What's the counter argument for why we shouldn't tax the rich?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income after write-offs and deductions in taxes. I have no problem with that. Becoming rich is a risk/reward prospect, at least for the rich people who have actually earned their money. When you begin reducing that reward you begin having people questioning whether the risk to become rich is worthwhile.

As far as hiding money, there really is no such thing...legally. Those 20,000 people were involved in an illegal scheme and I hope the IRS rightfully gives them all the reaming they so justly deserve.

Sometimes dealing with reality is more important than looking right on an internet forum. Get back to me when you're ready for that level of maturity.

BTW, I work in banking and finance (as I'm sure you know). I've seen everyone's tax returns. You know why banks came up with those stated income aka 'liar loan' mortgages? Not to put people in homes they couldn't afford, but because wealthy business owners have so many write-offs and capital gains that they couldn't verify adequate income. Here's a not uncommon scenario: $750k house, $250k cash down, another half million or more in his portfolio, business receipts in excess of $1 million annually, drives a luxury car, owns multiple investment properties in town and a house on the coast, pays taxes on an adjusted gross of $40k a year.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The poor may take a bigger percentage hit on sales tax but the rich buy the higher ticket items and put far more actual dollars back into the system because of that. Besides that, for those poor people on State assistance programs it's the higher income earners paying for those too. I mean, what are supposed to do, give the poor a complete free ride? Sorry that it sucks to be poor but, like removing incentives to be rich, removing incentives not to be poor would put a further burden on an already burdened system.

Removing incentives to be rich? You consider having an equal effective tax rate across the board is a disincentive to being rich? Isn't being rich it's own incentive?

I don't understand why you believe rich people should be afforded special treatment.

As evidenced in my earlier post, it appears that banks like UBS have been giving special treatment to the rich for a long time at the expense of the rest of us.

So yeah people who only make money via investments are getting hit with a 15% tax rate...on paper...but what's the effective tax rate? What % were the 20,000 rich people hiding money from the IRS really paying?

What's fair is fair and if some guy inherits his daddy's money he shouldn't be paying 15%(maybe, if he's too dumb to cheat) while the single mom working her ass off pays ~28%.

That is inequality plain and simple.

Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. I have no problem with that. Becoming rich is a risk/reward prospect, at least for the rich people who have actually earned their money. When you begin reducing that reward you begin having people questioning whether the risk to become rich is worthwhile.

As far as hiding money, there really is no such thing...legally. Those 20,000 people were involved in an illegal scheme and I hope the IRS rightfully gives them all the reaming they so justly deserve.

That is false.

I bet you couldn't find a single person on earth, if given the chance to be rich or poor would choose poor because there isn't enough of a tax break to become rich, fuck it, it's not worth it. :disgust:

Gimme a break man, you are spouting nonsense now. Adieu.

That is not false. I've already provided the information previously in this thread, despite the fact that it's a well known fact (Or should be. I'm always amazed on how ignorant some people can be on certain aspects of subjects when they profess to know every damn thing else about it.) that quite a few in here seem to want to sidestep.

Nor are we speaking about giving someone the choice between being rich or poor. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, I'll give you one. Right now I'm getting into the preliminaries on starting a side business. I love to cook and people that eat my food constantly tell me that I should open my own restaurant or a catering business. I already have customers waiting for both to happen, including some of those damn rich people. I'm wading through all the business, regulatory, and tax requirements right now. Man, they get you coming and going on taxes and fees making me wonder if it's really worth it to take the risk and expend all the start up money that's necessary to get this thing going. Do I go into this risk or not? The tax implications just may be the decided factor.

Maybe now you'll understand that I'm in no way, shape, or form "spouting nonsense?" I know exactly what I speak of on this issue because it affects me directly.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Vic
Investors don't reap dividends when consumers are too poor to purchase their products.

This is why nations with large wealth disparities and a small middle class also tend to have weak economies.

In general, the logic is that the wealthy get more out of society, and the maintenance of society's status quo is more important to them, therefore they should pay into society accordingly.

And the idea that taxing the wealthy necessarily equates to an unreasonably large government is mostly a modern neocon fabrication. Even in a libertarian model, the person who demands more and gets more from government is going to be expected to pay in more as well.

i like this post. A++++

also, in reference to the op, i'm not 100% sure, but i tink corporate taxes are only applied to either net revenue or net profit, i think the latter but someone else will have to clarify that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
[First of all, the rich should pay more for all kinds of reasons. Food for your family - the first dollars you spend - is more important than the toy you buy with a high income.

That toy that is bought with a high income might be made right here in the US company that employs US labor. Those employees spend their income, which they get because people buy their toys, in their own community. The people that get their money respend it, maybe even on food. For those that can't afford food for their families, there are programs that provide for them that are primarily supported by the top 50% of US income earners.

You didn't rebut a thing with that. The toy has *some* economic benefit, the same dollars going to the poor provide more economic and humanitarian benefit. The poor buy things that are just as likely to be made in the US economy and help - and they spend about 100% of their money, while the rich buy a few toys and use the rest to get more assets, which does the economy less good than the spending of the poor.

Second, your info is from a right-wing organization, IIRC, and does not account for 'the tax burden', merely for the income tax. The chart looks very different with all taxes.

For example, the sales tax hits low-income people for a far higher percentage of their income than it hits the wealthy.

Their info is straight from a government report. If you have info to the contrary, or info that conflicts with theirs, then feel free to present it. Otherwise this "righ-wing organization" handwaving means nothing.

It's as I said - that they only provided one bit of the picture. I didn't say the picture they did present was wrong numbers, I said there are other numbers, too that they leave out.

Besides that, the discussion has primarily been along the lines of income taxes, which is why I presented that particular information. Note that I also stated at the very end of my last post:

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.

The poor may take a bigger percentage hit on sales tax but the rich buy the higher ticket items and put far more actual dollars back into the system because of that.

You have got to understand that the percentages matter more than the absolute dollars?

That if you make a milion dollars and pay 1% or $10,000 in sales tax, that's less important than a poor person paying 3% but fewer dollars, because your million dollars going to the poor people would result in that 3% rate, or $30,000, across multiple people, instead of your 1% rate?

The discussion was mostly about the income tax rate, and when the point showed up about those abused rich people, I mentioned that income tax is only one part of the tax issue.

Besides that, for those poor people on State assistance programs it's the higher income earners paying for those too. I mean, what are supposed to do, give the poor a complete free ride? Sorry that it sucks to be poor but, like removing incentives to be rich, removing incentives not to be poor would put a further burden on an already burdened system.

No one is talking about removing the incentives for the poor, or for the rich - that extreme exaggeration is one of the most common fallacies of the right.

One boggles at how almost all Americans say they're glad to see the poor shift to the middle class, but the moment you set fair polices to do that, you hear this nonsense.

It seems very few righties understand basic facts such as how extreme wealth does not scale, on average, with productivity.

Tell me again what the Walton kids did this year for the billions they received, other than own a lot of stock?

But oh no, if they paid 20% more tax that went to lower the public debt or lower the tax rate of wage earners and spur the economy, that'd just be immoral.

How horrible it would be for capital gains you get for sitting on your butt and owning things to be taxed at the same rate as wages, which would pay off debt and lower wage tax rates.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's more important to look at wealth than income.

If you own huge wealth, which is greatly increasing in value but you aren't cashing it in, it's 'stealth income'; you might be worth a billion more this year, but show no income from it.

Most extremely wealthy people are in that situation, where they only need a relatively small amount of income, while their owned assets increase in value for years and years.

If you own huge wealth, depending on your State of residence, you can hit by an Intangibles tax and as those intangible assets increase in value so do your taxes. We have that tax here in Florida.

Besides that, many assets that are owned are taxed in other ways. In the long run no asset is really "stealth income" because eventually your going to take a tax hit on it somehow.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income after write-offs and deductions in taxes. I have no problem with that. Becoming rich is a risk/reward prospect, at least for the rich people who have actually earned their money. When you begin reducing that reward you begin having people questioning whether the risk to become rich is worthwhile.

As far as hiding money, there really is no such thing...legally. Those 20,000 people were involved in an illegal scheme and I hope the IRS rightfully gives them all the reaming they so justly deserve.

Sometimes dealing with reality is more important than looking right on an internet forum. Get back to me when you're ready for that level of maturity.

You should take you own advice. I don't know what you're problem is, but grow up and maybe you won't feel the need to respond like such a prick.

BTW, I work in banking and finance (as I'm sure you know). I've seen everyone's tax returns. You know why banks came up with those stated income aka 'liar loan' mortgages? Not to put people in homes they couldn't afford, but because wealthy business owners have so many write-offs and capital gains that they couldn't verify adequate income. Here's a not uncommon scenario: $750k house, $250k cash down, another half million or more in his portfolio, business receipts in excess of $1 million annually, drives a luxury car, owns multiple investment properties in town and a house on the coast, pays taxes on an adjusted gross of $40k a year.

Great. So that guy has a lot of investment capital out and is taking risks in order to reduce his income. That's his right so long as he does it within the allowable laws. Tax deductions are implemented for a reason, often a reason that's beneficial to the economy, and not just to give some wealthy bastard a break. You're in banking and finance. Surely you know that? Besides, it still doesn't change the fact that for most people the more you earn the higher your taxes are going to be. That's just a fact. Citing what some wealthy people do is not indicative of the whole. If it were otherwise my sister wouldn't be paying a shitload of taxes every year, because you almost described her scenario to a T above, except she has a million dollar primary residence and a 32' Scarab at her place on the beach in Clearwater.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. ...

Except they don't, not compared to the upper middle class and even much of the middle class.

This has been documented here countless times. Your numbers above are smoke and mirrors. You give data for the top 25% and the top 50%, then proceed to make assertions about the rich. Sorry, the top 50% aren't rich. The top 25% aren't rich. Not even the top 5% are rich. Rich doesn't start until maybe the top 0.5%, and you have to get into the top tenth of a percent to really hit rich. These elite have tremendously greater wealth and incomes compared to even the top 5%, yet pay significantly less proportionately in taxes. This is primarily due to tax shelters, preferential treatment of capital gains, and the cap on Social Security withholding. They also pay proportionately less in sales taxes since a much smaller proportion of their dollars goes to purchases.

That's the reality in America today. Our income taxes are progressive ... up through the upper middle class. They peak there and start to become more and more regressive as one ascends into the stratosphere of the truly rich.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: herm0016
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.../images/bg1415cht1.gif

the top 10% pay nearly 2/3 of all income taxes collected.

Every time I see this I call shens.

They find every loophole to skirt the system.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. ...

Except they don't, not compared to the upper middle class and even much of the middle class.

This has been documented here countless times. Your numbers above are smoke and mirrors. You give data for the top 25% and the top 50%, then proceed to make assertions about the rich. Sorry, the top 50% aren't rich. The top 25% aren't rich. Not even the top 5% are rich. Rich doesn't start until maybe the top 0.5%, and you have to get into the top tenth of a percent to really hit rich. These elite have tremendously greater wealth and incomes compared to even the top 5%, yet pay significantly less proportionately in taxes. This is primarily due to tax shelters, preferential treatment of capital gains, and the cap on Social Security withholding. They also pay proportionately less in sales taxes since a much smaller proportion of their dollars goes to purchases.

That's the reality in America today. Our income taxes are progressive ... up through the upper middle class. They peak there and start to become more and more regressive as one ascends into the stratosphere of the truly rich.

From my previous link it shows that the top 1% pay a 39.38% share of income tax at an average rate of 23.12%. (The highest of all average tax rates among income earners.) The data doesn't go any finer grained than that. If you can provide data to back up your assertions, please do. Before I accept your assertions as any sort of "reality" though you'll have to provide something else besides your own claims.

As far as what classifies as "rich," that's all relative and more a semantics argument than anything else.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's more important to look at wealth than income.

If you own huge wealth, which is greatly increasing in value but you aren't cashing it in, it's 'stealth income'; you might be worth a billion more this year, but show no income from it.

Most extremely wealthy people are in that situation, where they only need a relatively small amount of income, while their owned assets increase in value for years and years.

If you own huge wealth, depending on your State of residence, you can hit by an Intangibles tax and as those intangible assets increase in value so do your taxes. We have that tax here in Florida.

Besides that, many assets that are owned are taxed in other ways. In the long run no asset is really "stealth income" because eventually your going to take a tax hit on it somehow.

Thanks for the info on the intangibles tax. It looks pretty tiny, though, not affecting the taxes of the wealthy much.

For example, in Florida as you cite, assets up to $70,000 for a single filer (more for married) are not taxed. Above that, the tax is 0.1% or 0.2% depending on the asset size.

I'd never heard of the intangibles tax and it appears very few states have it.

The only 'long run' a lot of money is taxed on is the Estate Tax, so there is sometimes decades of untaxed appreciation.

Basically, the very wealthy can largely just 'stay invested' and shave off bits of the investment gains for spending, resulting in very low income to report compared to wealth.

I also suspect quite a few of those who do live in those few states find ways, such as 'resident state for tax purposes', to avoid the intangibles tax.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. ...

Except they don't, not compared to the upper middle class and even much of the middle class.

This has been documented here countless times. Your numbers above are smoke and mirrors. You give data for the top 25% and the top 50%, then proceed to make assertions about the rich. Sorry, the top 50% aren't rich. The top 25% aren't rich. Not even the top 5% are rich. Rich doesn't start until maybe the top 0.5%, and you have to get into the top tenth of a percent to really hit rich. These elite have tremendously greater wealth and incomes compared to even the top 5%, yet pay significantly less proportionately in taxes. This is primarily due to tax shelters, preferential treatment of capital gains, and the cap on Social Security withholding. They also pay proportionately less in sales taxes since a much smaller proportion of their dollars goes to purchases.

That's the reality in America today. Our income taxes are progressive ... up through the upper middle class. They peak there and start to become more and more regressive as one ascends into the stratosphere of the truly rich.

From my previous link it shows that the top 1% pay a 39.38% share of income tax at an average rate of 23.12%. (The highest of all average tax rates among income earners.) The data doesn't go any finer grained than that. If you can provide data to back up your assertions, please do. Before I accept your assertions as any sort of "reality" though you'll have to provide something else besides your own claims.

As far as what classifies as "rich," that's all relative and more a semantics argument than anything else.

What's their share of income and wealth? Hint: Their share of wealth is over 23%.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's more important to look at wealth than income.

If you own huge wealth, which is greatly increasing in value but you aren't cashing it in, it's 'stealth income'; you might be worth a billion more this year, but show no income from it.

Most extremely wealthy people are in that situation, where they only need a relatively small amount of income, while their owned assets increase in value for years and years.

If you own huge wealth, depending on your State of residence, you can hit by an Intangibles tax and as those intangible assets increase in value so do your taxes. We have that tax here in Florida.

Besides that, many assets that are owned are taxed in other ways. In the long run no asset is really "stealth income" because eventually your going to take a tax hit on it somehow.

Thanks for the info on the intangibles tax. It looks pretty tiny, though, not affecting the taxes of the wealthy much.

For example, in Florida as you cite, assets up to $70,000 for a single filer (more for married) are not taxed. Above that, the tax is 0.1% or 0.2% depending on the asset size.

I'd never heard of the intangibles tax and it appears very few states have it.

The only 'long run' a lot of money is taxed on is the Estate Tax, so there is sometimes decades of untaxed appreciation.

Basically, the very wealthy can largely just 'stay invested' and shave off bits of the investment gains for spending, resulting in very low income to report compared to wealth.

I also suspect quite a few of those who do live in those few states find ways, such as 'resident state for tax purposes', to avoid the intangibles tax.

Eventually they're still going to pay captial gains tax, and possibly a dividend tax based on what the asset is. If their asset is one or more corporations their corporation is paying taxes as well.

We have guys like Warren Buffet claiming their tax rate is lower than that of his receptionist. That's its own sort of smoke and mirrors statement. Buffet still pays millions in taxes every year; his receptionist doesn't. So do the rest of the very wealthy Americans unless they're evading taxes. Should someone who pays millions in taxes, and has significant investments, pay a lower rate? Of course, because if we raise their taxes all we're doing is removing investment capital, significant amounts of capital, from the economy in the process. That might help the poor in the short run but at what cost? Screwing over the middle-class in the long run?

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't tax the rich or that they're being taxed too much now. I'm saying that they do deserve some special consideration though because their money is important to our economy. Like it or not, without their money and investments none of the rest of us would have squat. I know there's a reflex for people to say "Damn those rat bastards! Making a quarter billion dollars in a year is just insane." It's easy to think that, but at the same time we rely on those wealthy people to drive our economy and put their money to use. Most do, if they want to continue to remain wealthy.

 

[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?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. ...

Except they don't, not compared to the upper middle class and even much of the middle class.

This has been documented here countless times. Your numbers above are smoke and mirrors. You give data for the top 25% and the top 50%, then proceed to make assertions about the rich. Sorry, the top 50% aren't rich. The top 25% aren't rich. Not even the top 5% are rich. Rich doesn't start until maybe the top 0.5%, and you have to get into the top tenth of a percent to really hit rich. These elite have tremendously greater wealth and incomes compared to even the top 5%, yet pay significantly less proportionately in taxes. This is primarily due to tax shelters, preferential treatment of capital gains, and the cap on Social Security withholding. They also pay proportionately less in sales taxes since a much smaller proportion of their dollars goes to purchases.

That's the reality in America today. Our income taxes are progressive ... up through the upper middle class. They peak there and start to become more and more regressive as one ascends into the stratosphere of the truly rich.

From my previous link it shows that the top 1% pay a 39.38% share of income tax at an average rate of 23.12%. (The highest of all average tax rates among income earners.) The data doesn't go any finer grained than that. If you can provide data to back up your assertions, please do. Before I accept your assertions as any sort of "reality" though you'll have to provide something else besides your own claims.

As far as what classifies as "rich," that's all relative and more a semantics argument than anything else.

That top "1%" is not representative of who is truly 'rich' in this country. Plenty of professionals fall into the top 1%, but they are far from the people hitting it big in terms of tax savings (that top .1% is who we should really b1tch about). The people that make money hand over fist from capital gains are the people who are truly rich. Professionals that fall into the top 1% can end up paying as much as 45% of their income if you include FICA, state income taxes, and the AMT.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

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?

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?

What would it look like then?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. ...

Except they don't, not compared to the upper middle class and even much of the middle class.

This has been documented here countless times. Your numbers above are smoke and mirrors. You give data for the top 25% and the top 50%, then proceed to make assertions about the rich. Sorry, the top 50% aren't rich. The top 25% aren't rich. Not even the top 5% are rich. Rich doesn't start until maybe the top 0.5%, and you have to get into the top tenth of a percent to really hit rich. These elite have tremendously greater wealth and incomes compared to even the top 5%, yet pay significantly less proportionately in taxes. This is primarily due to tax shelters, preferential treatment of capital gains, and the cap on Social Security withholding. They also pay proportionately less in sales taxes since a much smaller proportion of their dollars goes to purchases.

That's the reality in America today. Our income taxes are progressive ... up through the upper middle class. They peak there and start to become more and more regressive as one ascends into the stratosphere of the truly rich.

From my previous link it shows that the top 1% pay a 39.38% share of income tax at an average rate of 23.12%. (The highest of all average tax rates among income earners.) The data doesn't go any finer grained than that. If you can provide data to back up your assertions, please do. Before I accept your assertions as any sort of "reality" though you'll have to provide something else besides your own claims.

As far as what classifies as "rich," that's all relative and more a semantics argument than anything else.

That top "1%" is not representative of who is truly 'rich' in this country. Plenty of professionals fall into the top 1%, but they are far from the people hitting it big in terms of tax savings (that top .1% is who we should really b1tch about). The people that make money hand over fist from capital gains are the people who are truly rich. Professionals that fall into the top 1% can end up paying as much as 45% of their income if you include FICA, state income taxes, and the AMT.

Again, this seems like splitting hairs. 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.

 

[wwswimming]

i would rather spend my time learning job skills to help me become semi-rich
than debate tax policy.

but, anecdotally, i have friends in San Diego & relatives in Sweden that would
qualify as wealthy. the Americans seem to worry more about money.

personally i would like the predicament of having to pay $200K in taxes if i
made $400K - if i thought the money was going to something right.

when i traveled in Canada i paid 14% for sales tax on a few things, like a
fax-phone. it didn't bother me, from talking to people and seeing how their
society worked, e.g. good mass transit and good and affordable health care,
meeting a few people that worked in their government, i felt like their taxes
were paying for the right things without too much waste.

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

What would it look like then?

Umm, "dividend taxes" and "capital gains taxes" are part of income taxes. As I already pointed out, capital gains receive highly preferential treatment compared to ordinary earned income, reducing the overall tax rate of the very rich whose primary source of income is capital gains.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. ...

Except they don't, not compared to the upper middle class and even much of the middle class.

This has been documented here countless times. Your numbers above are smoke and mirrors. You give data for the top 25% and the top 50%, then proceed to make assertions about the rich. Sorry, the top 50% aren't rich. The top 25% aren't rich. Not even the top 5% are rich. Rich doesn't start until maybe the top 0.5%, and you have to get into the top tenth of a percent to really hit rich. These elite have tremendously greater wealth and incomes compared to even the top 5%, yet pay significantly less proportionately in taxes. This is primarily due to tax shelters, preferential treatment of capital gains, and the cap on Social Security withholding. They also pay proportionately less in sales taxes since a much smaller proportion of their dollars goes to purchases.

That's the reality in America today. Our income taxes are progressive ... up through the upper middle class. They peak there and start to become more and more regressive as one ascends into the stratosphere of the truly rich.

From my previous link it shows that the top 1% pay a 39.38% share of income tax at an average rate of 23.12%. (The highest of all average tax rates among income earners.) The data doesn't go any finer grained than that. If you can provide data to back up your assertions, please do. Before I accept your assertions as any sort of "reality" though you'll have to provide something else besides your own claims.

As far as what classifies as "rich," that's all relative and more a semantics argument than anything else.

What's their share of income and wealth? Hint: Their share of wealth is over 23%.

Exactly. That's the point the "Oh, the poor rich are so over taxed" folks so desperately want to avoid, that the very wealthy pay disproportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class. The total effective tax rate peaks in the upper middle class, then begins to drop. The concentration of wealth at the very top has increased dramatically while the effective tax rate has dropped.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income after write-offs and deductions in taxes. I have no problem with that. Becoming rich is a risk/reward prospect, at least for the rich people who have actually earned their money. When you begin reducing that reward you begin having people questioning whether the risk to become rich is worthwhile.

As far as hiding money, there really is no such thing...legally. Those 20,000 people were involved in an illegal scheme and I hope the IRS rightfully gives them all the reaming they so justly deserve.

Sometimes dealing with reality is more important than looking right on an internet forum. Get back to me when you're ready for that level of maturity.

You should take you own advice. I don't know what you're problem is, but grow up and maybe you won't feel the need to respond like such a prick.

BTW, I work in banking and finance (as I'm sure you know). I've seen everyone's tax returns. You know why banks came up with those stated income aka 'liar loan' mortgages? Not to put people in homes they couldn't afford, but because wealthy business owners have so many write-offs and capital gains that they couldn't verify adequate income. Here's a not uncommon scenario: $750k house, $250k cash down, another half million or more in his portfolio, business receipts in excess of $1 million annually, drives a luxury car, owns multiple investment properties in town and a house on the coast, pays taxes on an adjusted gross of $40k a year.

Great. So that guy has a lot of investment capital out and is taking risks in order to reduce his income. That's his right so long as he does it within the allowable laws. Tax deductions are implemented for a reason, often a reason that's beneficial to the economy, and not just to give some wealthy bastard a break. You're in banking and finance. Surely you know that? Besides, it still doesn't change the fact that for most people the more you earn the higher your taxes are going to be. That's just a fact. Citing what some wealthy people do is not indicative of the whole. If it were otherwise my sister wouldn't be paying a shitload of taxes every year, because you almost described her scenario to a T above, except she has a million dollar primary residence and a 32' Scarab at her place on the beach in Clearwater.

Ah... poor wittle rich girl. Tell your sister to hire a new accountant.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And what's the alternative to trickle down? Forced redistribution of wealth instead?

We should know, Karl Marx wrote a book on it.

I'm just quoting these 2 posts to show that idiots that know nothing about economics should not pretend that they do.

Economies are supposed to flow in all directions, not trickle in one. The fact is that 'trickle down economics' is a kind of reverse Marxism entirely at odds with free market capitalism.

But hey, you guys just pretend you look cool and smart while spouting ignorant partisan rhetoric.

Get back to me when you have both the brains and the balls to address what I actually posted.

If you hadn't noticed before, Jaskalas has a history of making some of the most sweeping and naive generalizations.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
From my previous link it shows that the top 1% pay a 39.38% share of income tax at an average rate of 23.12%. (The highest of all average tax rates among income earners.)

The data doesn't go any finer grained than that.

If you can provide data to back up your assertions, please do. Before I accept your assertions as any sort of "reality" though you'll have to provide something else besides your own claims.

As far as what classifies as "rich," that's all relative and more a semantics argument than anything else.

That may be supposedly what they are supposed to pay on paper.

The reality is another story.

Want a link? Today's news for example:

7-17-2008 UBS drops offshore banking services for Americans

An official of the Swiss bank UBS announced that it was halting its offshore banking services for US citizens after it came under scathing criticism for facilitating massive tax evasion.

The official, Mark Branson, UBS' chief financial officer of global wealth management, also said the bank is cooperating with the US government to identify US clients who might have committed tax fraud.
====================================
Wonder how many ATers (P&N and ATOT) will be caught in the Federal dragnet especially since so many clearly support such laundering schemes for the rich.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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?

What would it look like then?

Umm, "dividend taxes" and "capital gains taxes" are part of income taxes. As I already pointed out, capital gains receive highly preferential treatment compared to ordinary earned income, reducing the overall tax rate of the very rich whose primary source of income is capital gains.

Gah. I should have remembered that dividends and capital gains are reported on your income tax filing. That's what happens when you don't do your own taxes for 10 years.

And, you're right. Capital gains do get preferential treatment, particularly if you're in a lower income bracket.

 

[imported_Baloo]

It's already failed -> The Death of Reaganomics

And there is already a thread on this topic: The Death of Reaganomics

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sure there's inequality, as has already been shown. The rich pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes. ...

Except they don't, not compared to the upper middle class and even much of the middle class.

This has been documented here countless times. Your numbers above are smoke and mirrors. You give data for the top 25% and the top 50%, then proceed to make assertions about the rich. Sorry, the top 50% aren't rich. The top 25% aren't rich. Not even the top 5% are rich. Rich doesn't start until maybe the top 0.5%, and you have to get into the top tenth of a percent to really hit rich. These elite have tremendously greater wealth and incomes compared to even the top 5%, yet pay significantly less proportionately in taxes. This is primarily due to tax shelters, preferential treatment of capital gains, and the cap on Social Security withholding. They also pay proportionately less in sales taxes since a much smaller proportion of their dollars goes to purchases.

That's the reality in America today. Our income taxes are progressive ... up through the upper middle class. They peak there and start to become more and more regressive as one ascends into the stratosphere of the truly rich.

From my previous link it shows that the top 1% pay a 39.38% share of income tax at an average rate of 23.12%. (The highest of all average tax rates among income earners.) The data doesn't go any finer grained than that. If you can provide data to back up your assertions, please do. Before I accept your assertions as any sort of "reality" though you'll have to provide something else besides your own claims.

As far as what classifies as "rich," that's all relative and more a semantics argument than anything else.

What's their share of income and wealth? Hint: Their share of wealth is over 23%.

Exactly. That's the point the "Oh, the poor rich are so over taxed" folks so desperately want to avoid, that the very wealthy pay disproportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class. The total effective tax rate peaks in the upper middle class, then begins to drop. The concentration of wealth at the very top has increased dramatically while the effective tax rate has dropped.

Yup. Even talking income, it's greatly concentrated in just hundreds of people: link