Federal Tax Rate - So Unfair

If you thought this was going to be a post about how unfair it is that rich people are being asked to shoulder a bit more of the burden when it comes to funding health care, prepare to be disappointed.

Kevin Drum shares this handy chart that details how the effective tax rate for the top 1% of households has plummeted since 1993, which obviously leads to two results - either less affluent taxpayers need to pick up the difference, or programs need to be cut due to tax revenue drops.

Sadly, it's not the top 1% that usually needs these programs funded. It's the lower income folks who depend on the federal programs as a lifeline. We're not talking about luxury, here. These programs are typically the only thing between suffering and eeking by in life.

Taxes are not bad, and they are not socialist. Lower income citizens normally spend a higher percentage of after-tax income on basic needs like food, shelter, and medical care, where higher income folks invest, save, and spend on non-basic items. So it makes sense to have a graduated tax system, as a flat tax places a higher burden on low-income people than it does high-income taxpayers. Unless, of course, Republicans and conservatives would agree to a flat tax rate applied to gross income in all forms of compensation, with no deductions, but that's not likely.

So stop whining that taxing the top 1% to provide basic health care to around 50 million of our brothers and sisters is some great punishment or redistribution of wealth. If it wasn't a redistribution in the 90s when it was given to the rich, then it's not now. Going back to the 90s, when most people were doing better than we are today, doesn't seem like a bad idea.