What? So even though their bracket is STILL higher percentage (meaning a much higher actual AMOUNT), because they got a bigger cut the lower income people pay more than they do? Your "larger share" doesn't mean much if the top 1% went from paying 50% to 49% of income taxes. The rich are still paying more, perhaps just not by as much. And again, why should they? Oh, and from your own link:So even with Bush's "cuts for the rich" ( ), the rich are still paying more than they did back in 1992 before Clinton jacked the rates sky high.I didn't say more. I asked the question, what services of the government that we all use do the rich get more of? I'm not even talking about welfare and other social "programs" that the poor clearly dominate (at the expense of the middle and upper class).

Having higher percentages for higher incomes makes no sense. Having equal percentages (a "flat" tax) is a compromise that still makes people who earn more money pay more of the bill for the government's operation, even though their share of the government as a "product" is less than or equal to a lower income person's share. That's a compromise that I think I can understand. But really, to be "fair" so we all pay the same AMOUNT for equal "services rendered" from the government, the rich should actually pay a lower percentage to make the actual dollar amounts the same across the board. Obviously, that will NEVER happen, and any politician to suggest such a thing would never see the light of day again. But financially, how is that not the most fair way?
Why SHOULDN'T the person who EARNED twice as much end up with twice as much? The services should go to everyone. Again, welfare, on top of normal services, goes specifically to the lower income classes.
OK, to an extent. What does that have to do with a rich guy paying MORE for said protection than the poor guy? Again, the military is there defending all of us. The rich guy doesn't get a bigger "share" of the military, so why should he pay more?
And they do. Even if the tax bracket was totally FLAT, they'd still pay more DOLLARS. Percentage isn't what pays for stuff; actual amount paid is what matters.

Not to mention, how did it become the government's job to take care of the less fortunate vs. charities and religious organizations that undoubtedly do a better job of it? The less money taken by the government, the more money that can be invested into the economy (creating jobs for the lower income classes) or given to charity (to aide those truly in need).

That's not for you or I to decide. Said millionaire presumably earned that money legally, as did you and I, so why should you get to tell him how much is important to him and how much he should give? Why should he have to pay more than you to support the same government we all share?

 

Uh, you mean the same protections that everyone gets?

Again, why should they pay more?

I wonder why they were jacked all to hell by Clinton in the first place?

Why is everyone so hung up on PERCENTAGE brackets?

If you earn $200k and I earn $100k:

If the bracket is the same for all, you pay $40k, I pay $20k at a 20% rate (keeping things simple). So if the brackets weren't progressive at all, you'd STILL pay twice as MUCH money to fund the same government services that I get. I get the same benefits as you, but pay half of what you pay.

If the brackets are progressive, like they are today, such that you effectively pay 30% and I only pay 20%, then you pay $60k to my $20k. Even more lopsided. How is that "fair" at all?

And trust me, I'm NOT in the upper brackets that are being discussed here.

But I don't get the logic involved here...

 

During the interview, Mr. Lutz said auto companies won't be able to meet truck fuel-efficiency rules that the Bush administration recently enacted. The fuel-efficiency standard would force GM to raise its projected 27.4 miles per gallon in 2015. "No technology known to man will meet the truck standards for 2015," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209....html?mod=MKTW

 

What if GM goes diesel across the board on its light trucks?

 

I wonder what 27mpg CAFE equals in EPA numbers, 23-24 maybe. I bet if you put a 3.6L DI and 6 speed auto in a Silverado 2WD it could come pretty close to hitting that number. Mild hybrid could beat it.

 

I guess it depends on how you look at it. We don't have a consumption tax like most Europeans have. 10-50% on top of the MSRP of a car for example

But man alive, we are taxed.
I am self-employed, and I pay taxes non-stop and relentlessly.
Income taxes. Payroll taxes. Unemployment security taxes. Federal taxes. State taxes. Local taxes. Property taxes. I need to pay an accounting firm, just to tell me which check I need to write to whom and for how much and when.

Anyways, I'd rather see an additional 1 or 2 dollar gas tax rather than CAFE.

Other than that, I'm with Joe.

 

Quite interesting, during his administration, the government had a budget surplus and the economy was booming, so the brackets must not have been that jacked up.

I think that will be difficult, but it's not impossible. I think you'll see trucks that are smaller across the board, and they should be able to do more with DoD and diesel/hybrid technology.

 

While on the topic of taxes, here is the current Australian rates.

Tax rates 2007-08
Taxable income
Tax on this income

$1 – $6,000
Nil

$6,001 – $30,000
15c for each $1 over $6,000 (15%)

$30,001 – $75,000
$3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000 (30%)

$75,001 – $150,000
$17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000 (40%)

$150,001 and over
$47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000 (45%)

 

.....and $1.00 Australian = about $0.94 US.

 

The problem I see with all this CAFE nonsense is, wishing things so and making them so are two different things. It seems that a lot of people these days simply wish to will things into existence or success. This goes for many of our current and most heated issues. The fact remains, if it is impossible, no matter of want or wit will make it happen.

 

All of which misses the point that we need to move to other fuels now.

Change the fuels, not the cars.

 

Yeah, it's frustrating......but chew on this for a second. A hundred years ago, the best minds in the world said that making a machine that would fly was impossible. I think all of us know how that turned out. That's just one of MANY examples of the things we have today that smart people said was impossible. Without that "will" that you talk about, those things are impossible. There has to be a will and a demand, and you can bet your @$$ both those things exist in this case.

When there's a will, there's a way.

 

Why were taxes increased by George Bush even though he said "read my lips, no new taxes?" The answer is the same. When some intelligent politicians looked at situation of increased national debt, they saw that it led to increased inflation and interest rates and economic problems.
They? A better question should be why are you arguing for them?

But you guys have convinced me. I now know that instead of an entity that exists as a means to better and protect the lives of all that agree to the social contract to create it, the government is really just a Washington Boogey-man that is out to take all the money away from hard-working Americans and give it to lazy-people (invariably minorities, right). It isn't naive at all to believe that the only thing that matters is how hard you work and not that your socioeconomic environment has anything to do with it. Like how inner-city schools offer the same quality of education and operate on the same budgets as the schools in the suburbs. The police and legal system don't often seem to benefit those with more money, And the money itself isn't an abstraction that is only given power by the government.

Property and wealth are obviously protected by the government. If not then I could wait for you to work hard and generate some wealth, then walk up and kill you and take your wealth. Now if you only had one dollar to your name, who would try to steal it? You wouldn't have a car so the roads don't do anything for you. Housing laws don't apply. You don't have any federally insured money in a bank account.

What all the "same protection" and "unfair for people with large incomes to pay in a little more money than poor people" rhetoric boils down to is a disingenuous attempt to rationalize why you shouldn't have to have some of your money redistributed from your hard-working self to lazy-people... which is at the end of the day either due in no small part to selfishness, entitlement, or racism.

//off-topic

Like I have said before I also think CAFE is dumb and would rather just increase gasoline taxes.

 

Tell that to the Soviets.

The problem remains that the government simply demands without any interest of possibility or cost. Here inlies the problem with CAFE. Simply demanding though legislation is no way to fix issues.

If there is a need, market and ability, more fuel efficient vehicles will be produced. However this is not the case. Demands for safety and buyers wants has lead to the creation of the type of cars produced today. Government declaring it to be so like Cesar will not do anything except exacerbate the stress already emplaced on US auto-manufactures.

A more creative idea for government to influence unnatural market forces could be through tax incentives. Simply let Americans keep more of their money by offering tax rebates based on personally owned vehicle fuel efficiency.

The buyer will save on fuel costs and retain salary. Its win win for everyone unless you are a government bureaucrat wanting squeezing every dime out of Americans.

 

I agree with you. I don't like it either, but it's a way to a means. I'm just saying what they're asking isn't "impossible" unless we choose to think that way.

Up to this point, you're dead on. However, the question isn't if fuel economy priorities in this country will change in the future, but when. Also, while safety requirements for vehicles have continually increased, CAFE has been largely unchanged (until recently) for the past 20 years, which leads me to believe that maybe something pretty drastic is going on for them to want to increase CAFE.

I like this idea A LOT. Maybe we could have it geared more toward actual fuel consumed, which also points to earlier posted ideas about gas taxes. It would accomplish the same thing. I think we'll see higher gas taxes in conjunction with increased CAFE. Get ready to take it in the shorts if you're not already.