[amehoubFomo]

Makes sense. The more money you make the more taxes you pay.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-under-bush/

Rich got richer, paid more taxes under Bush

By Stephen Dinan
8:24 p.m., Sunday, June 20, 2010

The rich did indeed get richer under President George W. Bush, but they also paid an ever-larger share of the federal tax burden, according to new numbers compiled by Congress' chief scorekeeper.

After dipping in the early part of the Bush administration, by 2007 the top quintile of earners - the 20 percent who made the most - paid nearly 70 percent of all the taxes that the federal government collected, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. That includes a staggering 86 percent of the income tax being paid by just the top quintile of earners.

By contrast, the bottom 40 percent on average not only pay no income tax, but they siphon money back from the federal government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a 35-year-old program designed to offset some of what low-income workers pay in Social Security taxes.

The numbers aren't a surprise to those who study the country's financial situation, but the trend raises deep social policy questions: Can a society where the top earners win a far disproportionate amount of the income be stable, and can a democracy survive when those on the lower end get benefits without ever having to pay into the system for them?

[Infellgedq]

By 2007, Bush's economic policies had increased the share of income controlled by the top 20% of the population to a massive 84%, creating the most extreme wealth inequality spread in the country since the 20's. It seems that a group controlling 84% of income and only paying 70% of the taxes collected on total income didn't responsibly pay their fair share.

[KeettyGlots]

"Even while their tax rates are going down, they're going to pay a larger share of taxes," he said. Even a smaller percentage of a ginormous number is still going to be a ginormous number. Watch conservatives try to argue for lower taxes on the rich even further because of this.

The numbers aren't a surprise to those who study the country's financial situation, but the trend raises deep social policy questions: Can a society where the top earners win a far disproportionate amount of the income be stable, and can a democracy survive when those on the lower end get benefits without ever having to pay into the system for them? This statement... rather disturbs me. Why are they phrasing this like it's a "two way street" problem? The poor are receiving benefits exactly because they can't afford to pay into the system, you quack. It's not like they're siphoning off resources from the government for the hell of it. Reasoning like this is exactly why the debate about taxes in this country will never move forward.