TAX THE RICH????

[bradhusker]

How fuckin stupid does Barack Obama think the american electorate really is?

There are not nearly enough rich people in this fuckin country, that if we raise their taxes, to even put a dent in the defecit.

ECONOMICS 101 says so. LOOK IT UP!

The left wing democrats in this country are so dellusional and so sick, that they push this pile of crap about taxing the super rich, telling us it will bring down the defecit.

THE FACTS SAY DIFFERENT. THE government is so bloated and out of control, that if we dont begin serious spending cuts in this country real soon, we will be like greece, and massive chaos will ensue.

The democrats like nancy pelosi are LYING thru their teeth when they say taxing the rich will get the defecit under control, IT WONT. not even a dent. AND THIS IS BASIC ECONOMICS.

Obama will go down in history as the most reckless spending president of all time, His spending as a percentage of GDP is far and away the most reckless, and its not even close.

THE PROBLEM? the democrats will NOT cut spending, not one bit. THEY LIE, and say they will, BUT, its a clever smoke screen, at the end of the day, they are beholden to the poor for votes, SO, they cannot and will not cut any spending.

[BSmack]

Bradhusker will go down as the most clueless twat to post on the board this side of AP.

Well, and LTS.

You're #3 son. Keep up the effort and #1 just might be in your sights.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Seriously.

OTST before traffic on this board drops to ZERO.

[bradhusker]

I had a conversation at lunch with someone about whether taxes were progressive enough. I think people have lost their understanding of what progressive taxes are, and whether they are fair.

A true flat tax would be a tax that is the same on every person. You would take the federal budget, divide it by the number of taxpayers, and then tax each individual at the same rate. Government spending in 2010 was $3.456 Trillion (LINK). According to the US Census Bureau, there were 234,564,071 adults (18 and older) in the United States in 2010 (LINK). That means that the burden of the federal government, if shared equally and not progressively, would have been $14,733.72 per adult (rounding the last penny up).

When you apportion taxes based on income using a percentage, you are taxing progressively. If you set the federal income tax at a flat 10% in income, a dude making one million dollars would pay $100,000 and a dude making $100,000 would pay $10,000, or one tenth as much. That is progressive taxation. This holds true for people making $50,000 per year (at 10% they would pay $5,000) and for hedge fund managers making one billion dollars per year (at 10% they would pay one hundred millon dollars).

What we have is a hyper-progressive tax system. The higher your income, the greater the percentage of your income you pay in tax. The tax code makes it such that about 47% of US taxpayers pay no federal income taxes. And persons making $373,000 or more pay 73% of all federal income taxes (LINK). Yes, hedge fund managers making a billion dollars a year on invested income probably pay taxes at a 15% capital gains rate. But they are still paying $150,000,000 in taxes on that billion dollars in income.

Some people say that the rich are not paying their fair share. I want to know the answers to two questions:

1. At what income level is someone rich?

2. And what is the fair share of federal spending that the rich should pay?

THANK YOU 88, you said what I try to say with clarity and precision. NOW, will someone tell martry to shut his fuckin gay ass liberal mouth!!

[bradhusker]

Bradhusker will go down as the most clueless twat to post on the board this side of AP.

Well, and LTS.

You're #3 son. Keep up the effort and #1 just might be in your sights.

actually smack, if you dont agree with what I just posted about the government spending being out of control and the democrats not really wanting to cut spending?
THEN its YOU who are the clueless fucktard, and you need to shut your stinkin dirty piehole.

[BSmack]

Bradhusker will go down as the most clueless twat to post on the board this side of AP.

Well, and LTS.

You're #3 son. Keep up the effort and #1 just might be in your sights.

actually smack, if you dont agree with what I just posted about the government spending being out of control and the democrats not really wanting to cut spending?
THEN its YOU who are the clueless fucktard, and you need to shut your stinkin dirty piehole.

That was so KC I think Clark Hunt might try to sell naming rights on your posts.

[Mikey]

Seriously.

OTST before traffic on this board drops to ZERO.

Srsly

[R-Jack]

As long as we have you to say what Brad attempts to say, we'll be allright.

[bradhusker]

As long as we have you to say what Brad attempts to say, we'll be allright.

I think bradhuskers was suggesting that federal spending is out of control. My take involved whether hyper-progressive taxation was fair. Two different issues. But I see you working.

What I like about 88 is the fact that he says things with utter clarity, I admit that I dont, its a weakness of mine.

Federal spending is so far out of control, that unless we make serious and drastic cuts soon, NO amount of taxation is gonna put a dent in our deficits.

AND, here is the sick part! The democrats will NOT make any serious cuts in spending, THEY CANT!
Its because they are so beholden to the poor for their very political lives!

What makes me angry as hell is when the Dems LIE thru their teeth about only taxing the super rich.
Obama's recent jobs bill? The one that was voted down by the senate? It contained MASSIVE tax hikes all across the board.

What that means is this, people making 75,000, 95,000, 125,000, 150,000 etc... ALL will see higher taxes. NOT just millionaires!!

So my question is this? Are you guys as mad as hell when Obama and the dems lie to us all about only raising taxes on millionaires?
AND, continue to spend this country into utter ruin?

FUCK YEAH IM MAD!

[mvscal]

What we have is a hyper-progressive tax system.

No, we don't. Our tax system is progressive no doubt, but to call it hyper-progressive is wildly hyperbolic. The highest marginal rate is 35%. That is neither excessive or unreasonable.

[bradhusker]

What we have is a hyper-progressive tax system.

No, we don't. Our tax system is progressive no doubt, but to call it hyper-progressive is wildly hyperbolic. The highest marginal rate is 35%. That is neither excessive or unreasonable.

so, say that rich guy is from say, New York City? The Feds take 35%, Then his state (NY) takes their share, THEN, his city, (NYC) takes their share, effectively leaving this "rich guy" with less than 50% of his hard earned income. Does a left wing piece of dirt cockroach like you, find that a bit excessive or unreasonable??

That a god fearing family man, a pillar of his community, works hard each and every day, only to see less than half his income? Because a filthy whore named Nancy pelosi from San Fransicko wants to rape this decent hard-working american, take more than half his wages, and give it to the low-life degenerate scum, roaming the streets with needle marks on their arms and dried cum on their lips?

Or an empty suit from chicago, a former community street peddler who made it all the way to the oval office, decides to "spread the wealth around", taken from the warped sick mind of Karl Marx?

OF COURSE NOT. To a sick diseased left wing mind, none of that sounds unreasonable or excessive.
And, the reason why big cities such as New York and San Fransicko take so much in taxes is because thats where the low-lifes gather together (commune style) aka/ communism, marxism, facism, dykes and fairies, masturbation, dems and lefties, occupy, deffecate on police cars, etc...

WE Need Mitt Romney, and fast!!

I watched the debate in Vegas. Romney is the MAN. He made Perry look like waldo, from the Van Halen video, "Hot for Teacher".

Romney is a REAL LIFE Man of BUSINESS. He will cut Obama to ribbons come debate time.

[Mikey]

If you accept the undeniable truth that taxing incomes of citizens on a flat percentage basis is progressive, then how do you describe a tax system that increases the percentage rate as income rises?

I'm not sure where you're getting your definitions from, but every definition of "progressive tax" that I can find describes it as a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases.

I'm not sure why you claim that your assertion is undeniable when it flies in the face of any conventional definition. Are you getting your information from the Grover Norquist Book of Things As I Wish They Were?

[Terry in Crapchester]

What we have is a hyper-progressive tax system.

No, we don't. Our tax system is progressive no doubt, but to call it hyper-progressive is wildly hyperbolic. The highest marginal rate is 35%. That is neither excessive or unreasonable.

If you accept the undeniable truth that taxing incomes of citizens on a flat percentage basis is progressive, . . .

It isn't. Our income tax is precisely that -- a tax on income, not a tax on the individual. A flat rate of taxation on income is therefore a flat tax, notwithstanding the fact that higher income earners are required to pay more.

And I'm surprised to see mvscal, of all people, coming to the defense of a progressive taxation system. But it's worth noting that the highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower (hardly a socialist, he) was 90%. The highest marginal rate today is paltry by comparison, even though those in the highest marginal tax bracket today are undeniably much better off than they were when Eisenhower was President.

[Dinsdale]

But it's worth noting that the highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower (hardly a socialist, he) was 90%. The highest marginal rate today is paltry by comparison...

That's kind of comparing apples to oranges to bullshit.

First off, for perspective -- there was only one major industrial country with an intact resource base and an intact manufacturing base post WWII.

Take a big ol' guess which one?

They could have taxed everyone at 99% and still have had the highest per-capita income on earth. The export marketwas so grossly skewed towards a single country at that point, it just didn't matter.

Had the most cheap energy, had the most natural resources available, and labor was relatively cheap.

And there was a price to be paid for spending more than we had, a very hefty price... light coming on yet? But at least back then, the US DOMINATED manufacturing, and the associated exports, and didn't sell our best interests off the the highest bidder.


But the horseshit here is the radical difference in tax code. In the 50's, you could writeoff everything. Pretty much every dollar you spent. And for every dollar you put in company pension funds and whatnot, you could deduct $1000 from your gross income.

Bought a new car?

Writeoff.

Bought a TV?

Writeoff.

Went to the doctor?

Writeoff.


So stop with the comparisons to the 1950's tax code, since it either indicates you're either disingenuous or ignorant, one or the other.

Bottom line, the highest earners didn't pay any higher rate as a total percentage as they do now (they likely paid less). Just had much less nanny-state bullshit to finance.

[Dinsdale]

But it's worth noting that the highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower (hardly a socialist, he) was 90%.

BTW -- If you're going to toe the line in the incitement of class-warfare, you should probably get your facts straight...

it was 92%.

[bradhusker]

It isn't. Our income tax is precisely that -- a tax on income, not a tax on the individual. A flat rate of taxation on income is therefore a flat tax, notwithstanding the fact that higher income earners are required to pay more.

And I'm surprised to see mvscal, of all people, coming to the defense of a progressive taxation system. But it's worth noting that the highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower (hardly a socialist, he) was 90%. The highest marginal rate today is paltry by comparison, even though those in the highest marginal tax bracket today are undeniably much better off than they were when Eisenhower was President.

If you qualify that the income tax rates are progressive, then I'll agree that a flat percentage rate is not progressive under that definition. But that is a different issue than the one raised in my take. My take (which you either failed to appreciate or intentionally twisted) is that we already have a hyper-progressive taxation system. Even though all citizens are supposedly equal under the law, all citizens are not being charged an equal amount of tax. Some pay an enormous amount and some pay nothing at all (or receive payments based on credits).

And your argument, which I will paraphrase as "top marginal rates were higher in Eisenhower's day", adds nothing to the conversation. Slavery was lawful when in Washington's day. So what? Does either factual circumstance justify higher marginal rates or a return to slavery today? Make an argument today that justifies the disproportionate collection of taxes from a small segment of our country's citizenry.

88, you are BRILLIANT, your takes are SPOT ON, and seeing these idiots try to debunk what you're saying? ITS A JOKE. Not one of these fools is coming close to your mastery on this particular subject.
Everytime you bring up the FACT that 47% of the public pays zero federal income tax, THEY IGNORE YOU! And the reason they do this is because it really makes them look stupid.

I find it alarming and very telling when the liberals on this forum IGNORE the fact that almost half the public pays none of the federal tax bill. It really shows their extreme lack of a true grasp on reality here.
To admit the TRUTH of this fact would be tantamount to them admitting that liberalism on its' surface, is indeed a mental dis-order.

[mvscal]

If you accept the undeniable truth that taxing incomes of citizens on a flat percentage basis is progressive,

A flat tax is not progressive. It's a proportional tax.

then how do you describe a tax system that increases the percentage rate as income rises?

That is the text book definition of a progressive tax. Sales and excise taxes are regressive taxes since they have a greater impact on lower income people.

And I need to understand why you believe that taxing higher incomes at a higher rate is reasonable.

The reason it is done that way is to ensure that the burden is placed on those with the best ability to pay. In other words, the guiding principle is to do the least harm to the economy and the society.

I think that when you exempt 47% of US citizens from any obligation to pay federal income taxes, you invite class warfare, where the non-income-taxpayer class lays seige to the income-taxpayer class and demands more and more of their property.

And yet the top marginal rate remains only 35% with no sign of budging anytime soon despite one of the most irresponsibly liberal administrations in history. I'd say that siege isn't going very well for the 47%. I have no objections to making sure that everyone has some skin in the game, but we need to be very careful about how such a scheme is implemented. Shoot from the lip morons like Herman Cain need to sit down and shut the fuck up.

But it makes no sense to me (and thus seems unreasonable) to have a tax policy that allows half of the nation's citizens to completely skip out on paying for the nation's expenses.

Then rest easy because it isn't true. There are federal excise taxes on every pack of cigarettes, every beer, every bottle of wine, every bottle of booze, every gallon of gas, every gun sold, every bullet bought and every phone call made. Poor people spend a shitload of their disposable income on booze and cigs, so they are definitely chipping in.

[Goober McTuber]

Not to mention the fact that they may be paying state taxes which, in part, get funnelled to the Feds.

[bradhusker]

But it makes no sense to me (and thus seems unreasonable) to have a tax policy that allows half of the nation's citizens to completely skip out on paying for the nation's expenses.

Then rest easy because it isn't true. There are federal excise taxes on every pack of cigarettes, every beer, every bottle of wine, every bottle of booze, every gallon of gas, every gun sold, every bullet bought and every phone call made. Poor people spend a shitload of their disposable income on booze and cigs, so they are definitely chipping in.[/quote]
actually mvscal, you are wrong, it is true.
Based on what you just said, rich people also buy things with fed taxes built into them, AND, since they have more money, again, they are paying way way more in fed taxes, BUT, its apples to oranges anyway, we were talking purely income tax.

SO, 88 is correct, the rich already pay a much higher portion of the federal income tax bill thru income tax, and also on goods and services. its not even close.

We as a society have to decide if we want millions of able bodied citizens not working and drainning the system, putting unfair pressure on citizens who do get up each and every day and work their asses off.

If that is indeed what we want, then the country will continue to go down the drain. HOWEVER, logic would dictate that every single able bodied person must get up every day and go to work and be a productive member of society. ONLY then can we begin to move forward to a real recovery.

This tax and spend government that Obama covets? WILL NOT WORK. FDR tried it and failed.
The only thing that saved FDR's ass was World War II, thats a fact.
The economic crash of 1929 all the way to the great world war, saw no recovery in sight. FDR needed the war to get this country out of deep dogshit.
Obama thinks that if he can have his massive tax hikes from his recently defeated jobs bill, that somehow we will come out of this recession? Not a chance, his tax and spend philosophy has been proven wrong time and time again.

[Mikey]

But it makes no sense to me (and thus seems unreasonable) to have a tax policy that allows half of the nation's citizens to completely skip out on paying for the nation's expenses.

Then rest easy because it isn't true. There are federal excise taxes on every pack of cigarettes, every beer, every bottle of wine, every bottle of booze, every gallon of gas, every gun sold, every bullet bought and every phone call made. Poor people spend a shitload of their disposable income on booze and cigs, so they are definitely chipping in.

Not to mention the payroll tax, which hits everybody at the same rate and is a lot higher than the income tax even for most people who are paying income taxes.

[mvscal]

Not to mention the payroll tax, which hits everybody at the same rate and is a lot higher than the income tax even for most people who are paying income taxes.

Which would make them a de facto income tax since they are used to pay SS and Medicare which are paid out of the general fund. That is the conservative position on SS.

Personally, I believe that a little education and a lot less demagoguery on both sides would be helpful. We are, after all, talking about government. To think that they don't have their fingers in everyone's pie is a delusion of the highest order. Our problem is not that the rich are taxed too little and the poor not enough. The problem is the spending. You cut the spending and the tax side takes care of itself.

If you want to increase the revenue base, you eliminate corporate income taxes and you claw back on the regulatory agencies which are currently choking business particularly in the energy sector. Low energy costs benefit everyone at every level of the economy.

[mvscal]

They have virtually no skin in the game,

Ah, I see the needle has moved from "no skin in the game" to "virtually no skin in the game." That's progress. The next step is to quantify how much "virtually no skin" actually is in proportion to their income.

[Cuda]

Which would make them a de facto income tax since they are used to pay SS and Medicare which are paid out of the general fund. That is the conservative position on SS.

That's also pretty much what the Supreme Court said about Social Security. It's most definitely NOT an insurance program, and just because you involuntarily pay into it, you don't automatically have a right to any benefits.

The way it works these days is that the FICA "contributions" that come in are used to buy Treasury Notes. This has the double æffect of giving the illusion of solvency to the Social Security program, and also provide the illusion of a reduced budget deficit because the revenue is double-counted, (actually triple-counted if you include redeeming the T-notes so benefits can be paid) something that would land a private accountant in prison for fraud. This deceit was how the Clinton administration as able to claim a balanced budget.

[smackaholic]

I think taxes should be progressive. I think a max rate of 25-30% is about right, but, I do have a few big problems with the current system.

The biggest problem is the complexity of it. There should be ZERO deductions. Your tax form should be a few lines long.
1st line-income

2nd lien- tax owed, based on a somewhat progressive percentage

Whether or not you have chilluns should not matter. Carrying a ginormous mortgage should not matter. Marital status should not matter. Parents should be happy to be taxed at the same rate as singles, since they consume more benefits.

Of course, going to such a system would mean lots of parasites of the current system would have to find honest work. I am guessing that a hell of a lot of CPAs and tax lawyers might need job retraining.

One other thing. Everyone with an income should pay taxes. Start it at 1% for poor fukks, maybe 5% for middle class (up to about 100 grand. Then start getting a little more progressive, reaching 30% at maybe half a mill.

As for cap gains, warren buffet needs to shut the fukk up. If you tax them at a high rate, plenty of these folks will say fukk it and put their money in muni bonds or other places that don't do the economy any good. I think they should be taxed at a low rate, perhaps making it somewhat progressive.

[mvscal]

One other thing. Everyone with an income should pay taxes. Start it at 1% for poor fukks,

Everyone pays taxes. Even the homeless wino marinating in his own urine while begging for change to buy cheap popskull pays taxes on his "income" when he staggers into a liquor store to buy his booze.

[Smackie Chan]

Even the homeless wino marinating in his own urine while begging for change to buy cheap popskull pays taxes on his "income" when he staggers into a liquor store to buy his booze.

Since it's a sales tax, it's technically on his outgo rather than his income. But I guess you have to have income to have outgo, so I see your point.

[mvscal]

All taxes are income taxes. That needs to be understood up front. They all take what you earn.

[Dr_Phibes]

They could have taxed everyone at 99% and still have had the highest per-capita income on earth. The export marketwas so grossly skewed towards a single country at that point, it just didn't matter.

Had the most cheap energy, had the most natural resources available, and labor was relatively cheap.

That's important though, historical circumstance. It flies in the face of ideology. Adopting a blanket position or making a grand statement: 'Keynes was wrong', 'government bad', 'taxes bad', etc. An economy is never static, it's constantly evolving and it'll adapt to circumstance. What was right at one time, is inappropriate now, not necessarily wrong in concept.
88 is no different than the hippies on wall street, he's trying to inject morality into a numbers game and you just can't do it, it's completely impersonal.

[mvscal]

All taxes are income taxes. That needs to be understood up front. They all take what you earn.

Gift taxes... estate taxes... I guess being the recipient of a gift and/or being the beneficiary of an estate is a job now.

Gifts and inheritances don't increase your bottom line? You're shooting blanks now. Of course it's income and the government takes a portion of that away from you.

[bradhusker]

You know what the problem with liberals is? They want equality of outcomes. AND that is a very serious problem indeed.

What the left in this country wants would require a police state to make sure that everyone turns out equal, in every way shape or form.

This is why the left is sick sick sick.

Everyone should get equal opportunity, BUT, in a free society, what you do with that opportunity, is completely up to you.

And this is what seperates the sick leftist from the rest of us. the leftist thinks that we are all the same, that anyone can become a brain surgeon or a corporate CEO.

NO they cant, in a free society, the cream rises to the top, while the shit gets flushed away and ends up in our cities to occupy wall st.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Bottom line, the highest earners didn't pay any higher rate as a total percentage as they do now (they likely paid less).

You got a link to support this, or is this just more of the typical shit pulled out of your ass, Dinsdalian bullshit that we've all come to expect over the years?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Bottom line, the highest earners didn't pay any higher rate as a total percentage as they do now (they likely paid less).

You got a link to support this, or is this just more of the typical shit pulled out of your ass, Dinsdalian bullshit that we've all come to expect over the years?

It is hard to find any statistics regarding the Eisenhower era. If someone has them, I'd love to see them. But since the Reagan administration, taxes on the top 1% have increased as a percentage of total income tax revenue collected and taxes on everyone else have declined:

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2222

I don't think that was in dispute. At a minimum, I certainly wasn't disputing that.

The 1986 revisions to the Internal Revenue Code essentially created two marginal tax brackets, one at 15% and another at 28%. Subsequent to that, under Bush I a higher bracket (31%) was carved out of the higher bracket. Under Clinton, two higher brackets (36% and 39.6%) were carved out of the 31% bracket. Under Bush II, the marginal tax rates were cut across the board (except for the 15% bracket, but a smaller 10% bracket was carved out of that), but W didn't lower the highest marginal rate quite so low as 28%. And there hasn't been a significant amount of allowable change to deductions since 1986, except for: (1) reinstatement of the student loan interest deduction; (2) capital gain on sale of a home for < $750,000 is now always tax deductible (prior to 1997, it usually was tax deductible, although there were possible scenarios where it wasn't); and (3) periodic changes to standard deduction and personal exemptions to allow for adjustments for inflation. That's essentially where we are today.

[Dinsdale]

Dinsdale appears to be right.

Should be the board slogan.

But it's not hard to be right when conversing with TiC when he's toeing the lefty line, slurping up the lies of the nanny-staters.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but Dinsdale appears to be right.

I think that graph is the ultimate apples and oranges comparison.

The wealthiest 0.1% pay a higher share of taxes today than they did in 1960, largely because the share of income the wealthiest 0.1% have today is significantly larger than it was in 1960. Dinsdale suggested that they pay a higher share of their income today in taxes than they did back then.

As for what I was saying, I wasn't disputing that the wealthest pay more in taxes today than they did under Reagan (where the highest marginal tax bracket was 28%). That's not exactly a fair comparison to the highest 92% marginal tax rate under Eisenhower, of course.

[Dinsdale]

Hey Terry, take another look at the graph (HINT: there's two lines), then see if you can figure out why I just about incurred an injury from :facepalming: .

Maybe even go back and read the last several posts... then apologize.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Hey Terry, take another look at the graph (HINT: there's two lines),

Yeah, I saw it.

The average tax rate for the top 0.1% went from about 60% in 1960 (far below its peak, btw) to about 40% for the most recent year.

The share of taxes paid by the top 0.1% went from about 8% in 1960 to about 12% in the most recent year.

And I explained the reason for the latter line: the wealthiest 0.1% earn far, far more today than they did in 1960, even with allowances for inflation, vis-a-vis the rest of the population.

And in your first post on this topic, in an attempt to negate my point about marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower Administration, you mentioned the extent of deductions available back then. That goes to the share of taxes that are personally payable, not the share of taxes the wealthiest 0.1% collectively pay.

[Dinsdale]

Dinsdale suggested that they pay a higher share of their income today in taxes than they did back then.

No, I didn't "suggest" it -- I "stated" it... big difference... which rendered your original point worthless.

Yeah, I saw it.

Yet chose to gloss over it and try and change the subject, since your point was rendered moot.

Does that tactic work for you in court, or do the judge and jury laugh at you like I am now?

[smackaholic]

Libtard doesn't give a shit about the FACT that the rich are paying a larger percentage of the entire tax burden today. he doesn't really care. It's all about making things fair by punishing evil rich dude.

Terry, since you are so enamored with the good ole days under ike, do you think we should return to that era's gubmint spending as a percentage of GDP? Should we go back to that level of gubmint meddling in things in generally?

I think we should.

[Cuda]

Terry, how much extra do YOU pay in taxes, you fucking Richer?

[Dr_Phibes]

How can a government that derives its authority to govern based upon the consent of the governed ever become an impersonal numbers game? What the fuck is that supposed to mean anyway?

A government's power and actions are based on an economy, not the other way round. Economics has its own set of rules, however you interpret them with whatever constitution. Constitutions become null and void when you enter into international trade - crying about 'it's all so unfair' because you get up early in the morning and go to bed late doesn't account for much.

mv got it:

The reason it is done that way is to ensure that the burden is placed on those with the best ability to pay. In other words, the guiding principle is to do the least harm to the economy and the society.

You, or whatever group you associate yourself with, do not make up a society, a nation or an economy.