>>>>>It may become hard to convince people who don't pay taxes that my taxes are too high. The situation is quickly approaching the point when majority of voters will pay no income tax but their vote will set taxes for minority (taxpayers).
>>>>
>>>>Do you have some evidence for this?
>>>>
>>>>FWIW, that's how income started. It was originally on only the very top earners. I forget the stats, but like 2% of the workforce.
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>I am a bit confused. You ask for evidence and then call it self-evident by historical example.
>>
>>My point is that historically, more and more people pay taxes, not fewer and fewer. I asked for evidence of your assertion that fewer and fewer are paying.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Last tax cut effectively eliminated many people from the taxpayer pool by decreasing marginal rates in low-income categories so full tax amount is covered by deductions. Every raise in earned-income credit, retirement credit, child credit, education credit, etc. does the same thing. As you certainly know 1% top-earners pay about 40% of taxes. If your favorite candidate wins this number may go up to 50%.

And what percent of the income do those 1% top-earners make? This discussion isn't complete without that figure.

Even in a flat tax scheme, with no deductions, if 1% of the people earn 50% of the income (not suggesting that's the case here--I really don't know), they'd pay 50% of the taxes. In a graduated, progressive scheme like we have, we expect the top 1% to pay an amount that's greater than their proportion of the income. I have no problem with that and I say that as someone who has more than once paid federal income tax for a year that was more than most people earn in a year.

Also, you didn't actually provide any evidence that fewer people are paying federal income tax and that there's a long-term pattern of the number going down.

Tamar