Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That's not to mention that I haven't seen anyone post any actual figures of what that top .1% pays in taxes. If you have that information, feel free to provide a link.
- Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
- Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000...
From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000...
[A]n Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.
But a Treasury spokesman, Taylor Griffin, said the income tax system is more progressive if the measurement is the share borne by the top 40 percent of Americans rather than the top 0.1 percent...
The Times analysis shows that by 2010 the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts. For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.
But because of the way it is devised, the tax affects far fewer of the very richest: about a third of the taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in income. One big reason is that dividends and investment gains, which go mostly to the richest, are not subject to the tax.
Another reason that the wealthiest will fare much better is that the tax cuts over the past decade have sharply lowered rates on income from investments.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If we're going to include more than income taxes then why don't we throw in dividend taxes, capital gains taxes, and corporate taxes as a percentage of asset ownership as well?Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The following is for 2005, but it's the latest data I can find.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
The top 25% barely make 2/3 of the overall income yet paid nearly 86% of the taxes. The top 50% of income earners in the US pay nearly ALL (almost 97%) of the income taxes.
The rich pay more than their share, much more, because this doesn't even take all federal taxation into consideration and the rich pay out the lion's share of that as well.
what does that look like when you include payroll taxes?
What would it look like then?
Err, that chart displays projections for 2015 and talks about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Talk about smoke and mirors. Sheesh. And nice that you throw a little appeal to authority in there too. Pulitzer Prize winner. Well surely nobody can question such a person, eh?Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That's not to mention that I haven't seen anyone post any actual figures of what that top .1% pays in taxes. If you have that information, feel free to provide a link.
From a column by Pulitzer-Prize winning tax writer David Cay Johnston:
- Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
- Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000...
From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000...
[A]n Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.
But a Treasury spokesman, Taylor Griffin, said the income tax system is more progressive if the measurement is the share borne by the top 40 percent of Americans rather than the top 0.1 percent...
The Times analysis shows that by 2010 the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts. For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.
But because of the way it is devised, the tax affects far fewer of the very richest: about a third of the taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in income. One big reason is that dividends and investment gains, which go mostly to the richest, are not subject to the tax.
Another reason that the wealthiest will fare much better is that the tax cuts over the past decade have sharply lowered rates on income from investments.
As for some numbers, here is a chart showing what Bowfinger said.
The tax cuts only get better for the wealthy, since they're designed to give most Americans most of their cuts in the first few years, and the big bucks to the wealthy later.
No, I'm afraid the smoke-blowing is yours, coupled with the usual side of changing the subject. You claimed the richest Americans paid "a much higher percentage of their income in taxes". The data above shows you are wrong. They corroborate what I already told you, that the richest Americans pay proportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class. Indeed, the actual data shows America's highest-paid, the elite 400, pay essentially the same rate as a modestly middle class family earning $50K-$75K per year. People in the $100K to $200K bracket pay at a higher rate than those making more than $10M per year. These rates exclude sales taxes, highly regressive, and are based on taxable income as reported to the IRS, i.e., income left after deductions and exclusions like tax shelters. This means this data actually understates the actual tax gap between the upper middle class and the very wealthy.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Err, that chart displays projections for 2015 and talks about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Talk about smoke and mirors. Sheesh. And nice that you throw a little appeal to authority in there too. Pulitzer Prize winner. Well surely nobody can question such a person, eh?Originally posted by: Craig234
From a column by Pulitzer-Prize winning tax writer David Cay Johnston:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That's not to mention that I haven't seen anyone post any actual figures of what that top .1% pays in taxes. If you have that information, feel free to provide a link.
- Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
- Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000...
From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000...
[A]n Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.
But a Treasury spokesman, Taylor Griffin, said the income tax system is more progressive if the measurement is the share borne by the top 40 percent of Americans rather than the top 0.1 percent...
The Times analysis shows that by 2010 the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts. For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.
But because of the way it is devised, the tax affects far fewer of the very richest: about a third of the taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in income. One big reason is that dividends and investment gains, which go mostly to the richest, are not subject to the tax.
Another reason that the wealthiest will fare much better is that the tax cuts over the past decade have sharply lowered rates on income from investments.
As for some numbers, here is a chart showing what Bowfinger said.
The tax cuts only get better for the wealthy, since they're designed to give most Americans most of their cuts in the first few years, and the big bucks to the wealthy later.
That's not to mention that the people who pay the most taxes SHOULD get the biggest tax cuts. What do you suggest? That we cut taxes for that lower 50% that pay little to nothing already? Also, as I already stated the very wealthy, that .1%, SHOULD get some good tax breaks as an incentive to invest their money in areas where they receive associated tax deductions. That's why those deductions are there in the first place.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Err, that chart displays projections for 2015 and talks about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Talk about smoke and mirors. Sheesh. And nice that you throw a little appeal to authority in there too. Pulitzer Prize winner. Well surely nobody can question such a person, eh?
That's not to mention that the people who pay the most taxes SHOULD get the biggest tax cuts. What do you suggest? That we cut taxes for that lower 50% that pay little to nothing already? Also, as I already stated the very wealthy, that .1%, SHOULD get some good tax breaks as an incentive to invest their money in areas where they receive associated tax deductions. That's why those deductions are there in the first place.
:sigh:Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No, I'm afraid the smoke-blowing is yours, coupled with the usual side of changing the subject. You claimed the richest Americans paid "a much higher percentage of their income in taxes". The data above shows you are wrong. They corroborate what I already told you, that the richest Americans pay proportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class. Indeed, the actual data shows America's highest-paid, the elite 400, pay essentially the same rate as a modestly middle class family earning $50K-$75K per year. People in the $100K to $200K bracket pay at a higher rate than those making more than $10M per year. These rates exclude sales taxes, highly regressive, and are based on taxable income as reported to the IRS, i.e., income left after deductions and exclusions like tax shelters. This means this data actually understates the actual tax gap between the upper middle class and the very wealthy.
Doesn't matter what they contribute, and those contributions will be patently ignored, because I suspect the root of this argument for taxing the rich even more is coming from those who despise them. Sour grapes? Jealousy? Socialist-Communist idealistic leanings? Who knows. Take your pick.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Err, that chart displays projections for 2015 and talks about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Talk about smoke and mirors. Sheesh. And nice that you throw a little appeal to authority in there too. Pulitzer Prize winner. Well surely nobody can question such a person, eh?
That's not to mention that the people who pay the most taxes SHOULD get the biggest tax cuts. What do you suggest? That we cut taxes for that lower 50% that pay little to nothing already? Also, as I already stated the very wealthy, that .1%, SHOULD get some good tax breaks as an incentive to invest their money in areas where they receive associated tax deductions. That's why those deductions are there in the first place.
Yep. Not to mention more incentive to put money into more philanthropic areas. I think people forget how many BILLIONS the top .1% contributes. I guess its not enough : /
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Doesn't matter what they contribute, and those contributions will be patently ignored, because I suspect the root of this argument for taxing the rich even more is coming from those who despise them. Sour grapes? Jealousy? Socialist-Communist idealistic leanings? Who knows. Take your pick.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Err, that chart displays projections for 2015 and talks about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Talk about smoke and mirors. Sheesh. And nice that you throw a little appeal to authority in there too. Pulitzer Prize winner. Well surely nobody can question such a person, eh?
That's not to mention that the people who pay the most taxes SHOULD get the biggest tax cuts. What do you suggest? That we cut taxes for that lower 50% that pay little to nothing already? Also, as I already stated the very wealthy, that .1%, SHOULD get some good tax breaks as an incentive to invest their money in areas where they receive associated tax deductions. That's why those deductions are there in the first place.
Yep. Not to mention more incentive to put money into more philanthropic areas. I think people forget how many BILLIONS the top .1% contributes. I guess its not enough : /
Play all the semantics games you want, the fact remains my statements about relative tax rates are correct: "The richest Americans pay proportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class." You challenged us to post data showing "what that top .1% pays in taxes." Craig did. Now you're backpedaling and trying to change the subject. I didn't expect you to acknowledge your error. I'm sure nobody else did either. Toodles.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
:sigh:Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No, I'm afraid the smoke-blowing is yours, coupled with the usual side of changing the subject. You claimed the richest Americans paid "a much higher percentage of their income in taxes". The data above shows you are wrong. They corroborate what I already told you, that the richest Americans pay proportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class. Indeed, the actual data shows America's highest-paid, the elite 400, pay essentially the same rate as a modestly middle class family earning $50K-$75K per year. People in the $100K to $200K bracket pay at a higher rate than those making more than $10M per year. These rates exclude sales taxes, highly regressive, and are based on taxable income as reported to the IRS, i.e., income left after deductions and exclusions like tax shelters. This means this data actually understates the actual tax gap between the upper middle class and the very wealthy.
What I said was: "The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes."
Then people went on a semantic tack to try and claim that, well, making $300,000 or even a $1,000,000 a year really wasn't rich, as if they pull that in in a month.
:roll:
So, sorry, but the smoke is still coming from you because you can't even get what I said correct and have to distort my statement for your own argumentative purposes. Wouldn't be the first time in here I've seen that sort of thing from you and a few others though so I'm not really surprised at all.
I'll take Option D, a simple desire for equity and fairness, a belief that people who have the means to do so should pay their fair share instead of using their wealth and power to further rig the game in their favor. Some off us believe in higher ideals than "Gimme, gimme, gimme. More, more, more."Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Doesn't matter what they contribute, and those contributions will be patently ignored, because I suspect the root of this argument for taxing the rich even more is coming from those who despise them. Sour grapes? Jealousy? Socialist-Communist idealistic leanings? Who knows. Take your pick.
No. You don't want equity and fairness. You want the same thing I do - a progressive tax system which, by nature, can never truly be equitable or fair. What we are dicking around about is the details concerning how we apply the progressive nature of that tax.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'll take Option D, a simple desire for equity and fairness, a belief that people who have the means to do so should pay their fair share instead of using their wealth and power to further rig the game in their favor. Some off us believe in higher ideals than "Gimme, gimme, gimme. More, more, more."
My wife and I are well into the upper middle class. We pay almost the highest effective rate shown on that chart. As much I'd love to pay lower taxes, I believe it is more important that America be able to pay her bills. All things considered, my taxes are a fair price to pay for the extraordinary opportunities and luxuries we have in the United States. I don't mind less fortunate people paying less than we do. I can afford it better than they can. Taxes aren't taking food off my table or depriving me of medical care. My complaint is that people who've gained even more than we have from living in America are paying less proportionately than we do. That simply is not fair. It's not right. (And before some simpleton bleats, "Life isn't fair," realizing the world is flawed doesn't let us off the hook for trying to improve it. We can do better.)
Wanting the rich to pay their fair share isn't sour grapes or jealousy. It's a simple desire for fairness.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No. You don't want equity and fairness. You want the same thing I do - a progressive tax system which, by nature, can never truly be equitable or fair. What we are dicking around about is the details concerning how we apply the progressive nature of that tax.
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
The more taxes corporations have to pay, the less they can spend on investing, which means less jobs for ME and any other skilled laborers, because without investment we won't have anything new to work on.
Only reason you'd be against something like this is if you aren't a skilled laborer who is working, and would rather the rest of society pay taxes for you and then some, so that you can have free money from welfare.
Not saying taxing the middle class is good, but if you don't tax the corporations they at least keep us employed. What you would have would leave a lot more of us unemployed.
No, the company doesn't take all that profit straight home, they have an obligation to investors to keep the company running and do the smartest thing with the money. Lots of the time that involves investing. The times when it doesn't (GM) the company fails and falters, and the company with more long-term-goal-oriented-vision (Toyota) steps in and takes your business.
You can make the argument that if you tax the middle class then they have less money to spend to reward the companies that innovate, but the solution to that is not taxing the other guy, because that only treats the symptom of the real problem. The real problem is an excessively large government that controls ~40% of the nation's income, and then turns around and uses that money to get their way with laws the states make by denying them federal funding if they don't comply; just like how the drinking age got raised to 21, or how we have a bill going through now which will mandate an equal number of men and women in the science and research fields, in order to qualify for federal funding. Nevermind only 10% of the applicants were female, you have to have 50/50 employment, other 40% of men be damned. edit: this rant was off-topic
I'm not some neocon or anything, I just haven't heard a good argument for why we should tax the rich, too; because that would just shoot ourselves in the foot. They'd take their money to other nations' markets, like China's; wherever has the greatest return. Taxing it away means Americans have to out-innovate the extra tax for the company to not move headquarters to another country. Ease of conducting business, and low business tax rate are what has driven this economy as long as we've had one. The great ideas our inventors have had would never have come to fruition like they have now, had we greater taxes on the corporations.
It's not that "fair" is poorly defined. It's that it's a subjective and opinionated term when applied to this issue. With a progressive tax we can never have equity, so that's out the window immediately as well.Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No. You don't want equity and fairness. You want the same thing I do - a progressive tax system which, by nature, can never truly be equitable or fair. What we are dicking around about is the details concerning how we apply the progressive nature of that tax.
I think we should avoid words like 'fair' when trying to describe the right policy, because they're so poorly defined.
But you are wrong IMO to say that progressive policies are not 'fair'. You simply have too narrow a definition of 'fair'.
How did the rich get rich? It wasn't in a vacuum - it was in a society where a hell of a lot of other people's sweat went into their pockets. You need a larger definition of 'fair'.
So, logically, since the federal budget is about $1.5 trillion, and given a U.S. population of about $300 million, that equates to about $5000 per person. Thus, a family of 4 should pay $20,000/year in federal taxes, regardless of income. And naturally, we need to add State taxes, too - same for every man, woman, and child in the state.Originally posted by: Specop 007
Logically, it makes sense that all members pay an equal share to support the services the government provides. But emotionally, oh no that doesnt sound right at all.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Taxing the rich to create things like universal healthcare and free universal access to post-secondary education are wonderful ideas IMO.
Using the money to create a welfare state is not.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
people really don't need more than say $300,000 per year to live a very comfortable and very happy life.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I realize that many of the uber-rich like Bill Gates are good people who do a great deal of humanitarian work with their money, it's just that I'm certain there are many others who do not.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
My one fear is in trusting government with any sort of money. Perhaps it would be best to just allow people to donate their tax money as they see fit to worthy causes.
Your argument has a huge, gaping hole. It would be true if the only source of government tax revenue was from individual income. However, that is not the case.Originally posted by: shira
So, logically, since the federal budget is about $1.5 trillion, and given a U.S. population of about $300 million, that equates to about $5000 per person. Thus, a family of 4 should pay $20,000/year in federal taxes, regardless of income. And naturally, we need to add State taxes, too - same for every man, woman, and child in the state.Originally posted by: Specop 007
Logically, it makes sense that all members pay an equal share to support the services the government provides. But emotionally, oh no that doesnt sound right at all.
This, to you, is logical. And any argument against is simply emotional.
I'm convinced.
Originally posted by: Craig234
How did the rich get rich? It wasn't in a vacuum - it was in a society where a hell of a lot of other people's sweat went into their pockets. You need a larger definition of 'fair'.
Originally posted by: shira
So, logically, since the federal budget is about $1.5 trillion, and given a U.S. population of about $300 million, that equates to about $5000 per person. Thus, a family of 4 should pay $20,000/year in federal taxes, regardless of income. And naturally, we need to add State taxes, too - same for every man, woman, and child in the state.Originally posted by: Specop 007
Logically, it makes sense that all members pay an equal share to support the services the government provides. But emotionally, oh no that doesnt sound right at all.
This, to you, is logical. And any argument against is simply emotional.
I'm convinced.
Yeah, they're almost as naive as those who believe the rich got their wealth solely through hard work in a free market, and that they can become rich too if only they worked a little harder and didn't have to pay those damn taxes.Originally posted by: joshsquall
I love ignorant Robin Hood economists.