the phrase "you people" gives away so much of your thought. You are so sure that we belong to some category that fits into your narrative; quite confident that you have thought through these things while we wallow in ignorance. I think most commenters here would be able and eager to go one-on-one with you in a battle of wits.

My friends from Romania (I have two sons adopted from there and have been there many times) would love to discuss the actual ideas of socialism with you. They have a perspective you might find illuminating. As for me, I called myself a socialist many years ago and wrote for a socialist underground newspaper, so I am rather familiar with discussions of the actual ideas. Fancy that.

As to taxing overall wealth rather than income, that always sounds attractive to people of moderate means when the examples used are from the extremes of wealth. Our middle-class minds quite automatically think "they can spare it" when told that billionaires X and Y would be taxed 3% of their wealth, or whatever. But the consequences (in liquidity, investment, job creation) would be catastrophic - more for all of us than for them. Re-taxing people who have been prudent, focused on the long term, and hardworking is a good way to discourage people from being prudent, focusing on the long term, and working hard.

Care to go another round?