is this fair share yet?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

They’ve been demonized and denounced for not doing their fair share.

But a new analysis released yesterday shows that the top 1 percent of New York City’s moneymakers paid 43.2 percent of the city’s income tax — even though they accounted for just 33.8 percent of total income here.

Acting on a request from City Councilman James Oddo (R-SI), the Independent Budget Office reviewed 410,000 of the 3,462,000 tax returns filed here in 2009, the latest year available.

“Both income and tax liabilities are highly concentrated among the most affluent New Yorkers,” the IBO reported.

The findings backed up claims by Mayor Bloomberg and others who warn that the city can’t afford to lose the super-rich because they’re picking up a big chunk of the income-tax tab.

A total of 34,598 filers made it into the exclusive 1percent club with a minimum adjusted gross income of $493,439.

Then there were those in the top 10 percent who had incomes of at least $105,400 and chipped in 71.2 percent of income-tax collections, while pulling in just 58.2 percent of income generated here.

A third of the city’s filers — representing 1.18 million returns — paid no income tax at all.

Oddo said he asked for the study because many of his middle-class constituents fall into the top 10 percent category and are being unfairly attacked in the class war sparked by Occupy Wall Street.

“I’m not defending the rich. I’m defending many of my constituents,” Oddo said. “A lot of my constituents are overtaxed. Some of the rhetoric I’ve heard is wrong on its face.”

Councilman Jumaane Williams (D-Brooklyn), who was arrested during one OWS demonstration, said the debate about income distribution is bigger than a single study.

“Whenever we have a problem, we go to the middle class, the working class,’’ he said. “A person making $1 million can pay more.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/thanks_lot_to_the_e7GGP2aPLhaW0yESCrknEJ#ixzz1geSn9OQP

1% paying 43% of taxes.
i think it's more than fair.

 

[Anarchist420]

I never said they were paying too little. Your point?

 

[Infohawk]

1% paying 43% of taxes.

Of CITY INCOME taxes right? What percentage of city income comes from income taxes?

 

[jhu]

That's why I don't live there.

 

[DominionSeraph]

i think it's more than fair.

Of what relevance are the thoughts of an idiot?

/dismissed

 

[SparkyJJO]

Of what relevance are the thoughts of an idiot?

/dismissed

Some day you might grow up.

 

[Craig234]

It takes a special right-wing cultist ideologue to read 'the top 1% get 33.8% of the income' and not notice anything to comment on about THAT.

I'll tell you what. If you cut the income of the top 1% in half, I'll support cutting their taxes even more, 55%. Deal? I didn't think so.

 

[SparkyJJO]

So how do you propose to cut their income?

I'd like to see you in that top 1%, then see if you really, truly would take a 50% income reduction. I don't think you would.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Some day you might grow up.

I am quite grown.

Here we have an OP who obviously has difficulties with basic math. He states an opinion that hinges on the faulty output of his faulty system. So, of what relevance is anything he has to say?

He can in no way construct a comprehensive structure supporting his belief, so what we have are essentially random shifts in a free-floating little worldview. The shifts may have some internal consistency, but if they don't have any external, who cares? If I say "Bird," and he consistently barks back, "Cow," is it really any different than if he had said, "Moose"?

That he has an internal system doesn't mean that I care.

 

[Craig234]

So how do you propose to cut their income?

I'd like to see you in that top 1%, then see if you really, truly would take a 50% income reduction. I don't think you would.

You miss the point. No one 'likes' an income cut, but not everyone can get 'above average' income, now can they?

Take a look at the following chart - from the late 1920's to the period after, when the top 0.01% did take a smaller share of the income - and the economy was at its best for the middle class, good growth, no economic major crashes as the country had always had ever 10 to 15 years since it was founded.

You point out a problem - not only do the rich oppose getting a smaller share no matter how imbalanced a share they get, they oppose it MORE the more they get!

So when the rich are at the peak of plutocracy, that's when their opposition to any cuts in their share, any balancing, is strongest - AND THEIR POLITICAL POWER.

It's a vicious cycle - as the rich get more, they get more power to control elections to ensure that nothing happens to change their getting even more.

We hear the loudest yelling from them about 'high taxes' when taxes are at a low.

So you're right about one thing - most of the rich (there are exceptions, who are ridiculed by the rest of the rich and their ideologues) will never support fixing this.

 

[SparkyJJO]

You didn't answer my question.

How do you propose to cut their income?

BTW that chart is too small, the text is nearly impossible to read.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

It takes a special right-wing cultist ideologue to read 'the top 1% get 33.8% of the income' and not notice anything to comment on about THAT.

I'll tell you what. If you cut the income of the top 1% in half, I'll support cutting their taxes even more, 55%. Deal? I didn't think so.

what's wrong with that?
what's stopping the other 99% from becoming the top 1%?
or should everyone get paid the same wages?

 

[Craig234]

You didn't answer my question.

How do you propose to cut their income?

If you agree to the plan to cut it we can discuss how. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

BTW that chart is too small, the text is nearly impossible to read.

Yes, it is. That's the size it comes in, but you can click to make it a bit bigger.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I'm not agreeing to anything until I hear the details. Why would I do that?

 

[monovillage]

I like to see charts and other quoted remarks attributed, credit should be given to those that made up the charts etc.

http://www.thenation.com/

http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/

http://www.ips-dc.org/inequality

 

[dmcowen674]

1% paying 43% of taxes.
i think it's more than fair.

If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale for you too.

 

[Craig234]

Sparky: What's your plan for the budget deficit to be halved?

Craig234: Here's a two hour post with 200 specific pieces of a plan to halve the deficit.

Discuss.

Sparky: I'm against your plan.

Ya, that sounds like a good idea. The fact you can't even agree to the goal says a lot.

 

[Ausm]

The dude should move somewhere else and quit bitching.

 

[IBMer]

When not all of their income is tagged as income then of course this looks horribly unbalanced.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

If you believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale for you too.

Oh yeah? Which one do u own? Williamsburg? Manahattan? Brooklyn? Verrazano?

 

[Atreus21]

1% paying 43% of taxes.
i think it's more than fair.

If you massage the data enough, you'll see you're wrong of course. What about this segment of this type of income paid on this date from this person? That doesn't work? Okay, what about this other sample that paid this type of tax? Did that show the conclusion we wanted? It did?

Those goddamned rich bastards aren't paying their fair share.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm not agreeing to anything until I hear the details. Why would I do that?

The liberal mindset is that you have to pass the agreement to cut the income in order to find out what is IN the agreement to cut the income.

You know, like the Obamacare debacle.

 

[Texashiker]

1% paying 43% of taxes.
i think it's more than fair.

The 1% should pay 99% of the taxes - that would be fair.

If 1% controls 99% of the wealth, then the 1% should pay 99% of the taxes.

 

[MotF Bane]

You miss the point. No one 'likes' an income cut, but not everyone can get 'above average' income, now can they?

Oh, so you finally realized that.

 

[MotF Bane]

If you agree to the plan to cut it we can discuss how. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Nancy Pelosi logic.