How are we going to pay for all this shit?

[lustylad]

Six different ways that prove the wealthy pay a lot more than their ‘fair share’

Politicians demand more from the wealthy but never define what 'enough' looks like in real dollars or percentages

By Ted Jenkin
May 11, 2026 5:00am EDT

If you listen to politicians like Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, there’s a constant drumbeat. The rich don’t pay their "fair share." and we don’t need any "oligarchs." These are powerful soundbites. They are also among the most intellectually lazy phrases in modern economics.

Because here’s the real question no one answers: what exactly is "fair?"

Let’s start with the facts which many people don’t like to discuss and not feelings.

According to data from the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Foundation, the top 1% of earners already pay roughly 40% or more of all federal income taxes. The top 10%? Closer to 70%. Meanwhile, nearly half of Americans pay little to no federal income tax each year.

So, when someone says the wealthy don’t pay enough, what they’re really saying is: It’s fair that lots of people pay zero and that they want the rich to pay even more than that share.

But here’s where the conversation gets completely detached from reality, because federal income tax is just the starting line, not the finish line, when we talk about overall taxation.

Let’s walk through what "rich" Americans actually pay in taxes.

1. Federal income tax

This is the headline number everyone debates. Top earners face marginal rates up to 37%, before you even layer in surtaxes.

2. State income taxes

Live in high-tax states like California or New York, and you can add another 10%–14% on top of that federal number. Suddenly, you’re pushing toward a combined rate that rivals some European countries.

3. Property taxes

Congratulations, you’re writing a check every year just to keep it. In states like New Jersey or Texas, property taxes can easily hit $10,000 to $30,000+ annually for higher-value homes. We are talking 1% to 2% of your home value beyond some states that have personal property taxes.

4. Sales taxes

Every time you spend, you’re taxed again. In places like Tennessee or Washington, combined sales taxes approach 10%. That’s post-income-tax money being taxed all over again. This sparks the great debate of a fair tax or having a VAT tax or what some will call a consumption tax.

5. Capital gains taxes

Invest wisely? You’ll pay for that as well. Federal capital gains rates, plus the Net Investment Income Tax, can push you over 23.8%, before state taxes take another bite. This is after you tax after-tax money, invest it well, and then pay tax again. This also affects business owners who build their business for years and pay tax on distributable income all along the way only to potentially be taxed at the highest marginal tax rate when they sell the business that created jobs for people for decades.

6. Estate taxes

Build wealth over a lifetime? The government may take another bite out of the apple when you pass it on to your heirs. While this doesn’t affect as many people, it can be significant for wealthy families.

Now let’s pause and ask the captain obvious question: At what point is it enough?

Is "fair" when the top 1% pays 50% of all taxes? 60%? 80%? Does any politician who makes these outlandish statements have a real number? No. The reason? You can’t get blood from a stone from people who don’t pay at all right now.

We’re already operating in a system where such a small percentage of Americans fund the majority of government spending.

Here’s what makes this debate even more frustrating, and that is, "fair share" is never defined. It’s a moving target. The more you pay, the more you’re told you should pay.

That’s not tax policy, that’s the modern politics of today.

And let’s be clear that this isn’t about defending billionaires. It’s about defending math, incentives, and, most importantly, capitalism.

When you continually raise the burden on the most productive individuals and business owners, you don’t just "tax the rich." You change the behavior of the very people who create the system. They create the jobs. They create the innovation. They create the future of America. You discourage investment. You slow hiring. You reduce risk-taking, which are the very things that drive our GDP.

America clearly needs more revenue as the time ticks toward $40 trillion of debt. It also has a significant spending problem.

Before we demand more from taxpayers, maybe we should demand more accountability from Washington.

Until someone can clearly define what "fair share" actually means in real dollars, real percentages and real outcomes, it remains exactly what it is today.

A soundbite and a slogan. And those two things don’t balance our budget.

[pxmcc]

^^if the rich are paying so much in taxes, why are we 39 trillion dollars in debt?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^if the rich are paying so much in taxes, why are we 39 trillion dollars in debt?

Seriously?

The fact that you even see fit to ask this question is frightening and pathetic.

You might want to apply for a job as a CBO staffer and become familiar with the federal government's dismal budgetary history.

Or go back and read this entire thread from its inception 5 years ago to today.


Quick and simple answer:

1. Each year's federal deficit is the difference between spending and revenues.

2. Our debt is the cumulative product of endless annual deficits

3. A cursory review of our budgetary history makes it obvious we have a SPENDING PROBLEM, not a revenue problem.

[pxmcc]

well can you give me a Cliff Notes version of what we're overspending on, from your perspective?

the last president to take in more than its spending was Clinton, near the end of his second term. every single admin since has run deficits, and Republican admins have, on average, run greater deficits than Democratic admins. Trump's deficits are some of the worst in U.S. history, if not the worst.

edit: seems to be a fair list. i am quite disturbed when we spend more than we are taking in, which is always. so then, i am always disturbed..

adults have convos around the dinner table about how to manage expenditures in light of income. not sure why the fed govt can't do the same.

a system that can't sustain itself into perpetuity, won't sustain itself into perpetuity. so our system won't sustain itself into perpetuity.

i'm interested in looking at both revenues and expenditures. it seems like we need to do a better job of matching those 2 items.

for example, if Heggy is going to get 1.5 trillion in fancy war toys, my thought is ok maybe, but let's pay for it instead of putting it on the "tab." the tab will ultimately have to be paid by the kids or the grandkids, and it won't be pretty.

Trump has accelerated the insolvency of Social Security by several years. he seems to just want to party like it's 1999. that's a problem. he's going to leave the feast without first paying the bill. someone later will have to pay his tab.

Dems aren't off the hook either though. it's a bipartisan issue.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Seriously?

The fact that you even see fit to ask this question is frightening and pathetic.

You might want to apply for a job as a CBO staffer and become familiar with the federal government's dismal budgetary history.

Or go back and read this entire thread from its inception to today.

Quick and simple answer:

1. Each year's federal deficit is the difference between spending and revenues.

2. Our debt is the cumulative product of endless annual deficits

3. A cursory review of our budgetary history makes it obvious we have a SPENDING PROBLEM, not a revenue problem.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

well can you give me a Cliff Notes version of what we're overspending on, from your perspective?

Everything. It's across the board. It's both unsustainable AND unstoppable (oxymoron, right?) given the invertebrates in our governnment on both sides of the aisle.

Defense
Social Security (including SSDI)
Medicare
Medicaid
Obamacare

There's 60% of the $7.4 trillion budget right there. We need to shrink, or at least freeze, all of it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Trump's deficits are some of the worst in U.S. history, if not the worst.

Here we go again... that's not true, with the exception of 2020 (final year of Trump's first term) when covid exploded the deficit. As a % of GDP, Obama's first term had some of the worst deficits in US history. Look it up.

This was all hashed out and illustrated in this forum with numerous charts and bar graphs over the past dozen years. I won't rehash it now, since playing the whataboutism partisan blame game is just an excuse for both sides not to deal with the problem.

[pxmcc]

^^fair enough. i'll get the stats and post them. no point of arguing without first establishing the known facts. i did say the problem is bipartisan.

Ok I think I have the data. Republicans win by a little because Obama got handed the Great Recession and Biden got handed covid. But both parties have a deficit problem.


By administration

Administration
Party
Fiscal Years
Total Deficit / Surplus
Average per Year
Avg. % of GDP

Clinton
Democratic
1997–2000
$559B surplus
$140B surplus/yr
1.4% surplus

G.W. Bush
Republican
2001–2008
$3.17T deficit
$396B/yr
3.0%

Obama
Democratic
2009–2016
$6.78T deficit
$847B/yr
5.3%

Trump
Republican
2017–2020
$5.57T deficit
$1.39T/yr
6.7%

Biden
Democratic
2021–2024
$7.07T deficit
$1.77T/yr
6.5%

Party totals
Party
Years Counted
Total Deficit / Surplus
Average Annual Deficit
Avg. % GDP

Democratic
16
$13.29T deficit
$831B/yr
4.9%

Republican
12
$8.74T deficit
$728B/yr
4.2%

Democrats actually show the larger average deficits overall — largely because:

-Obama inherited the Great Recession collapse,

-Biden inherited the continuing fiscal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and continued high spending.

-Clinton was the only administration in this period to run sustained surpluses.

Large Republican deficit increases occurred after major tax cuts under George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

The largest single-year deficits in modern history occurred during:

Trump FY2020 (~15% of GDP),
Biden FY2021 (~12% of GDP),

both driven primarily by pandemic emergency spending.

Trump came out bottom of the barrel in deficit spending, at 6.7% of GDP, Biden was next at 6.5% of GDP, Obama at 5.3%, Bush at 3%, and Clinton ran a surplus of 1.4% of GDP.

that was fun..

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Everything. It's across the board. It's both unsustainable AND unstoppable (oxymoron, right?) given the invertebrates in our governnment on both sides of the aisle.

Defense
Social Security (including SSDI)
Medicare
Medicaid
Obamacare

There's 60% of the $7.4 trillion budget right there. We need to shrink, or at least freeze, all of it.

Social Security, Medicare and private health insurance plans at HealthCare.Gov (Obamacare) are entitlements that are not totally free. If you get paid by W2, Social Security Taxes and medicare taxes are collected from an employee's paycheck. With Obamacare (The private health insurance plans) you have to have income to be eligible to qualify. If you are a family of four and make greater than $135,000 you don't get any help from the government towards paying the premium of the policy. I agree with you on defense spending, that needs shrinking!!!


I have said this before and i will say this again, we need to go back to the Tax Tables that were used in Clinton's last year in office where the tax rate percentage for the 7th tax bracket was 40%. The corporate tax rate needs to go up to 25%. Start there and see if that generates a Federal Budget Surplus instead of these Trillion dollar deficits we have been running the last several years.


https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040tt--2000.pdf

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^fair enough. i'll get the stats and post them. no point of arguing without first establishing the known facts. i did say the problem is bipartisan.

Ok I think I have the data. Republicans win by a little because Obama got handed the Great Recession and Biden got handed covid. But both parties have a deficit problem.


By administration

Administration
Party
Fiscal Years
Total Deficit / Surplus
Average per Year
Avg. % of GDP

Clinton
Democratic
1997–2000
$559B surplus
$140B surplus/yr
1.4% surplus

G.W. Bush
Republican
2001–2008
$3.17T deficit
$396B/yr
3.0%

Obama
Democratic
2009–2016
$6.78T deficit
$847B/yr
5.3%

Trump
Republican
2017–2020
$5.57T deficit
$1.39T/yr
6.7%

Biden
Democratic
2021–2024
$7.07T deficit
$1.77T/yr
6.5%

Party totals
Party
Years Counted
Total Deficit / Surplus
Average Annual Deficit
Avg. % GDP

Democratic
16
$13.29T deficit
$831B/yr
4.9%

Republican
12
$8.74T deficit
$728B/yr
4.2%

Democrats actually show the larger average deficits overall — largely because:

-Obama inherited the Great Recession collapse,

-Biden inherited the continuing fiscal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and continued high spending.

-Clinton was the only administration in this period to run sustained surpluses.

Large Republican deficit increases occurred after major tax cuts under George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

The largest single-year deficits in modern history occurred during:

Trump FY2020 (~15% of GDP),
Biden FY2021 (~12% of GDP),

both driven primarily by pandemic emergency spending.

Trump came out bottom of the barrel in deficit spending, at 6.7% of GDP, Biden was next at 6.5% of GDP, Obama at 5.3%, Bush at 3%, and Clinton ran a surplus of 1.4% of GDP.

that was fun..

It's not that simple pxmcc. It takes three to tango (president, House, Senate). Former esteemed board contributor, Democrat and deficit hawk WTF frequently pointed out, correctly, that the best combination for controlling deficits was a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Just look at Clinton's and Obama's second terms, when Republicans controlled Congress.

When one party controls the presidency, Senate and House, the bastards go wild and spend like drunken sailors. And for at least several decades, Republican presidents have happily gone along with Congressional Democrats in busting budgets. Look at December, 2020 for example, when Trump, Pelosi and a Democratic House wanted to spend a couple of trillion on stimulus but were restrained to an extent by a Republican Senate.

I would want to see your numbers adjusted for inflation, and including Clinton's first term, when Democrats controlled the whole shebang. The credit for budget surpluses in Clinton's second term should go equally to the president and the Republican Congress. Regardless, just looking at who's president is oversimplified. In addition to Congress, as Lusty Lad said, extraneous conditions largely beyond the control of presidents, like COVID and the 2008/2009 recession, are important too

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

I have said this before and i will say this again, we need to go back to the Tax Tables that were used in Clinton's last year in office where the tax rate percentage for the 7th tax bracket was 40%. The corporate tax rate needs to go up to 25%. Start there and see if that generates a Federal Budget Surplus instead of these Trillion dollar deficits we have been running the last several years.

And I've said this before adav8s28 and you either don't believe me or aren't listening. The maximum individual tax rate in Clinton's last year was 39.6% on ordinary income and 20% on long term capital gains. Right now, including Obama's NIIT and an additional Medicare/Medicaid tax on high earners, the maximum rate is around 39.5% to 40.8% on ordinary income and 23.8% on long term capital gains. At the top end, your proposal would probably decrease revenues a little. It might increase revenues from middle class Americans by increasing their taxes, I haven't looked into that.

Kudos for "only" wanting to increase the corporate income tax rate to 25%. I think it's better left at 21%, but your proposal isn't unreasonable. The thing is though that increasing the rate to 25% would increase federal revenues only marginally in % terms.

Agreed, the defense budget should be cut, not increased by $500 or $600 billion to $1.5 trillion as Hegseth proposed.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

And I've said this before adav8s28 and you either don't believe me or aren't listening. The maximum individual tax rate in Clinton's last year was 39.6% on ordinary income and 20% on long term capital gains. Right now, including Obama's NIIT and an additional Medicare/Medicaid tax on high earners, the maximum rate is around 39.5% to 40.8% on ordinary income and 23.8% on long term capital gains. At the top end, your proposal would probably decrease revenues a little. It might increase revenues from middle class Americans by increasing their taxes, I haven't looked into that.

Kudos for "only" wanting to increase the corporate income tax rate to 25%. I think it's better left at 21%, but your proposal isn't unreasonable. The thing is though that increasing the rate to 25% would increase federal revenues only marginally in % terms.

Agreed, the defense budget should be cut, not increased by $500 or $600 billion to $1.5 trillion as Hegseth proposed.

The reason I wrote 40% for the tax rate percentage for the 7th tax bracket is that this is the number listed in the tax rate table that was linked to in post #1790 of this thread. I am just going by what I see hard coded in the table. In the table that I linked to in post #1853 the tax rate percentage for the 7th tax bracket is listed as 39.6%. Both of these numbers are higher than what is listed in the tax table for 2025 for the 7th or highest tax bracket. In the 2025 tax table the tax rate percentage for 7th tax bracket is 37%. Based on this I don't see how the tax revenue generated from the 7th tax bracket would be less if you use the 2000 tax table instead of the 2025 tax table which has the Trump tax cuts. It would be interesting to get a score from the CBO to see which table the 2000, or the 2025 tax table would generate more revenue.


Thanks for the kudos on my idea to increase the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25%. I am a reasonable person. We may disagree on monetary policy, you're still top 3 best amateur Virologist on WWW.ECCIE.NET.


https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1999


https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-i...s-and-brackets

[pxmcc]

my thought is that since Clinton was the last admin to run a surplus, we should at least try the tax rates that were in effect during his second term. will it guarantee a surplus again? nope. but it's a plausible path back to fiscal sanity and sustainability; the current trajectory is both unsustainable and insane.

we should also try to keep discretionary spending at no greater a percent of GDP than Clinton ran. the Ukrainians have demonstrated that a highly effective fighting force against a U.S. near-peer adversary doesn't have to break the bank. we need to do more with less, and avoid starting silly wars aka Iran. a war in defense of Taiwan, on the other hand, is arguably good fiscal policy in light of Taiwan's juggernaut in the most cutting edge chips on the planet. Taiwan just needs to survive 2 more years of Captain Ahab at the helm aka Trump.

China is on a path to pass us up. in the last 12 months, China's global trade surplus was 1.2 trillion, while the U.S.'s trade deficit was 900 billion. at this pace, we stand no chance of staying as the world's global superpower, but if we get our fiscal house in order, we should be able to stay at #2 for a good while.

i don't really see a path to avoid China taking over the #1 spot without dramatic changes at every level of U.S. soceity and policy, which is highly unlikely. it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Tiny

And I've said this before adav8s28 and you either don't believe me or aren't listening. The maximum individual tax rate in Clinton's last year was 39.6% on ordinary income and 20% on long term capital gains. Right now, including Obama's NIIT and an additional Medicare/Medicaid tax on high earners, the maximum rate is around 39.5% to 40.8% on ordinary income and 23.8% on long term capital gains. At the top end, your proposal would probably decrease revenues a little. It might increase revenues from middle class Americans by increasing their taxes, I haven't looked into that.

Kudos for "only" wanting to increase the corporate income tax rate to 25%. I think it's better left at 21%, but your proposal isn't unreasonable. The thing is though that increasing the rate to 25% would increase federal revenues only marginally in % terms.

Agreed, the defense budget should be cut, not increased by $500 or $600 billion to $1.5 trillion as Hegseth proposed.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The reason I wrote 40% for the tax rate percentage for the 7th tax bracket is that this is the number listed in the tax rate table that was linked to in post #1790 of this thread. I am just going by what I see hard coded in the table. In the table that I linked to in post #1853 the tax rate percentage for the 7th tax bracket is listed as 39.6%. Both of these numbers are higher than what is listed in the tax table for 2025 for the 7th or highest tax bracket. In the 2025 tax table the tax rate percentage for 7th tax bracket is 37%. Based on this I don't see how the tax revenue generated from the 7th tax bracket would be less if you use the 2000 tax table instead of the 2025 tax table which has the Trump tax cuts. It would be interesting to get a score from the CBO to see which table the 2000, or the 2025 tax table would generate more revenue.


Thanks for the kudos on my idea to increase the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25%. I am a reasonable person. We may disagree on monetary policy, you're still top 3 best amateur Virologist on WWW.ECCIE.NET.


https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1999


https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-i...s-and-brackets

Hi Adav8s28, The difference is additional income tax not reflected in the tables, that was introduced in Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA introduced a 3.8% additional tax on income from dividends, interest, capital gains, and royalties, and an additional 0.9% tax on income from salary and self employment income. The tax increase only applied to higher income earners.

Basically, there's a 3.8% tax on top of the 37% tax. The entire 3.8% is borne by the taxpayer, except for salary income, where the employer bears 1.45%. So here are maximum federal tax rates, including the additional taxes, by category:

Interest, non-qualified dividends, royalties, self employment income, short term capital gains: 40.8%

Long term capital gains and qualified dividends: 23.8%

Salary income: 39.35% (an additional 1.45% is paid by employer bringing total to 40.8%)

Please take a look at the first page (2025 tax rates) and second page (2000 tax rates - the last year of Clinton's last term) in the following link,

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/f...ates-brackets/

(Aside: The tables do not include the additional taxes on income described above. To be fair, in 2000, the actual top rate for salary income including additional tax not reflected in the table was 40.95%, and for the self employed it was 42.5%. The Clinton tax rate on capital gains was 20%, lower than the 23.8% tax today. And all other income in 2000 was taxed at a maximum rate of 39.6%.)

What you'll see is that the middle brackets, below the top, were 15%, 28%, 31% and 36% in 2000. In 2025, they're 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, and 35%. Tax rates on the middle class were higher in 2000 than they are now.

In other words, if you take tax rates back to the levels of Clinton's presidency, you're not going to change how much revenue you'll raise from high income earners. My guess is that revenues would go down slightly, but I'm not sure. On the other hand you'd be taxing the middle class at appreciably higher levels. And if you want big government like the western Europeans and a balanced budget, that's what you've got to do, and more. Everybody would need to pay 40%. You're not going to get enough money just from the high earners. See Lusty Lad's post 1846 above. You tack on, say, a 10% state income tax, a 2% property tax and an 8% sales tax to the 40.8% federal tax and there's not much room to go up more.

The reason you saw 40% as the top rate in the link in your post 1790 was probably because they were rounding off. Please note they didn't show any decimal %'s in the table. Both the IRS tables in your link and the Tax Foundation tables in the link in this post show 39.6% as the maximum rate in 2000.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

my thought is that since Clinton was the last admin to run a surplus, we should at least try the tax rates that were in effect during his second term. will it guarantee a surplus again? nope. but it's a plausible path back to fiscal sanity and sustainability; the current trajectory is both unsustainable and insane.

we should also try to keep discretionary spending at no greater a percent of GDP than Clinton ran. the Ukrainians have demonstrated that a highly effective fighting force against a U.S. near-peer adversary doesn't have to break the bank. we need to do more with less, and avoid starting silly wars aka Iran. a war in defense of Taiwan, on the other hand, is arguably good fiscal policy in light of Taiwan's juggernaut in the most cutting edge chips on the planet. Taiwan just needs to survive 2 more years of Captain Ahab at the helm aka Trump.

China is on a path to pass us up. in the last 12 months, China's global trade surplus was 1.2 trillion, while the U.S.'s trade deficit was 900 billion. at this pace, we stand no chance of staying as the world's global superpower, but if we get our fiscal house in order, we should be able to stay at #2 for a good while.

i don't really see a path to avoid China taking over the #1 spot without dramatic changes at every level of U.S. soceity and policy, which is highly unlikely. it is what it is.

As noted in post just above, when you take rates back to Clinton levels, you're not raising taxes on the higher income earners, you're raising them on the middle class. I'd much prefer cutting spending, including military expenditures, but yeah, as Texas Contrarian has said repeatedly unfortunately that's probably not in the cards. According to Gemini, discretionary federal expenditure as a % of GDP is actually lower now than during the Clinton administration. (I would have guessed like you did.) I imagine that's partly because of the inexorable growth of entitlements, crowding out discretionary spending. The USA is going to have to raise employee and employer contributions to Social Security and Medicare a lot at some point.

China will for better or worse become #1. It has 1.4 billion people who are just as, or maybe more, hard working and smart as/than we are.