Don't bitch that the rich don't pay enough taxes

[wetech]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: wetech


Everyone who works for the construction company in your example would benefit, from the owners down to the guys laying bricks.

A.) ProfJohn you didn't address the substance of my post.
B.) Yes wetech you are right... some however will benefit FAR more then others... which was my whole point.

Granted, but the people benefitting the most have the most at risk in the company as well.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm guessing you didn't read my post. I suggest you go back and try again. My pont was not that the rich do not pay more then the poor, as that is obvious. My point was the disparity is made to look artificially large in that report. That is not contempt... that is reality.

50% of the people in this country pay 96% of income taxes, which means the other 50% pay less than 4%. Is that enough disparity for you?

Look... figures for you... Page 18 of PDF
Effective Income Tax rate for 2001
Bottom 20% -5.6%
Next 20% 0.3%

Share of Tax liability
Lowest 20% 1.1%
Next 20% 5%
Top 20% 65.3%
Top 10% 50%- that means 10% of the people in this country pay have the federal income taxes.

From your link taking the data from Table A-1:

Lowest Quintile 22.2 x 14,900 = 330,780
Second Quintile 21.1 x 34,200 = 721,620
Middle Quintile 21.6 x 51,500 = 1,112,400
Fourth Quintile 21.5 x 75,600 = 1,625,400

Total of Bottom Four Quintile 3,790,200

Highest Quintile 22.5 x 182,700 = 4,110,750

So that means the top 20% made more than 50% of the money, or in other words, they made more money than the bottom 80% of the country.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm guessing you didn't read my post. I suggest you go back and try again. My pont was not that the rich do not pay more then the poor, as that is obvious. My point was the disparity is made to look artificially large in that report. That is not contempt... that is reality.

50% of the people in this country pay 96% of income taxes, which means the other 50% pay less than 4%. Is that enough disparity for you?

Look... figures for you... Page 18 of PDF
Effective Income Tax rate for 2001
Bottom 20% -5.6%
Next 20% 0.3%

Share of Tax liability
Lowest 20% 1.1%
Next 20% 5%
Top 20% 65.3%
Top 10% 50%- that means 10% of the people in this country pay have the federal income taxes.

From your link taking the data from Table A-1:

Lowest Quintile 22.2 x 14,900 = 330,780
Second Quintile 21.1 x 34,200 = 721,620
Middle Quintile 21.6 x 51,500 = 1,112,400
Fourth Quintile 21.5 x 75,600 = 1,625,400

Total of Bottom Four Quintile 3,790,200

Highest Quintile 22.5 x 182,700 = 4,110,750

So that means the top 20% made more than 50% of the money, or in other words, they made more money than the bottom 80% of the country.

Can you find some sttats about how many children the lowest earners have

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The premise of this report is flawed. The rich benefit in many ways from government spending, not all of which are in the form of direct subsidies. A good example.. say the government spends $100 million to build low income housing. Well, that contract is awarded through a construction company owned by some very wealthy individuals and they profit substantially as well.

How much of that $100 million is profit for rich guy construction and how much of it is spent on supplies and labor?

Based on typical business profit levels the owners are going to get about 5% gross and the rest is going to be spent on other things, including the wages of dozens if not hundreds of workers. So yes the owner gets the largest single benefit, but all the little people get more in total dollar amount.

Maybe someone in the business can shed light on what the typical labor percentages are when it comes to buildings.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Well.. honestly.. something does need to be done about the poor in the country who do not follow any basic logic..

Bad husbands
No degrees
FOUR OR FIVE KIDS
Welfare for all of them .. Why?

wow... That is pretty loaded there.

eletist much?

 

[HomeAppraiser]

Every time I see Paris Hilton I think that the rich don't pay enough taxes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Don't bite the hand that feeds. That's great. The rich are vampires that depend on a functioning society of millions of others for their wealth. Out in the jungle they would be worth less than a monkey and dead in a couple of days.

This can be said about anyone in society, so what's your point?

Gosh, could it be that the rich have nothing to complain about if the poor use up more tax dollars because that whole concept is a lie. Taxes maintain a society they feed off with rich rewards.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: SViscusi
Which column did they add the trillions of dollars spent on military campaigns overseas to protect the interest of the rich?

So the poor aren't protected via the military? Only the rich? hmmm

Let's think... we leave Iraq, the price of oil goes up to $5 a gallon... who suffers more the rich or the poor?

who gains the most though? Who has the most to lose? Basic subsidy of the poor is esential to the wealthy preserving their income, because if people start losing their belief in the system and their interest in the system, the whole thing comes crashing down.

Government is only a part of society, how much to the rich gain from society? Clearly alot, as they are rich after all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: wetech


Everyone who works for the construction company in your example would benefit, from the owners down to the guys laying bricks.

A.) ProfJohn you didn't address the substance of my post.
B.) Yes wetech you are right... some however will benefit FAR more then others... which was my whole point.

Granted, but the people benefitting the most have the most at risk in the company as well.

And that wouldn't be because they have something to put at risk now would it?

 

[ProfJohn]

Her209, the numbers are right there on table a-2, page 26
Income share
Bottom 20% 4.2%
Next 20% 9.2%
middle 20% 14.2%
next 20% 20%
top 20% 52.4%

Now I am not sure what your point is... that the rich make to much? Ok... how do we fix that problem?
We can increase the amount of taxes that they pay, but that won't change the fact that they make more than the poor.

Dahunan These numbers are based on 'households' so it is hard to calculate things like average number of kids etc.
Now it does say that all fifths contain an equal number of people, not an equal number of households. That means for every person living at $14,900 per year there is another person living at 182,700 per year.
Now what is interesting about this fact is that the group with the smallest number of households and therefore the group with the most people per household is not the bottom 20%, but the next 20%, which as a group earns on average 34,200 per year.
The groups with the least people per household would be the richest and the poorest, which makes sense since many of the 'rich' are going to be older people with no kids and many of the 'poor' are going to be single students and the like.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
who gains the most though? Who has the most to lose? Basic subsidy of the poor is esential to the wealthy preserving their income, because if people start losing their belief in the system and their interest in the system, the whole thing comes crashing down.

Government is only a part of society, how much to the rich gain from society? Clearly alot, as they are rich after all.

Do the poor not benefit from our society as well? In fact I think you could say that the poor benefit quite a lot from our society. Compare the poor in America to the poor just about any place else in the world.

I think it is hard to say that the poor or the rich benefit more in our society. Let?s face it, both the poor and rich gain a lot via our society.
The rich has a stable successful society in which to gain and use their wealth in, and the poor get tons of social programs and spending to help them out.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: dahunan
Well.. honestly.. something does need to be done about the poor in the country who do not follow any basic logic..

Bad husbands
No degrees
FOUR OR FIVE KIDS
Welfare for all of them .. Why?

wow... That is pretty loaded there.

eletist much?

It is not elitist ... Do you know how many people who are considered poor meet the exact stats I just posted?

Do you know how many on welfare have too many kids? >> Too many kids equal more than your education and income can pay for.

 

[dahunan]

Also.. when you have more kids than you can afford.. who raises them when you work two jobs? Gang Members are happy to raise them for you

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2286.html

Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41.

Maybe you should thank the rich for supporting the rest of the population instead of lambasting them in a jealous rage...don't bite the hand that feeds.

What's the matter, guilty conscious??? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I see you in gluttony, not guilt.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The premise of this report is flawed. The rich benefit in many ways from government spending, not all of which are in the form of direct subsidies. A good example.. say the government spends $100 million to build low income housing. Well, that contract is awarded through a construction company owned by some very wealthy individuals and they profit substantially as well.

How much of that $100 million is profit for rich guy construction and how much of it is spent on supplies and labor?

Based on typical business profit levels the owners are going to get about 5% gross and the rest is going to be spent on other things, including the wages of dozens if not hundreds of workers. So yes the owner gets the largest single benefit, but all the little people get more in total dollar amount.

Maybe someone in the business can shed light on what the typical labor percentages are when it comes to buildings.

Typical profit margins are 1 - 3%.

 

[judasmachine]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that the military industrial complex recieves the lion's share, and how much are their profits?

 

[senseamp]

My question is why are we wasting 41 cents on the tax dollar for the rich?
And why are we taxing the poor?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that the military industrial complex recieves the lion's share, and how much are their profits?

5-7% for two of the three largest. Don't know about Boeing, but they also have a large private business too. Lockheed and Northrop are both nearly 100% defense.
scroll to the bottom for a break down in defense spending
For 2003: $388 billion in total outlays, about $100 billion goes to military personnel meaning $288 billion goes the 'military industrail complex'
Contrast that spending amount to the $505 billion spend by the Health and Human Services Department.
The defense department has not been the largest department since 1993. Health and Human services holds that distinction, and in fact since 1993 its budget had doubled from $253 billion to $581 billion in 2005.

Maybe those of us on the right should start talking about the Health and Human services complex...

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/2286.html

Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41.

Maybe you should thank the rich for supporting the rest of the population instead of lambasting them in a jealous rage...don't bite the hand that feeds.

I wonder how much of that is included in public education, whereas the rich usually opt for private.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Her209, the numbers are right there on table a-2, page 26
Income share
Bottom 20% 4.2%
Next 20% 9.2%
middle 20% 14.2%
next 20% 20%
top 20% 52.4%

Now I am not sure what your point is... that the rich make to much? Ok... how do we fix that problem?
We can increase the amount of taxes that they pay, but that won't change the fact that they make more than the poor.

This is a progressive tax society. What did you expect was going to happen? Expect them [the rich] to pay even more in their share of taxes when their share of income increases.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The premise of this report is flawed. The rich benefit in many ways from government spending, not all of which are in the form of direct subsidies. A good example.. say the government spends $100 million to build low income housing. Well, that contract is awarded through a construction company owned by some very wealthy individuals and they profit substantially as well.

How much of that $100 million is profit for rich guy construction and how much of it is spent on supplies and labor?

Based on typical business profit levels the owners are going to get about 5% gross and the rest is going to be spent on other things, including the wages of dozens if not hundreds of workers. So yes the owner gets the largest single benefit, but all the little people get more in total dollar amount.

Maybe someone in the business can shed light on what the typical labor percentages are when it comes to buildings.

Typical profit margins are 1 - 3%.

Typical business owners also pay themselves a salary.

A more realistic approach is to consider the income distribution between capital and labour, which is about 60-something percent to labour. Then 30-something percent of the money is paid to capital. Not all of this is owned by the rich, but not all of labour is 'low-income', a substantial portion is in the second quintile, at any rate. The 1-3% is complete BS. A conservative estimate is that 20-30% of the money is paid to the highest 40% of the population by earnings.

I think it's telling that everyone is better off in countries with mixed economies. It's not necessarily causal, as historically the pattern is:

- country is among the 'rich' nations
- social programs are introduced and tax rates on high income earners reach about 30-40% after some experimenting
- country gets richer

Business owners benefit when their low-wage employees have access to subsidized housing, etc, because this in effect subsidizes the wages they pay (though it also drives the price of some things higher). The net effect is rather complicated and ambiguous, but it hasn't stopped the rich - who are[/i[ the government, and make the rules in the first place - from doing well for themselves. Income disparity is a growing concern in countries that are not supposed to have class systems, but it is hard to spend much time crying for the wealthy, because they are doing fine - better than at any time in the past, and with incomes growing faster than the economy.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
trollin' trollin' trollin'

ntdz is being truthful...
so anybody you don`t afree with you call a troll....

 

[judasmachine]

I don't actually know that much about economics, and don't mind paying tax, I just wish it was spent wisely. Perhaps a welfare system that actually helps people, and a defense budget that keeps us two generations ahead of the world instead of what like five. Welfare usually takes two paths, either kicks it's users off, or lets them lanquish on it for life. Both strategies are fatally flawed.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
trollin' trollin' trollin'

ntdz is being truthful...
so anybody you don`t afree with you call a troll....

I don't recall calling anyone a troll lately.

There are always about three of 'this thread' on the first page of P&N, and the first post was a troll.

Edit - I was going to make one up as an example, but as you can see "I don't think the President has the intellectual capacity to turn the page without losing focus, but I could be wrong. Anyone else heard of this? " Is a troll, too. (From the Bush reading thread)

This thread has turned out surprisingly well, all things considered.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The premise of this report is flawed. The rich benefit in many ways from government spending, not all of which are in the form of direct subsidies. A good example.. say the government spends $100 million to build low income housing. Well, that contract is awarded through a construction company owned by some very wealthy individuals and they profit substantially as well.

How much of that $100 million is profit for rich guy construction and how much of it is spent on supplies and labor?

Based on typical business profit levels the owners are going to get about 5% gross and the rest is going to be spent on other things, including the wages of dozens if not hundreds of workers. So yes the owner gets the largest single benefit, but all the little people get more in total dollar amount.

Maybe someone in the business can shed light on what the typical labor percentages are when it comes to buildings.

Typical profit margins are 1 - 3%.

Typical business owners also pay themselves a salary.

A more realistic approach is to consider the income distribution between capital and labour, which is about 60-something percent to labour. Then 30-something percent of the money is paid to capital. Not all of this is owned by the rich, but not all of labour is 'low-income', a substantial portion is in the second quintile, at any rate. The 1-3% is complete BS. A conservative estimate is that 20-30% of the money is paid to the highest 40% of the population by earnings.

PJ was commenting that based on typical business margins, the profit margin of a construction company was 5%. I responded by saying it's more like 1 - 3%. As someone who used to work in the accounting department of a construction company, I can tell you that the figure is accurate.