+1 on the comment , I know you meant $426 billion deficit.
My point that I failed to explain was that if the 1% are making 2+ mil a year on just income and their federal income taxes are raised from 35% to 40% they still have over $100k a month of gross income to invest as they choose.
I guess there is not a true fair way to distribute the tax burden on every citizen, but it would put more money in the earners/spenders of the economy (middle class) if we were allowed the middle class to retain more of the income every month.
The point being made in the article is that taxes are not too high for the 1%. Raising taxes to different levels for different tax brackets would have quantifiable results that could be used to fund programs we need or simply close out the deficit and start running a surplus to pay off the debt. Even the highest tax level proposed at 45% wouldn't beggar the rich or give them cause to flee the country as conservatives like to claim. So while it wouldn't redistribute wealth sufficiently to break the wealthy, it could have demonstrable benefits for the entire nation.
Neither Clinton nor Sanders are proposing to punish the rich for being rich, they're instead looking for ways to fund the programs that voters expect the government to run without putting the burden on the poor and middle class to pay for it.
+1 on the comment , I know you meant $426 billion deficit.
My point that I failed to explain was that if the 1% are making 2+ mil a year on just income and their federal income taxes are raised from 35% to 40% they still have over $100k a month of gross income to invest as they choose.
I guess there is not a true fair way to distribute the tax burden on every citizen, but it would put more money in the earners/spenders of the economy (middle class) if we were allowed the middle class to retain more of the income every month.
The point being made in the article is that taxes are not too high for the 1%. Raising taxes to different levels for different tax brackets would have quantifiable results that could be used to fund programs we need or simply close out the deficit and start running a surplus to pay off the debt. Even the highest tax level proposed at 45% wouldn't beggar the rich or give them cause to flee the country as conservatives like to claim. So while it wouldn't redistribute wealth sufficiently to break the wealthy, it could have demonstrable benefits for the entire nation.
Neither Clinton nor Sanders are proposing to punish the rich for being rich, they're instead looking for ways to fund the programs that voters expect the government to run without putting the burden on the poor and middle class to pay for it.
The 1% make more like $300k - $400k per year. This link has data by state, but it gets the point across. link