The Wealthiest 1%

[erub]

During the campaign, Gore loved to mention that Bush's tax cut gave 43% of the tax relief to the wealthiest 1%. I had never regarded that with such a large impact...I had made 99% on my PSAT, so I did not think that it was so unusual to be the highest of a sample of 100. Well, today I was reading the Dallas Morning News - buried in the middle of the article about Bush's tax plan was an interesting statitisic. How accurate this statistic is I know not, it did come from a democrat - Tom Daschle...he said that the average of the wealthiest 1% is more than 900K per year! I was really taken aback by this statement..I thought that the wealthiest 1% was anybody who made more than 175K or so..no where near $900,000/year. Just thought'd I'd share that with you guys.

 

[Passions]

I made $3,999 during 2000 year. TEE HEE

 

[syzygy]

i think daschle's number is probably closer to the average representing the top 1%.
175k seems more like the top 1% in some banana republic. if you figure the top 1%
includes billionaires and legions of millionaires, 175k feels small

 

[Valhalla1]

$900k in the top 1%?

damn, I must be in the top .0000001%. I think I made $900k in the last 10 minutes. :Q



(I wish.. )

 

[Zenmervolt]

That last statistic sounds about right. Unfortunately for that first 43% statistic, Gore was comparing actual dollar amounts and not the percentage of income returned to the people. If I recall correctly, the wealthiest 1% currently accounts for more than one third of the government's total tax imcome from the income tax. Bush's tak plan will also reduce the amount paid by middle and lower class families as well. I think I recall someone mentioning that people paying $5,000 per year in taxes would get a cut of nearly $2,000. Basically, if the people paying hundreds of thousands each year in income taxes get a 1% tax cut, they will save more money than the people paying $5,000 a year and getting a 20%-30% tax cut.

Zenmervolt

 

[LIBERTYorDEATH]

First off, Daschel is a democrat therfore he lies. The fact is, the top income earners in america pay most of the income tax. Income tax is a wealth redistribution scheme designed to punish the achievers in society, and reward the losers. It should be abolished post-haste.

Another lie is that a tax cut is somehow viewed as government spending.

A tax cut is NOT government spending..it is a reduction in future government theft from hard working achievers!

The top 1% of income earners pay 64% of the imperial federal income tax. They damn well deserve a tax cut, and if the poor feel slighted, well they don't even pay income tax until around 25k so stop with the socialist redistribution schemes, and return life to what nature intended it to be..a meritocracy..if you achieve you live, otherwise, nature intends for you to die off..its called natural selection and it is NECESSARY for evolution to continue. Cradle to grave socialism kills evolution..it is devolutinary

 

[IBhacknU]

<< The Wealthiest 1% >>

someone ring?

 

[Zenmervolt]

LIBERTYorDEATH: What about a flat tax? That has always seemed fair to me, as it would not punish people for achieving more, but it would also leave the government with its main source of income.

Zenmervolt

 

[yakko]

Zenmervolt,

A flat tax would not work because you would pay a flat percent of your income. The rich would still get screwed. A national sales tax with no exemptions for anyone would be the only fair way. You buy you pay.

 

[LIBERTYorDEATH]

I have never liked a flat tax because while it does remove the evil of progression from the tax system , it does not remove the evil of taxing income directly. Income should never be taxed. Government is bloated and wastful. We can get by on 500-600 billion a year from a 5% national sales tax, and then only those who buy something will pay federal taxes. Taxing income directly is evil and those who support it are the moral equivalent of the people who rob 7-11's with a gun. Any program which is not an essential constitutional government program(the only ones i can think of are the military and the post office and the federal court system) would be cut off completly, defunded, the land and buildings they occupy sold at auction to raise more capital so we can eventually lower the sales tax to 2-3%.

 

[ElFenix]

okay, so the democrats present bush's tax cut plan the worst way, by stating that 43% of it goes to the wealthiest 1%. of course thats a loaded figure since they never mention that the wealthiest 1% pay slightly more than 43% of the income taxes in this country. in fact, under bush's plan their share would increase slightly. the people getting the highest percentage tax reduction are those right in the middle, something like 25% versus 24% for most groups. i don't remember the specifics. what i do know is that implementing a national sales tax would be THE WORST TAX SCHEME EVER IMPLEMENTED! why? it distorts the business cycle, just like a progressive tax plan, but in the opposite way. its regressive! (or maybe you hadn't thought of that.) just as a progresive tax plan smoothes out the bumps in the business cycle by letting people keep a larger % when times are bad, a regressive tax plan would exacerbate the business cycle, people would be taxed a higher percentage when times are bad, deepening any recession we come along. frankly, i'd pick smooth sailing and a progressive tax plan over either a flat tax or a regressive sales tax.

and really, income tax is a SALES tax on labor. you sell your labor, you pay taxes on it. much more equitable than a regressive sales tax, and yes, most of society believes some equity is a good thing.

 

[The LIdless Eye]

And they pay like 20% of the taxes. That sounds fair...

 

[charrison]

If i recall correctly, the 100k/year gets you in the top 5%.

 

[Orbius]

Liberty, you're a moron.



<< Income tax is a wealth redistribution scheme designed to punish the achievers in society, and reward the losers. >>



Oh so working people who bust there ass for 8 hours a day are now losers? Interesting opinion you have there.

I know plenty of millionares, the only difference between millionares and normal working people is that while millionares are putting in their 8-10 hours their money is breeding. Guess what the more rich people's money breeds the bigger the overall pie gets. The bigger the overall pie gets, the less your pie is worth. And now Bush wants to give rich people even more pie??? That everyone is unfair big time!

 

[Tominator]

Orbius

Your a moron, and I don't even need to explain it.

 

[Zucchini]

flat tax? gag, hurts the poor more then the rich, something you must like i guess As for the wealthiest, they can afford to be taxed.. doesn't take food from their mouths thats for sure.

175k = top 1% hahaah, i don't even want to think what the top 1% in california makes.. 175k is nothing. Bush also pushes killing the death tax... sounds nice right? Course most ppl don't realize death taxes don't kick in unless your rich already like almost a mil i think.. oh boohoo rich kids will get a little less

as for bush, he wants to decrease taxes with the biggest chunk going to the wealthy of course. If he really wanted to help people, he would target the tax cuts for only the people that need it. Saying you want to help the poor and middle class while giving most of the benifit to the rich is disingenuous. He cuts taxes, and wants to increase spending.. thats also talking out of two sides of your mouth. Somethings gotta go.. course he's gonna start slashing at programs.

 

[Tominator]

Zucchini

I guess you might say that my post above was a blanket statement.

Do you really think that those paying your way, since you evidently think you will never be 'Rich,' should not get tax relief? Who are you working for? I'll bet it's one of your hated 'Rich' people that you owe your job to.

If the Death Tax is so unimportant....if you are 21 now and put $2000 in a Roth IRA for just the next 5 years. At a 12-14% rate of return, you could easily be worth a million bucks by age 65. In other words...RICH!

And now dopes like these 2 want you to get taxed half of it when you die. This is punishing success...see anything wrong with this?:|

 

[Zucchini]

1st of all, punishing success? I guess you beleive in aristocracy where sucess is inherited not earned. We shouldn't be promoting the devine right of the womb. The rich deserve to live comfortable lives, and no one is standing in their way. Its not like we're suggesting taxes so extreme that would make them poor.

As for the rich needing tax relief? I don't think so, they could live without the extra car for the good of the country. The point of the tax cut is to help those that really need it, not to give the rich a bonus. As for people earning what they do, does a nurse earning 50k a year doing 20times less then a person earning 1mil a year? That and i don't have a job yet.. i'm in college. I never said i wouldn't ever be rich.


By the way, some of the rich have come out against bush's plan to kill the death tax. The death tax encourages charity as a way of getting around these kind of taxes.. that and they don't feel their children are really being deprived.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Zucchini: So basically you are saying that the wealthiest 1% should pay ALL the taxes? Hardly sounds fair.

 

[Gandalf511]

Have any of you libertarians ever opened a history book? A nation can not run effectively without income taxes. How exactly do you propose that the nation run on 500 billion. this is absurd. the military alone eats up most of that. hundreds of thousands would have to be laid off from the government, and the rich would get richer while the poor got poorer. you do not want polarized wealth classes (again refer to everytime this has ever happened in history). what nation has ever worked without income tax?

 

[warcleric]

Zuch: that is ridiculous, a flat tax would effect everyone equally, 20% is 20% is 20%. Trying to imply that a middle class family would be more affected is just not so. Maybe with your left wing &quot;fuzzy math&quot; 20% is somehow 40% to a middle class person and 20% is 5% to a wealthy person.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Warcleric: heh, somehow my grandma is 100% convinced that rich people do not pay any taxes at all (don't ask me where she got that from)

 

[Raspewtin]

I heard an interesting discussion on NPR about the tax cut with a Republican and Democrat. The Republican claimed that middle class gets the biggest benefit b/c they see the highest percentage reduction. The Democrats pointed out that in terms of dollars, the wealthiest get the biggest benefit (40% of the tax break; this is true BTW) The Democrats went on to say during Reagan, a similar sized tax break did not revitilize the economy and that the tax break then didn't curtail spending and resulted in deficit spending. Than the Republican said the type of plan they are doing is similar to Kennedy's plan (tax breaks for everyone) and thus implied it will be as successful as his was. The kicker was this though. The Democrat said the purpose of the tax cut should be to return wealth to the middle class etc to increase consumer confidence, increase sales so companies increase production, and thus avoid recession (Greenspan said yesterday much of the economic downturn is due to decreased production of goods by companies and the evidence is the effect of the slowdown on the manfacturing midwest which wasn't hit hard in 91). The Republican then responded that was not purpose of the tax cut but rather to increase market investment and such (this does seem like the purpose of the tax cut b/c we will have to cut spending massively to return this wealth, with much of it being returned to the wealthiest 1%). It seems to me we are having a return to Reganomics.




<< heh, somehow my grandma is 100% convinced that rich people do not pay any taxes at all (don't ask me where she got that from) >>



your grandma is at least half-right. As people get older, they try to move their income from taxable source to non-taxable sources. A small example is life insurance, where you can still invest in major mutual funds (some of which are closed now but not closed on the life insurance side) enjoy good returns, pay no taxes. Also the need for high returns is less, since you aren't losing half of each dollar to Uncle Sam. Thus the same nontaxable income is equal to much higher taxable income.

 

[jjm]

&quot;that is ridiculous, a flat tax would effect everyone equally, 20% is 20% is 20%. Trying to imply that a middle class family would be more affected is just not so. Maybe with your left wing &quot;fuzzy math&quot; 20% is somehow 40% to a middle class person and 20% is 5% to a wealthy person.&quot;

20% is 20%. Brilliant. Shows great ability to think beyond the obvious.

Wage earner $25,000
Costs of basic food and housing to survive: $15,000
Remaining discretionary income: $10,000
Income tax @ 20%: $5,000
Income tax as a percent of discretionary income: 50%

Wage earner $100,000
Costs of basic food and housing to survive: $15,000
Remaining discretionary income: $85,000
Income tax @ 20%: $20,000
Income tax as a percent of discretionary income: 23.5%

Note that the $100,000 wage earner may choose to use some of his/her discretionary funds to upgrade housing, but that is a choice, not a requirement to survive.

Assuming everyone has to spend at least some minimum amount to survive, who gets hurt worse by a flat tax?

This analysis gets even more onerous at lower income levels when one considers a national sales tax. Those at lower income levels are forced to spend nearly all they make just to survive. Those at higher income levels can avoid the tax by reducing discretionary spending.

This depends upon what you want to define as fairness. Historically, the vast majority of Americans have favored a progressive tax system because of the type of analysis shown above.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Anyone who argues for a flat tax must assume that each person uses the services of the government equally. Which I don't think is the case. Rich people by far benefit from government more than poor people. Therefore they should pay a higher tax rate.