Top 1% pays 50% of the taxes.

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: spidey07
Clinton enjoyed the marvelous tech boom. Bush inherited the marvelous tech bust. Bush enjoyed the marvelous housing boom, Obama gets to inherit the housing bust.

See how that works?

what's the next boom?

Green. It's the new black.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Nice example, but doesnt apply to me. Maybe it will to someone else.

Like it or not, it applies to everyone who has a safety net.

Well, it doesnt apply to me. My safety net is the one Ive created myself. Luckily Ive put my own money away. I couldnt get my hands on my trust right now if I wanted to. There are no provisions for the B side unless step mom dies. Im no different than you, other than probably I manage my money better than you.

It's a lot easier to manage risk when you can afford to be wrong once in a while.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50


Wow, you are batting a thousand today. The first thing you did was assume that I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, then complain when I make an assumption based on your actual words. You also accused Blackangst of avoiding questions and not giving straight answers, when you've done the exact same thing several times. Now you've turned into an E-tough guy threatening me, awesome. For all I know you could be richer than I am, and probably are, because I'm not anywhere close to being rich. If so, that's great, congratulations on your success or your families success, I don't hold anything against rich people like some of you do. I was born into a middle class family, and after making some silly decisions when I was younger, I've worked my way back up to the middle class, no silver spoon here.

Now why don't you answer the questions? No one cares about your dog walking clients, everyone has anecdotal stories they can share, they don't mean anything. Since you're obviously having problems scrolling up and reading the questions, I'll repeat them.

In your perfect society everyone would be middle class or what?

Could you tell us roughly what percentage of the "rich and ultra rich" are living off of inherited money?

Why don't you fuck off asshole. I don't walk dogs for a living, I'm doing it as a favor for friends. You do know what "friends' are??

Wow, someone's a little touchy. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, you're the one that started in with the silver spoon bullshit. I was just looking for an answer to my question, which you're still avoiding. I knew you wouldn't answer it, because you're not actually interested in the facts. Come back when you can answer my question and you grow a little thicker skin. When you tell people to "get out in the world and meet a few people" then proceed to talk about the people that live next door to you, you're going to get called on it.

It's obvious to me (despite both your and Blackangst claims to the contrar) that your both trust fund babies.

Didn't you just get all pissy about me making assumptions about you? Wow. Anyways, yea, I wish I was a trust fund baby. Unfortunately I'm not. Still refusing to answer a simple question I see.

LOL, what's the problem, don't you like me making assumptions about you and your trust fund? Apparently your skin isn't as thick as you think, I guess that's what comes from leading such a sheltered life.

It's a bitch girl, but you can rely on the old man's money.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Nice example, but doesnt apply to me. Maybe it will to someone else.

Like it or not, it applies to everyone who has a safety net.

Well, it doesnt apply to me. My safety net is the one Ive created myself. Luckily Ive put my own money away. I couldnt get my hands on my trust right now if I wanted to. There are no provisions for the B side unless step mom dies. Im no different than you, other than probably I manage my money better than you.

It's a lot easier to manage risk when you can afford to be wrong once in a while.

You ARE right about that 🙂 For the rest of the discussion, my trust shouldnt be an issue, since it is in all practicality, not there. I can afford to take risk because of what IVE done. I started investing at 23...20 years ago. I put away $25/mo. Ive been through 3 layoffs in 2 years, and have lost my 401k twice. I buried myself in debt, but now live on 70% of my income in the 5th largest city in the country, debt free. And after is all said and done Im still on track to retire comfortably in 10 years...with no help from daddy. So get the silver spoon trust fund baby mentality of me out of the discussion, because it doesnt apply. At all.

Getting back to the subject, you brought up how Warren Buffett and others have stated their taxes are too low (which, of course, they have said), to which I responded it was simply lip service and full of shit. As Ive stated before, I dont see any of these millionaires, or Billionaires for that matter, AVOIDING tax loopholes, do you? Do you honestly think if they believed that bullshit they would continue to use every available loophole? So the idea that the rich, more importantly the ultra rich, are somehow indifferent to the idea of raised taxes, explain to me why our government, that we elect to represent us (we're a republic, right?) is so unwillin to meet we the people halfway and do like corporations are doing-cut payroll and trim fat? And can you, as someone who obviously favors taxing our way out of this mess, explain to me why its "ok" to stick to the rich, for the sole reason they can afford it? Where is your outrage at our governments lack of spending control?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JD50

Didn't you just get all pissy about me making assumptions about you? Wow. Anyways, yea, I wish I was a trust fund baby. Unfortunately I'm not. Still refusing to answer a simple question I see.

LOL, what's the problem, don't you like me making assumptions about you and your trust fund? Apparently your skin isn't as thick as you think, I guess that's what comes from leading such a sheltered life.

It's a bitch girl, but you can rely on the old man's money.

:roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
LOL, what's the problem, don't you like me making assumptions about you and your trust fund? Apparently your skin isn't as thick as you think, I guess that's what comes from leading such a sheltered life.

It's a bitch girl, but you can rely on the old man's money.

Who cares if someone can rely on the old man's money? Earn your own money. If so many stupid rich people can do it a 'brilliant' guy like you should be able to as well. You can even give it all away to the less fortunate so you can assuage your personal guilt.

Win - win.

Go for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Getting back to the subject, you brought up how Warren Buffett and others have stated their taxes are too low (which, of course, they have said), to which I responded it was simply lip service and full of shit. As Ive stated before, I dont see any of these millionaires, or Billionaires for that matter, AVOIDING tax loopholes, do you? Do you honestly think if they believed that bullshit they would continue to use every available loophole? So the idea that the rich, more importantly the ultra rich, are somehow indifferent to the idea of raised taxes, explain to me why our government, that we elect to represent us (we're a republic, right?) is so unwillin to meet we the people halfway and do like corporations are doing-cut payroll and trim fat? And can you, as someone who obviously favors taxing our way out of this mess, explain to me why its "ok" to stick to the rich, for the sole reason they can afford it? Where is your outrage at our governments lack of spending control?

I can answer all that pretty easily. First of all it's easy to advocate for higher taxes for yourself and still take advantage of the tax code to the best of your ability. Taxation is fundamentally a collective action problem, which is why any individual volunteering to pay more taxes than he or she has to is silly. The point is for everyone to pay more, their fair share, whatever, because that's the only way you achieve measurable results. So, for Buffet and others to do this is absolutely in no conceivable way bullshit, it's just them not acting like insane idiots.

It's okay to 'stick' it to the rich not because they can afford it, but because the rich not only get the most out of government action, they get the most out of the current system we live in. There's a reason why in other countries the rich live in walled compounds encircled by razor wire with dozens of armed guards.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Sure that kid didn't deserve it. Why should you be able to make that judgement? That kid did what he wanted and he lost his fortune. So it's gone. Society won, yaaay....

And the reason the poor want to tax the rich more generally is simply because the rich can afford basic needs and the poor cannot be taxed more and still maintain a living. The poor have no real right to the rich man's money although many will argue that the wealthy man could not have gotten his wealth without the poor man himself. True, but in a similar manner why shouldn't we give all our money to the older generation, they birthed us no?

The kid in my story kept his money. He failed in my industry because he didn't have drive.
Anyways as for the rest of your post...whatever. I never said to give all of the riches money to the poor. That's not even an argument. I'm talking about society as a whole and you are talking about one facet of our society that you don't like. If you don't like that one facet (welfare or whatever) then vote for people who will cut that away. I don't care. But don't come in here and say "Yes well we made lots of money because of the stability of this society but we shouldn't give back to that." What if your father grew up in Kenya and had his arm chopped off by some roving band of rebels? You wouldn't be rich. You are protected, your money is protected, your property is protected and your children are protected. You should pay for that. If you don't like it make more money.

I'm not rich for starters.

We are all equally protected under the law. I'm pretty sure that is a key part of the american ideology. Why should the rich pay such a vastly larger quantity and percentage-wise? Oh right, to pay for the people who can't. Gosh that sounds so equal doesn't it? fuckin lol.

What if you got born with a birth defect and died at a young age. Nothing to say but too bad, it happens. People always give anecdotes about bad things happening to good people. It happens, and the only thing we can do is try to help them ourselves, not demand that the entire system change to help them.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
We are all equally protected under the law. I'm pretty sure that is a key part of the american ideology. Why should the rich pay such a vastly larger quantity and percentage-wise? Oh right, to pay for the people who can't. Gosh that sounds so equal doesn't it? fuckin lol.

You really can't let go of that one talking point can you? I already explained why they should pay more. Let me add that bolded line above is weak sauce. Life isn't equal or fair, we all get that. But if you think being rich and paying taxes is worse then being poor and not paying taxes your wrong.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
We are all equally protected under the law. I'm pretty sure that is a key part of the american ideology. Why should the rich pay such a vastly larger quantity and percentage-wise? Oh right, to pay for the people who can't. Gosh that sounds so equal doesn't it? fuckin lol.

You really can't let go of that one talking point can you? I already explained why they should pay more. Let me add that bolded line above is weak sauce. Life isn't equal or fair, we all get that. But if you think being rich and paying taxes is worse then being poor and not paying taxes your wrong.

Never said being poor is better. In fact it is the total opposite, but I'm saying that ideology is inconsistent with policy.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Nice example, but doesnt apply to me. Maybe it will to someone else.

Like it or not, it applies to everyone who has a safety net.

Well, it doesnt apply to me. My safety net is the one Ive created myself. Luckily Ive put my own money away. I couldnt get my hands on my trust right now if I wanted to. There are no provisions for the B side unless step mom dies. Im no different than you, other than probably I manage my money better than you.

It's a lot easier to manage risk when you can afford to be wrong once in a while.

You ARE right about that 🙂 For the rest of the discussion, my trust shouldnt be an issue, since it is in all practicality, not there. I can afford to take risk because of what IVE done. I started investing at 23...20 years ago. I put away $25/mo. Ive been through 3 layoffs in 2 years, and have lost my 401k twice. I buried myself in debt, but now live on 70% of my income in the 5th largest city in the country, debt free. And after is all said and done Im still on track to retire comfortably in 10 years...with no help from daddy. So get the silver spoon trust fund baby mentality of me out of the discussion, because it doesnt apply. At all.

Getting back to the subject, you brought up how Warren Buffett and others have stated their taxes are too low (which, of course, they have said), to which I responded it was simply lip service and full of shit. As Ive stated before, I dont see any of these millionaires, or Billionaires for that matter, AVOIDING tax loopholes, do you? Do you honestly think if they believed that bullshit they would continue to use every available loophole?

[/quote]
Except foe the fact people like Buffett and Gates are putting their money where their mouth is through their foundations. I believe that they believe increasing taxes on the rich will help the country, but they have to do it to all the rich. It's ludicrous to expect them to do it by themselves so why should they not take advantage of the loopholes provided them?

So the idea that the rich, more importantly the ultra rich, are somehow indifferent to the idea of raised taxes, explain to me why our government, that we elect to represent us (we're a republic, right?) is so unwillin to meet we the people halfway and do like corporations are doing-cut payroll and trim fat? And can you, as someone who obviously favors taxing our way out of this mess, explain to me why its "ok" to stick to the rich, for the sole reason they can afford it? Where is your outrage at our governments lack of spending control?

It's going to be hard if not impossible to "stick" it to people who can't make the payments they have, so that only leaves the rich. You say you're on track to retire by the age of 55.... without your trust fund and then expect people who've worked just as hard as you to pay more in taxes? Please, you think too highly of yourself.

After all the crap Bush and the Republicans pulled when they had the power did you expect better from the Dem's? Turnabout is fair play, is it not?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
We are all equally protected under the law. I'm pretty sure that is a key part of the american ideology. Why should the rich pay such a vastly larger quantity and percentage-wise? Oh right, to pay for the people who can't. Gosh that sounds so equal doesn't it? fuckin lol.

You really can't let go of that one talking point can you? I already explained why they should pay more. Let me add that bolded line above is weak sauce. Life isn't equal or fair, we all get that. But if you think being rich and paying taxes is worse then being poor and not paying taxes your wrong.

Never said being poor is better. In fact it is the total opposite, but I'm saying that ideology is inconsistent with policy.

We're not really equally protected under the law and we all don't get the same quality health care either. It depends on how good of a doctor/lawyer you can afford.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
LOL, what's the problem, don't you like me making assumptions about you and your trust fund? Apparently your skin isn't as thick as you think, I guess that's what comes from leading such a sheltered life.

It's a bitch girl, but you can rely on the old man's money.

Who cares if someone can rely on the old man's money? Earn your own money. If so many stupid rich people can do it a 'brilliant' guy like you should be able to as well. You can even give it all away to the less fortunate so you can assuage your personal guilt.

Win - win.

Go for it.

My guilt is so deep I need to give away all my money and all yours too.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
We are all equally protected under the law. I'm pretty sure that is a key part of the american ideology. Why should the rich pay such a vastly larger quantity and percentage-wise? Oh right, to pay for the people who can't. Gosh that sounds so equal doesn't it? fuckin lol.

You really can't let go of that one talking point can you? I already explained why they should pay more. Let me add that bolded line above is weak sauce. Life isn't equal or fair, we all get that. But if you think being rich and paying taxes is worse then being poor and not paying taxes your wrong.

Never said being poor is better. In fact it is the total opposite, but I'm saying that ideology is inconsistent with policy.

We're not really equally protected under the law and we all don't get the same quality health care either. It depends on how good of a doctor/lawyer you can afford.

And so we aren't equally protected and that the richer you are the more protected you are. Alright I agree, so money is really the determinant of protection. That means we should be communists...

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
We are all equally protected under the law. I'm pretty sure that is a key part of the american ideology. Why should the rich pay such a vastly larger quantity and percentage-wise? Oh right, to pay for the people who can't. Gosh that sounds so equal doesn't it? fuckin lol.

You really can't let go of that one talking point can you? I already explained why they should pay more. Let me add that bolded line above is weak sauce. Life isn't equal or fair, we all get that. But if you think being rich and paying taxes is worse then being poor and not paying taxes your wrong.

Never said being poor is better. In fact it is the total opposite, but I'm saying that ideology is inconsistent with policy.

We're not really equally protected under the law and we all don't get the same quality health care either. It depends on how good of a doctor/lawyer you can afford.

And so we aren't equally protected and that the richer you are the more protected you are. Alright I agree, so money is really the determinant of protection. That means we should be communists...

No because I believe in incentive, but we need to make everyone pay their fair share according to their ability to pay.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
LOL, what's the problem, don't you like me making assumptions about you and your trust fund? Apparently your skin isn't as thick as you think, I guess that's what comes from leading such a sheltered life.

It's a bitch girl, but you can rely on the old man's money.

Who cares if someone can rely on the old man's money? Earn your own money. If so many stupid rich people can do it a 'brilliant' guy like you should be able to as well. You can even give it all away to the less fortunate so you can assuage your personal guilt.

Win - win.

Go for it.

My guilt is so deep I need to give away all my money and all yours too.

I seriously doubt you want to give away your own funds. Liberals tend to be tightwads when it comes to making charitable contributions. They sure love to decide how everyone elses money should be spent though.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
We are all equally protected under the law. I'm pretty sure that is a key part of the american ideology. Why should the rich pay such a vastly larger quantity and percentage-wise? Oh right, to pay for the people who can't. Gosh that sounds so equal doesn't it? fuckin lol.

You really can't let go of that one talking point can you? I already explained why they should pay more. Let me add that bolded line above is weak sauce. Life isn't equal or fair, we all get that. But if you think being rich and paying taxes is worse then being poor and not paying taxes your wrong.

Never said being poor is better. In fact it is the total opposite, but I'm saying that ideology is inconsistent with policy.

We're not really equally protected under the law and we all don't get the same quality health care either. It depends on how good of a doctor/lawyer you can afford.

And so we aren't equally protected and that the richer you are the more protected you are. Alright I agree, so money is really the determinant of protection. That means we should be communists...

No because I believe in incentive, but we need to make everyone pay their fair share according to their ability to pay.

I dont know how you can say the rich collectively dont pay their fair share. Its ludicrous.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

No because I believe in incentive, but we need to make everyone pay their fair share according to their ability to pay.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

I see it all so clearly now.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Getting back to the subject, you brought up how Warren Buffett and others have stated their taxes are too low (which, of course, they have said), to which I responded it was simply lip service and full of shit. As Ive stated before, I dont see any of these millionaires, or Billionaires for that matter, AVOIDING tax loopholes, do you? Do you honestly think if they believed that bullshit they would continue to use every available loophole? So the idea that the rich, more importantly the ultra rich, are somehow indifferent to the idea of raised taxes, explain to me why our government, that we elect to represent us (we're a republic, right?) is so unwillin to meet we the people halfway and do like corporations are doing-cut payroll and trim fat? And can you, as someone who obviously favors taxing our way out of this mess, explain to me why its "ok" to stick to the rich, for the sole reason they can afford it? Where is your outrage at our governments lack of spending control?

I can answer all that pretty easily. First of all it's easy to advocate for higher taxes for yourself and still take advantage of the tax code to the best of your ability. Taxation is fundamentally a collective action problem, which is why any individual volunteering to pay more taxes than he or she has to is silly. The point is for everyone to pay more, their fair share, whatever, because that's the only way you achieve measurable results. So, for Buffet and others to do this is absolutely in no conceivable way bullshit, it's just them not acting like insane idiots.

It's okay to 'stick' it to the rich not because they can afford it, but because the rich not only get the most out of government action, they get the most out of the current system we live in. There's a reason why in other countries the rich live in walled compounds encircled by razor wire with dozens of armed guards.

Thats all fine, eskimo; however, his ACTIONS do not validate his words. He may have fleeting thoughts that his taxes should be higher for the common good. But it certainly isnt a conviction. He believes it about as much as (no Im not derailing) Obama believes his words chastising Bush for his spending.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
No because I believe in incentive, but we need to make everyone pay their fair share according to their ability to pay.

So the bottom 50% with lowest adjusted gross income only pay 3% of of the total income tax paid, is not fair??? or the top 10% with highest adjusted gross income pay 70% of the total income tax is not fair? or even the top 25% paying 86% of the total income tax paid?


Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% - 39.89%
Top 5% - 60.14%
Top 10% - 70.79%
Top 25% - 86.27%
Top 50% - 97.01%
Bottom 50% - 2.99%

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Getting back to the subject, you brought up how Warren Buffett and others have stated their taxes are too low (which, of course, they have said), to which I responded it was simply lip service and full of shit. As Ive stated before, I dont see any of these millionaires, or Billionaires for that matter, AVOIDING tax loopholes, do you? Do you honestly think if they believed that bullshit they would continue to use every available loophole? So the idea that the rich, more importantly the ultra rich, are somehow indifferent to the idea of raised taxes, explain to me why our government, that we elect to represent us (we're a republic, right?) is so unwillin to meet we the people halfway and do like corporations are doing-cut payroll and trim fat? And can you, as someone who obviously favors taxing our way out of this mess, explain to me why its "ok" to stick to the rich, for the sole reason they can afford it? Where is your outrage at our governments lack of spending control?

I can answer all that pretty easily. First of all it's easy to advocate for higher taxes for yourself and still take advantage of the tax code to the best of your ability. Taxation is fundamentally a collective action problem, which is why any individual volunteering to pay more taxes than he or she has to is silly. The point is for everyone to pay more, their fair share, whatever, because that's the only way you achieve measurable results. So, for Buffet and others to do this is absolutely in no conceivable way bullshit, it's just them not acting like insane idiots.

It's okay to 'stick' it to the rich not because they can afford it, but because the rich not only get the most out of government action, they get the most out of the current system we live in. There's a reason why in other countries the rich live in walled compounds encircled by razor wire with dozens of armed guards.

Thats all fine, eskimo; however, his ACTIONS do not validate his words. He may have fleeting thoughts that his taxes should be higher for the common good. But it certainly isnt a conviction. He believes it about as much as (no Im not derailing) Obama believes his words chastising Bush for his spending.

How do his actions not validate his words? He clearly doesn't believe taxes should be higher for Warren Buffett alone, he believes it should be higher for people of a similar wealth class. This argument is just a cousin of the ridiculous anti-war argument that if you support the Iraq war you need to go pick up a rifle and fight in it yourself. You can support public policy changes without unilaterally deciding to implement them on yourself beforehand. (and it's likely there are some like this that apply to you if you thought about it) War, like taxation is a collective action problem... and so you don't go over there until you're sure other people have your back, just like you don't start emptying your wallet until you're sure everyone else is with you. Common sense really.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
No because I believe in incentive, but we need to make everyone pay their fair share according to their ability to pay.

So the bottom 50% with lowest adjusted gross income only pay 3% of of the total income tax paid, is not fair??? or the top 10% with highest adjusted gross income pay 70% of the total income tax is not fair? or even the top 25% paying 86% of the total income tax paid?


Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% - 39.89%
Top 5% - 60.14%
Top 10% - 70.79%
Top 25% - 86.27%
Top 50% - 97.01%
Bottom 50% - 2.99%

Your numbers are not addressing the issue. Who cares what percentage of tax receipts various quintiles are paying? What matters is the percentage of the nation's income they are earning as compared to it. (if you want to make a point about 'fairness', even though I would still disagree with it.)

For example, even in the most regressive tax model possible (flat tax) the top .001% made 99.9% of the income in this country, and then turned around and paid 99.9% of the taxes, by your logic you could scream 'THIS IS SO UNFAIR, .001% pay all the taxes'.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
No because I believe in incentive, but we need to make everyone pay their fair share according to their ability to pay.

So the bottom 50% with lowest adjusted gross income only pay 3% of of the total income tax paid, is not fair??? or the top 10% with highest adjusted gross income pay 70% of the total income tax is not fair? or even the top 25% paying 86% of the total income tax paid?


Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% - 39.89%
Top 5% - 60.14%
Top 10% - 70.79%
Top 25% - 86.27%
Top 50% - 97.01%
Bottom 50% - 2.99%

Your numbers are not addressing the issue. Who cares what percentage of tax receipts various quintiles are paying? What matters is the percentage of the nation's income they are earning as compared to it. (if you want to make a point about 'fairness', even though I would still disagree with it.)

For example, even in the most regressive tax model possible (flat tax) the top .001% made 99.9% of the income in this country, and then turned around and paid 99.9% of the taxes, by your logic you could scream 'THIS IS SO UNFAIR, .001% pay all the taxes'.

Well, there's this

In 2006
Top 1%
39.9% of taxes collected vs 22.1% of AGI.

from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.

In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent.

The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years. (Didnt the rich get a tax cut? Comment mine)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, there's this

In 2006
Top 1%
39.9% of taxes collected vs 22.1% of AGI.

from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.

In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent.

The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years. (Didnt the rich get a tax cut? Comment mine)

Yeap, the rich got a big tax cut, why do you ask? Hell, your own numbers show that income for the rich was growing about 60% faster during that time than for the poor. (34% as compared to 22%) All that is really showing is that the rich get a large percentage of their income from capital gains. Capital gains do poorly in a recession, and well otherwise. So yes, federal receipts increase during large stock market run-ups that substantially increase the income of the most highly taxed bracket. This wasn't caused by the tax cut on the rich, and the increase in economic activity caused by it certainly came nowhere close to covering the loss in tax receipts, but we all already knew that.

I personally think that taxes on the rich should be much higher than they are, as I consider the systemic and governmental benefits they receive to currently be far in excess of what they pay. That's been gone over time and time again on here though, so... meh.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Well, there's this

In 2006
Top 1%
39.9% of taxes collected vs 22.1% of AGI.

from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.

In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent.

The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years. (Didnt the rich get a tax cut? Comment mine)

Yeap, the rich got a big tax cut, why do you ask? Hell, your own numbers show that income for the rich was growing about 60% faster during that time than for the poor. (34% as compared to 22%) All that is really showing is that the rich get a large percentage of their income from capital gains. Capital gains do poorly in a recession, and well otherwise. So yes, federal receipts increase during large stock market run-ups that substantially increase the income of the most highly taxed bracket. This wasn't caused by the tax cut on the rich, and the increase in economic activity caused by it certainly came nowhere close to covering the loss in tax receipts, but we all already knew that.

I personally think that taxes on the rich should be much higher than they are, as I consider the systemic and governmental benefits they receive to currently be far in excess of what they pay. That's been gone over time and time again on here though, so... meh.

But the point is, they already pay their fair share, and then some. Their fair share would be equal to their AGI, no?

As to what I bolded, we will agree to disagree since neither of us can prove it either way.