Where is the Wealth?

[NaughtyGeek]

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I came across the above article while trying to find income distribution numbers and felt the data was worth sharing. I haven't read the article itself because the title seemed to indicate an agenda.
I went through all the charts and figures presented and found a rather stark picture painted. While it seems rather common knowledge that the rich are freaking rich and the rest of us not so much, the breakdown in the source go beyond the typical percentages that most sources break out.
What really stuck out to me was the fact that when compared to "true" financial wealth, assets and income, the top one percent of income earners pay a nearly equal percentage of taxes in relation to their wealth about 40/40. With us knowing that roughly 50% of the population pays no taxes, it's left to someone to make up the difference.
Most people who want to support tax cuts across the board like to point to figures showing that the top 10% pay 66% of taxes or something along those lines. So a lot of people jump up and down and say the rich are already paying too much and shouldn't have to pay more etc.. Problem is, the shortfall from the bottom 50% not paying has to be made up somewhere but it's not the top 1%, those with the most to give, who are paying for it. Nope, it's those of us with a steady job and enough disposable income to pay for cable TV.
If you look through the numbers you see that the top 5% of earners in the US control about 65 to 70% of our total wealth. Now, the last numbers I came across for tax percentages showed the top 5% paying 56% of the taxes. Wait, seems we're heading in the wrong direction now. Well, perhaps if we look at the top 10% we'll see something different? The top 10% of earners would appear to control ~75 to 80% of our wealth but figures seem to indicate that they're paying about 65-66% of the taxes.
Now here's what seems tough to figure. How does the group with 20% of the actual wealth get stuck with 35% of the burden? And what's worse, is there's no way that I've found to pull the wealth figures of the bottom 50% that can't/don't pay taxes out of the equation. Even if the bottom 50% only have 5% of the wealth, that still means that those of us who represent that 35% bill only have 15% of the damn wealth.
So, all you folks out there that want to flaunt these numbers showing how the rich are getting hosed and the poor are getting a free ride on their back, just STFU! The rich people aren't paying for them, those of us who work for a living and scrape by to have a little extra do. Remember, we can't put politicians in our pockets and no one with any amount of sense is going to persecute those who would have to choose between electricity and taxes so take a look and see who's really stuck holding the bag. Shit, to add a little insult to injury, this same group is also bound to Social Security taxes which only furthers our burden. WAKE UP DINGBATS!

 

[alkemyst]

The problem with these arguments is many think they are in that top 50%+ and try to defend it with the results being they screw themselves.

No one wants to be titled "lower class", but most truly are in finances and actions.

 

[JSt0rm]

The republican objective is to starve the beast. They have no intention of balancing the budget they just want the government to come crumbling down so they can redo it in the image they want.

 

[dullard]

With us knowing that roughly 50% of the population pays no taxes, it's left to someone to make up the difference.

I'm going to cut right to the chase here. That statement is completely misleading. Roughly 45% don't pay income taxes. But a far larger number of people pay SS/medicare taxes (which on the whole equal income taxes in size so don't forget about them). Even more than that pay property taxes directly or indirectly. And even more than that pay other taxes (gas tax for example). So, claiming that 50% pay no taxes is quite misleading.

But, I'm a big proponent of taxing wealth instead of income. Income tax is fairly stupid if you think about it. Sales tax is even stupider. That leaves wealth to tax. Those people with nothing, MUST pay nothing or next to nothing. That is just a simple fact, they have nothing to pay. Thus, those people with a lot MUST pay a lot to make up for it. Again, a simple fact not an opinion.

Should the tax rate be proportional to the wealth? That is up for opinion. But it would be hard to meet the two "musts" above without doing so.

 

[PokerGuy]

You pretty much prove your stupidity with this:

The rich people aren't paying for them, those of us who work for a living and scrape by to have a little extra do.

In your world, the "rich" don't work for a living. How do you suppose they got rich to begin with? Typical class warfare nonsense.

 

[soundforbjt]

You pretty much prove your stupidity with this:

In your world, the "rich" don't work for a living. How do you suppose they got rich to begin with? Typical class warfare nonsense.

The super rich don't work...their money and lawyers and accounts do the work.

 

[daishi5]

I'm going to cut right to the chase here. That statement is completely misleading. Roughly 45% don't pay income taxes. But a far larger number of people pay SS/medicare taxes (which on the whole equal income taxes in size so don't forget about them). Even more than that pay property taxes directly or indirectly. And even more than that pay other taxes (gas tax for example). So, claiming that 50% pay no taxes is quite misleading.

But, I'm a big proponent of taxing wealth instead of income. Income tax is fairly stupid if you think about it. Sales tax is even stupider. That leaves wealth to tax. Those people with nothing, MUST pay nothing or next to nothing. That is just a simple fact, they have nothing to pay. Thus, those people with a lot MUST pay a lot to make up for it. Again, a simple fact not an opinion.

Should the tax rate be proportional to the wealth? That is up for opinion. But it would be hard to meet the two "musts" above without doing so.

If we tax wealth, what happens when we have even more people spend all the money they make? Think about it from my point of view. I may see somewhere around 20-25% of my income taxed each year, if you taxed my possessions at the end of each year the government would want to get at least as much money out of me as it does today. I could "make" a lot more money from reduced taxes by spending my money on things that I don't "own." Rent instead of buying a home and car for example. Then there are a lot of questions about how to determine the "value" of my wealth. For example, if I blow all of my money on a painting, do I pay taxes on the purchase price, current estimated price, or a third party estimate.

Taxing wealth would just create all sorts of weird behavior to avoid taxes.

 

[dullard]

If we tax wealth, what happens when we have even more people spend all the money they make? Think about it from my point of view. I may see somewhere around 20-25% of my income taxed each year, if you taxed my possessions at the end of each year the government would want to get at least as much money out of me as it does today. I could "make" a lot more money from reduced taxes by spending my money on things that I don't "own." Rent instead of buying a home and car for example. Then there are a lot of questions about how to determine the "value" of my wealth. For example, if I blow all of my money on a painting, do I pay taxes on the purchase price, current estimated price, or a third party estimate.

Taxing wealth would just create all sorts of weird behavior to avoid taxes.

Oh, there would be behavior changes to any tax changes. I understand that.

What happens when we have even more people spend all the money they make? First, the economy recovers and unemployment is fixed. Second, we could make an exception for retirement savings (like we already do but this would be to a much greater extent) to encourage people to save the money they earn now for the real future. Similarly we can exempt the first $2000 of savings so that no emergency will cause problems (if an emergency costs you more than $2000, then you have the wrong insurance).

Someone owns that home and that car that you might rent. Thus that someone pays the wealth taxes. The taxes are just passed on to you in the form of higher rent/lease and you pay them indirectly. You can't get around it that easilly.

You are correct that some items are hard to value (like art). But, you are now talking about a very minor part of the picture. Choose a method (such as purchase price + typical appreciation) and you are done. Any errors will be corrected on the next sale. The big weath in the country (homes, stock shares, bank accounts, etc) usually already have very well known values. Take homes for example, in most parts of the country, there are already proceedures in place for valuations for local property tax. True, some private companies value is not currently being measured by the public, but that could be done fairly reasonably too.

I'd actualy really like to go a step further. No taxes at all during your entire life (no income tax, no SS/medicare tax, no sales tax, no property or other wealth tax), until you die. Then everything is taxed 100%. We'd need to be careful with parents dying and leaving their young kids with nothing. But a simple life insurance policy will take care of that. There would be issues with business ownership and that would have to be dealt with in those rare cases where it matters.

I'm not going to post a fantastic new tax system without any problems in a few paragraphs online. There would of course need to be careful thought about the potential problems and ways to deal with it that don't involve massive overhead.

 

[woodie1]

The republican objective is to starve the beast. They have no intention of balancing the budget they just want the government to come crumbling down so they can redo it in the image they want.

I thought that was the current path we've been on for the last two years....

 

[JSt0rm]

I thought that was the current path we've been on for the last two years....

We arent there yet Operation is in effect.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

You pretty much prove your stupidity with this:

In your world, the "rich" don't work for a living. How do you suppose they got rich to begin with? Typical class warfare nonsense.

Lack of reading comprehension ftl! No where did I state the rich don't work, I stated "those of us who work for a living AND scrape by." Way to comment without adding anything of value.

And to those saying republicans this or democrats that, move along. This is a systemic issue brought about by BOTH parties.

 

[soccerballtux]

We arent there yet Operation is in effect.

you say these things as if they were bad.

 

[JSt0rm]

you say these things as if they were bad.

over spending until we go over a cliff is good?

 

[Amused]

The Democrat objective is to bleed the beast. They have no intention of balancing the budget they just want the government to come crumbling down so they can redo it in the image they want.

See how that works?

 

[Zebo]

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I came across the above article while trying to find income distribution numbers and felt the data was worth sharing. I haven't read the article itself because the title seemed to indicate an agenda.
I went through all the charts and figures presented and found a rather stark picture painted. While it seems rather common knowledge that the rich are freaking rich and the rest of us not so much, the breakdown in the source go beyond the typical percentages that most sources break out.
What really stuck out to me was the fact that when compared to "true" financial wealth, assets and income, the top one percent of income earners pay a nearly equal percentage of taxes in relation to their wealth about 40/40. With us knowing that roughly 50% of the population pays no taxes, it's left to someone to make up the difference.
Most people who want to support tax cuts across the board like to point to figures showing that the top 10% pay 66% of taxes or something along those lines. So a lot of people jump up and down and say the rich are already paying too much and shouldn't have to pay more etc.. Problem is, the shortfall from the bottom 50% not paying has to be made up somewhere but it's not the top 1%, those with the most to give, who are paying for it. Nope, it's those of us with a steady job and enough disposable income to pay for cable TV.
If you look through the numbers you see that the top 5% of earners in the US control about 65 to 70% of our total wealth. Now, the last numbers I came across for tax percentages showed the top 5% paying 56% of the taxes. Wait, seems we're heading in the wrong direction now. Well, perhaps if we look at the top 10% we'll see something different? The top 10% of earners would appear to control ~75 to 80% of our wealth but figures seem to indicate that they're paying about 65-66% of the taxes.
Now here's what seems tough to figure. How does the group with 20% of the actual wealth get stuck with 35% of the burden? And what's worse, is there's no way that I've found to pull the wealth figures of the bottom 50% that can't/don't pay taxes out of the equation. Even if the bottom 50% only have 5% of the wealth, that still means that those of us who represent that 35% bill only have 15% of the damn wealth.
So, all you folks out there that want to flaunt these numbers showing how the rich are getting hosed and the poor are getting a free ride on their back, just STFU! The rich people aren't paying for them, those of us who work for a living and scrape by to have a little extra do. Remember, we can't put politicians in our pockets and no one with any amount of sense is going to persecute those who would have to choose between electricity and taxes so take a look and see who's really stuck holding the bag. Shit, to add a little insult to injury, this same group is also bound to Social Security taxes which only furthers our burden. WAKE UP DINGBATS!

They only look at income tax to spout their numbers which is not even 50% of Federal revenue. While indeed progressive, all other taxes are regressive and if you live here you pay them.

I don't know what to tell you - no one likes taxes and will manipulate, squirm and squeal to avoid them.

 

[alkemyst]

it's sad those on payroll are still contributing 81% while those self-sustained are less than 45%

 

[JS80]

Oh, there would be behavior changes to any tax changes. I understand that.

What happens when we have even more people spend all the money they make? First, the economy recovers and unemployment is fixed. Second, we could make an exception for retirement savings (like we already do but this would be to a much greater extent) to encourage people to save the money they earn now for the real future. Similarly we can exempt the first $2000 of savings so that no emergency will cause problems (if an emergency costs you more than $2000, then you have the wrong insurance).

Someone owns that home and that car that you might rent. Thus that someone pays the wealth taxes. The taxes are just passed on to you in the form of higher rent/lease and you pay them indirectly. You can't get around it that easilly.

You are correct that some items are hard to value (like art). But, you are now talking about a very minor part of the picture. Choose a method (such as purchase price + typical appreciation) and you are done. Any errors will be corrected on the next sale. The big weath in the country (homes, stock shares, bank accounts, etc) usually already have very well known values. Take homes for example, in most parts of the country, there are already proceedures in place for valuations for local property tax. True, some private companies value is not currently being measured by the public, but that could be done fairly reasonably too.

I'd actualy really like to go a step further. No taxes at all during your entire life (no income tax, no SS/medicare tax, no sales tax, no property or other wealth tax), until you die. Then everything is taxed 100%. We'd need to be careful with parents dying and leaving their young kids with nothing. But a simple life insurance policy will take care of that. There would be issues with business ownership and that would have to be dealt with in those rare cases where it matters.

I'm not going to post a fantastic new tax system without any problems in a few paragraphs online. There would of course need to be careful thought about the potential problems and ways to deal with it that don't involve massive overhead.

1) What about retired people? People who want to not work?

2) There would be a massive exodus of money out of the US.

 

[ProfJohn]

What really stuck out to me was the fact that when compared to "true" financial wealth, assets and income, the top one percent of income earners pay a nearly equal percentage of taxes in relation to their wealth about 40/40. With us knowing that roughly 50% of the population pays no taxes, it's left to someone to make up the difference.

Wealth =/= income

So your comparison is not valid.

Income tax IS a tax on income. If we had a wealth tax then you might be able to make a point. But as the system is set up now a wealthy person could sit on their ass and not make any income and pay no taxes and still end up wealthy at the end of the year.

 

[hal2kilo]

The problem with these arguments is many think they are in that top 50%+ and try to defend it with the results being they screw themselves.

No one wants to be titled "lower class", but most truly are in finances and actions.

The American sheep. Convinced to vote against their own self interests since Ronnie Reagan.

 

[dmcowen674]

Where is the Wealth?

Right here as evidenced by the rich Republicans making their posts.

 

[dmcowen674]

The American sheep. Convinced to vote against their own self interests since Ronnie Reagan.

It's hysterical, just look at the Wisconsin and Ohio voters that put Republicans in and now they are crying because their new Republican Governors said no to all the projects that were bringing jobs to their states.

They are rich Republicans, they don't need no stinking jobs.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Right here as evidenced by the rich Republicans making their posts.

Dave, are you ever going to respond to this post, where you were proven to be a liar? I'm waiting.

Just because some of us don't flip burgers like you doesn't mean we're "wealthy." You screwed yourself in life, now take responsibility for it and make changes.

 

[Attic]

Dave, are you ever going to respond to this post, where you were proven to be a liar? I'm waiting.

Just because some of us don't flip burgers like you doesn't mean we're "wealthy." You screwed yourself in life, now take responsibility for it and make changes.

Don't hold your breath, responsiblity doesn't rank high among his kind.


Regarding the OP,... life isn't fair. Tax laws need a masssive overhaul, the way they are done is infuriating for a lot of people, but I don't think arguing for fairness leads anywhere worthwhile. People have different ideas about fairness and a lot of times the person pulling that card is looking for more than whats fair when other viewpoints are considered.

I am excited to see where tax laws go over the next decade, I expect they will do a better job of not screwing over the middle class by that time.

 

[Anarchist420]

As an Austrian, I argue that the problem is never the type of tax, but the amount.

 

[dullard]

1) What about retired people? People who want to not work?

2) There would be a massive exodus of money out of the US.

1) Retired people would pay federal wealth taxes just like they currently pay local wealth taxes (car taxes, home property taxes, etc.)

Those who have retired with little to no wealth, would pay little to no tax. Those who do have wealth already can be liable for income taxes since social security benefits are almost always taxed for the wealthy (since they almost always would have dividends that earn money). If we switch to the "fair tax" or similar sales tax, retired people face the exact same issue - all of their savings that were to be tax free are now taxed. Thus, the weathy retired are taxed in all main forms of taxation.

For those who choose not to work, they either (a) have little weath due to that choice and won't pay much tax, if at all, so this isn't an issue or (b) have sufficient weath that they can afford to pay tax.

If we wen't all the way to my dream, neither of these are a problem since there would be no tax at all while they are alive.

2) We'd have the exact same issue here if we switch from income tax to something else like sales tax (the wealthy can just buy their things in other countries and never pay sales tax here). Many countries address this by limiting money that can leave the country. We'd just be joining much of the rest of the world. Or, we can let it leave, but still tax it.