Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016(bloombergquint.com)
bloombergquint.com
Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016
https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016
145 comments
True, but at least in theory, the FICA (payroll) taxes fund programs that directly benefit the employee: medicare, social security, and unemployment benefits. The reason these appear more regressive than income taxes is due to how Social Security pays out an amount proportional to your contributions, while also having a cap on the max you can receive and be taxed for.
An lets be clear. Only in theory is this true.
It's also misleading and intellectually dishonest to discuss the amount of income tax paid in the context of rate while ignoring the underlying income.
E.g., "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."
Ok, except this ignores the amount _earned_ by the top 1% (avg $678,359) vs. the bottom 90% (avg $35,083). [1]
And of course, higher wage earners are also likely to have disproportionately more wealth, as it's a lot easier to save, invest and otherwise maximize growth and minimize tax exposure when you have more cash available.
[1] https://www.epi.org/blog/wages-rose-for-the-bottom-90-percen...
E.g., "The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."
Ok, except this ignores the amount _earned_ by the top 1% (avg $678,359) vs. the bottom 90% (avg $35,083). [1]
And of course, higher wage earners are also likely to have disproportionately more wealth, as it's a lot easier to save, invest and otherwise maximize growth and minimize tax exposure when you have more cash available.
[1] https://www.epi.org/blog/wages-rose-for-the-bottom-90-percen...
It's not "grossly misleading." Payroll taxes are a form of forced saving--in theory, you get that money back when you draw from Social Security/Medicare when you retire. (In reality, most people will get out more than they put in.) In that way, they're qualitatively different than the income tax.
Looking at tax rates in isolation is pretty academic in any event. The real question, I think, is: what are our competitors (France, Germany, the U.K., etc.) doing? Those countries tend to lean even more heavily on regressive taxes like mandatory insurance and retirement contributions, VAT, etc.
Looking at tax rates in isolation is pretty academic in any event. The real question, I think, is: what are our competitors (France, Germany, the U.K., etc.) doing? Those countries tend to lean even more heavily on regressive taxes like mandatory insurance and retirement contributions, VAT, etc.
> (In reality, most people will get out more than they put in.)
Up until it runs out, at which point nobody gets anything. And for whichever generation gets shafted (guess), they will be looking at a big negative when they see they get nothing for all the taxes they put in.
Up until it runs out, at which point nobody gets anything. And for whichever generation gets shafted (guess), they will be looking at a big negative when they see they get nothing for all the taxes they put in.
Social Security will never "run out", due to the nature of it. The taxes from people currently working are what directly pays those who are currently retired and drawing on it.
Now what could happen is one of two things. Either the benefits get cut to match the tax revenue at that time (estimates I've seen is that SS can drop to about 70% of what it is now), or that payroll taxes will increase, and the cap raised or eliminated.
Now what could happen is one of two things. Either the benefits get cut to match the tax revenue at that time (estimates I've seen is that SS can drop to about 70% of what it is now), or that payroll taxes will increase, and the cap raised or eliminated.
You could also eat less to save money on a declining income but eventually you'll be eating so little that you won't have the energy to get up and eat. Such actions have been attempted by empires throughout history - Julius Caesar attempted to do something very similar and was assassinated for it.
In all likelihood, that generation will simply raise taxes to the point where they can pay for the benefits. The odds that old people are going to be like, "Welp, I guess we have to just die now," are basically zero. They, whoever they are, will simply vote for whichever party promises most sincerely to fix the situation by taxing everyone else to pay.
People are already moving from high tax states to ones with no income tax. They won't stick around to simply die, so where will the taxes come from when the population is dwindling and there's no incentive to stay with rising tax rates?
There's a reason places with little to no taxation are flush with funds.
There's a reason places with little to no taxation are flush with funds.
> There's a reason places with little to no taxation are flush with funds.
Places with little to no taxation are not flush with funds. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-t... The generally red, generally low tax southeast and southwest states have about half the revenue per capita of the generally blue, generally high tax states in the northeast and far west. Where did you get this funny idea that collecting few taxes leads to collecting lots of taxes?
Places with little to no taxation are not flush with funds. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/state-and-local-t... The generally red, generally low tax southeast and southwest states have about half the revenue per capita of the generally blue, generally high tax states in the northeast and far west. Where did you get this funny idea that collecting few taxes leads to collecting lots of taxes?
It seems you assume I was taking about tax collection and government being highly funded - I'm referring to the economy as a whole, of which government is only one component; preferably a shrinking one.
Investment is accelerating in low and no-tax countries or regions while it is waning in high-tax locations. There is a growing realization that silicon valley is not all it's cracked up to be.
Simple incentive structures explain a great deal of capital movement.
Investment is accelerating in low and no-tax countries or regions while it is waning in high-tax locations. There is a growing realization that silicon valley is not all it's cracked up to be.
Simple incentive structures explain a great deal of capital movement.
Even that is not true. Texas is doing well, sure enough, but so are New York and California.
I will not do business in California or NY due to excessive costs. Many others are either already moved out or are scaling back in high tax areas; Florida, Puerto Rico and Texas seem to be the top tax-friendly destinations currently.
There is still plenty of activity in CA & NY on a sheer volume basis but the barriers are high, the types of businesses are shifting[1] in a detrimental manner and the overall trend is declining.
Don't get stuck in a purely domestic perspective. Absentee ownership is rising in many major cities due to international capital seeking safe havens for preservation of wealth - empty dwellings purchased at high rates results in elevated prices for working individuals, ensnaring them in a life-long debt cycle. If CA & NY continue resorting to taxation as the primary method for increasing revenue, they will end up like Detroit.
Rome's final collapse occurred over the span of approximately a decade and offers a glimpse at what is likely to occur: taxes became oppressive and property owners simply walked away because it no longer made financial sense - the benefits are outweighed by the costs.
How much more revenue loss can be endured by property owners in NYC before capitulation? They can hold out for a while and everything will appear to be doing alright, then the stampede begins and collapse takes place so fast you'll wonder what happened.
[1] https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/10/how-manhattan-became-ri...
There is still plenty of activity in CA & NY on a sheer volume basis but the barriers are high, the types of businesses are shifting[1] in a detrimental manner and the overall trend is declining.
Don't get stuck in a purely domestic perspective. Absentee ownership is rising in many major cities due to international capital seeking safe havens for preservation of wealth - empty dwellings purchased at high rates results in elevated prices for working individuals, ensnaring them in a life-long debt cycle. If CA & NY continue resorting to taxation as the primary method for increasing revenue, they will end up like Detroit.
Rome's final collapse occurred over the span of approximately a decade and offers a glimpse at what is likely to occur: taxes became oppressive and property owners simply walked away because it no longer made financial sense - the benefits are outweighed by the costs.
How much more revenue loss can be endured by property owners in NYC before capitulation? They can hold out for a while and everything will appear to be doing alright, then the stampede begins and collapse takes place so fast you'll wonder what happened.
[1] https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/10/how-manhattan-became-ri...
I live in Manhattan and I can promise you it is no ghost town. I don't know too much about the historical record on Rome, but from reading Wikipedia, your hypothesis doesn't seem well supported. It is taxes on the poor that contributed most toward the instability, while the rich were given a pass. That's the opposite of what we do here.
A highly dense population will always experience activity. Unless you're going into private properties, which is generally a prosecutable offence so don't do it, you wouldn't know which buildings have high or low occupancy. This is reflected by a decline in a number of luxury real estate markets worldwide - the lights are on, but nobody's home.
Taxes across the board became oppressive in Rome - it was corruption that funneled funds to those who benefited. Not all wealthy are the same in their quest for control and power, or lack thereof.
Coinage records show a rapid collapse in the economy after a long period of gradual decay[1].
There is nothing new under the sun.
[1] https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/west-is-imp...
Taxes across the board became oppressive in Rome - it was corruption that funneled funds to those who benefited. Not all wealthy are the same in their quest for control and power, or lack thereof.
Coinage records show a rapid collapse in the economy after a long period of gradual decay[1].
There is nothing new under the sun.
[1] https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/west-is-imp...
That's funny, I moved from TX to NY, I remember my public high school couldn't afford enough books. Somehow the lack of taxation didn't help with that.
No other factors are provided: were you in an affluent area? What other demographics influenced your school? Is there a high ratio of homeschooling or private schools to public schooling?
Your anecdote is one data point, nowhere near enough to draw conclusions about the entire state.
Your anecdote is one data point, nowhere near enough to draw conclusions about the entire state.
Wealthier people also receive much greater benefits from the government. The court system makes complex contracts possible in a way that really only benefits holders of capital. Infrastructure for transportation and information technology benefits everyone, but especially people who own companies that ship goods and deliver services over the internet. Government contracts benefit people who have a stake in the companies that service those contracts. The police tend to provide better protection to wealthier people in wealthier communities, who have more to lose from property crimes in any case.
In case you're not persuaded that people who can afford to pay more taxes should pay a greater share, all of these things are valid reasons for the wealthy to kick in a lot more of their wealth, in relative and absolute terms, than other people.
In case you're not persuaded that people who can afford to pay more taxes should pay a greater share, all of these things are valid reasons for the wealthy to kick in a lot more of their wealth, in relative and absolute terms, than other people.
User fees are a much more accurate way to charge heavy infrastructure users their fair share.
The better police, schools, etc. in wealthy communities are funded by the higher property taxes there.
The better police, schools, etc. in wealthy communities are funded by the higher property taxes there.
Except then you often hurt those who can least afford it, those who have to live further away from their jobs due to costs and thus use infrastructure more to make it to work.
It can be considered in terms that wealth would be effectively entirely without meaning (whoever was stronger than you could just club you over the head and steal it) without strong organized governments.
At policy level, is this the most robust tax system you want to build heading into the future?
What happens when one of those people/families decides to shift their residence?
It happened to NJ a while back https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer...
What happens when one of those people/families decides to shift their residence?
It happened to NJ a while back https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer...
What kind of anti-capitalist talk is this? How can you justify saying wealthy people receive more benefits? Poor people receive money from the government, like straight up cash on a debit card. They receive an hourly bonus through the earned income tax credit. They can receive free health care through Medicaid. The court system makes contracts fair and equitable precisely so that poor people aren’t taken advantage of. Check out all the mortgage/ home title papers you have to sign to get a house. And police are absolutely not providing better protection. If anything, they use the well off neighborhoods to raise some speeding ticket money.
As a European I'm genuinely not sure whether this is satire or not.
Not satire - if you can provide more concrete examples of how the rich receive more benefits from the government, I’m open for learning.
I think it's down to how we define "more". In dollar amounts then no. You're correct.
But in terms of value? Almost by definition, the rich are benefiting from the status quo more than the poor and it seems to be a strange feat of logic to argue that they are getting the raw end of the deal.
It's not like the wealthy ever go "those people on benefits have it easy. Hell. I'm going to join them".
But in terms of value? Almost by definition, the rich are benefiting from the status quo more than the poor and it seems to be a strange feat of logic to argue that they are getting the raw end of the deal.
It's not like the wealthy ever go "those people on benefits have it easy. Hell. I'm going to join them".
No, they don’t say they want to join the poor, but I think wealthy people think the government is not really involved much in their day to day life, whereas I don’t think poor people can say the same.
Let's say Wal-mart pays so little that their workers regularly have to go on food stamps to get by. Are those workers benefitting the most, or is Wal-mart? Working for low wages while additionally being held to the strictures of a government program is a double-dose of agency removal.
Pick a post from this site: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/
Ha, 3/4 of the page of an anti-capitalism website is trying to convince people to give them money.
This is true of any non-profit as well. Salvation Army, goodwill... your point is not a point. Just a comment that everyone needs to eat.
I used to work for a US bank. It’s not.
As an American I can’t tell either.
I think it’s hard to argue the wealthy obtain more benefits overall, but I think it’s fair to point out that there are some ways in which they (we, I’m in the top 2% in the UK but only just) do benefit more but are not charged for it.
> Wealthier people also receive much greater benefits from the government.
I've seen this said a few times before - I'm kind of confused on what this means? I'm technically in the top few percent (idk exactly where) and I receive less from government than I did when I was an undergraduate in college. I'm from a poorer family, so the government was straight up paying my family in the past.
I don't think this is remotely true, and if you're arguing that it's protection or something, I'm also calling B.S.. for my taxes I can easily hire a full time body guard, buy a few machine guns and make my house and car a fortress, and after some napkin math, I could still probably pay 10% taxes to keep the roads up (as opposed to the graduated 45% I pay).
The vast majority of taxes go to medicare, Medicaid, social security, and payments to foreign countries. I honestly do not see any benefit to me from any of the above. And the people who benefit from the prior mentioned, are also zero threat to me (retired, sick, etc.).
Not saying we should get rid of it, but it's definitely not benifiting me.
Edit: just for reference, I refused any government grants for school and took up a job to start paying for my own food / clothing when my parents started getting welfare. I didn't want to be a hypocrite at then (at 13), so I can say stuff like this now.
I've seen this said a few times before - I'm kind of confused on what this means? I'm technically in the top few percent (idk exactly where) and I receive less from government than I did when I was an undergraduate in college. I'm from a poorer family, so the government was straight up paying my family in the past.
I don't think this is remotely true, and if you're arguing that it's protection or something, I'm also calling B.S.. for my taxes I can easily hire a full time body guard, buy a few machine guns and make my house and car a fortress, and after some napkin math, I could still probably pay 10% taxes to keep the roads up (as opposed to the graduated 45% I pay).
The vast majority of taxes go to medicare, Medicaid, social security, and payments to foreign countries. I honestly do not see any benefit to me from any of the above. And the people who benefit from the prior mentioned, are also zero threat to me (retired, sick, etc.).
Not saying we should get rid of it, but it's definitely not benifiting me.
Edit: just for reference, I refused any government grants for school and took up a job to start paying for my own food / clothing when my parents started getting welfare. I didn't want to be a hypocrite at then (at 13), so I can say stuff like this now.
An ordered society with a stable government is a necessary precondition to building a business like say Facebook. (In the absence of a State, your best bet as a nerd is to try to make yourself as useful as possible to the most powerful warlord who will have you.) In that sense, Facebook's shareholders and employees receive a lot more benefits from the existence of government than say a day laborer.
Exactly. The tax rates in Somalia are very low, but there's a reason that rich tech geeks are not rushing to set up shop there.
I urge you to look at spending, you can have a stable government at 1/4 the cost or less. That's kind of my point.
heydenberk was talking about benefits--rich people, whose wealth is built on large-scale organization and sophisticated transactions, benefit more (in absolute terms) from government than poor people. You're talking about costs--can we decrease costs dramatically and still get the benefits of a stable government? The answer to that is probably "yes."
That gets us into the realm of political philosophy. What is the purpose of government? Achieving stability at the lowest cost? My view is that, once you yoke people under the boot of the State, you're morally obligated to give them Democracy. And in a Democracy, people will tend to vote for policies that maximize the benefit to the middle 50% or so, which is going to lead to a larger government than the minimum necessary to ensure stability. (In my view, thus, an anarchist libertarian society is not possible, while a statist libertarian society is fundamentally immoral.)
That gets us into the realm of political philosophy. What is the purpose of government? Achieving stability at the lowest cost? My view is that, once you yoke people under the boot of the State, you're morally obligated to give them Democracy. And in a Democracy, people will tend to vote for policies that maximize the benefit to the middle 50% or so, which is going to lead to a larger government than the minimum necessary to ensure stability. (In my view, thus, an anarchist libertarian society is not possible, while a statist libertarian society is fundamentally immoral.)
As for statist libertarian, I only partly agree. I think you can both have a democracy and a political system that is fairly libertarian. I depends what you call a democracy, a pure 51% majority rule, then its true, but in my opinion that is equally as immoral as a libertarian state.
However, I do think that a combination of democracy and a founding system, constitution or whatever can be better.
Switzerland is a example of a country that is very democratic but its more libertarian in many ways then most other democracies. That has probably to do with the way the system is set up outside of the pure democracy idea.
Not sure why you claim anarchist libertarian society is not possible, seems that has little to do with your post.
However, I do think that a combination of democracy and a founding system, constitution or whatever can be better.
Switzerland is a example of a country that is very democratic but its more libertarian in many ways then most other democracies. That has probably to do with the way the system is set up outside of the pure democracy idea.
Not sure why you claim anarchist libertarian society is not possible, seems that has little to do with your post.
US Government spending as a % of GDP: 37.6%
Switzerland government spending as a % of GDP: 34%
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
Strip out the military (where the US spends quite a bit maintaining global hegemony), and the Swiss have a bigger government than the US.
Switzerland government spending as a % of GDP: 34%
https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm
Strip out the military (where the US spends quite a bit maintaining global hegemony), and the Swiss have a bigger government than the US.
Yes, and Switzerland and US both are pretty small. Compare Switzerland to the countries around it.
My point was not that Switzerland is a libertarian paradise but rather that it is not true that more democracy makes the government larger.
My point was not that Switzerland is a libertarian paradise but rather that it is not true that more democracy makes the government larger.
> Not sure why you claim anarchist libertarian society is not possible, seems that has little to do with your post.
Anarchist libertarianism solves the moral quandry of statist libertarianism, which is imposing a state on people but restricting the ability of people to use their vote to create a big government. I just don’t think it’s possible and would inevitably degenerate into feudalism. Central to anarchist libertarianism is the idea that coercion through violence is wrongful. True or not, violence is one of the most basic interactions that exists between oeganisms. You can’t wish it away, just control it by e.g. consolidating it into a State that has greater power to exercise violence than any group of individuals.
Anarchist libertarianism solves the moral quandry of statist libertarianism, which is imposing a state on people but restricting the ability of people to use their vote to create a big government. I just don’t think it’s possible and would inevitably degenerate into feudalism. Central to anarchist libertarianism is the idea that coercion through violence is wrongful. True or not, violence is one of the most basic interactions that exists between oeganisms. You can’t wish it away, just control it by e.g. consolidating it into a State that has greater power to exercise violence than any group of individuals.
I didn't really want to into argument about libertarian anarchism but I just didn't see your point directly relating to the rest of your post.
But your argument, inherent bias toward centralisation is the old and traditional argument that statist libertarian also use. Nozick is most well known for that argument.
I don't want to really argue for it to much, just want to make clear that, its not about 'wishing' anything away. Violence is reduced if some level of balance of power exists and conflict resumption is available and the believe is that this could exist without government.
As this is Hacker News its not the place for this argument, I would just recommend 'Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice' as a great book on this. It includes chapters by different people arguing the two positions, and some other nice content about the subject.
But your argument, inherent bias toward centralisation is the old and traditional argument that statist libertarian also use. Nozick is most well known for that argument.
I don't want to really argue for it to much, just want to make clear that, its not about 'wishing' anything away. Violence is reduced if some level of balance of power exists and conflict resumption is available and the believe is that this could exist without government.
As this is Hacker News its not the place for this argument, I would just recommend 'Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice' as a great book on this. It includes chapters by different people arguing the two positions, and some other nice content about the subject.
How many of Capital One's customers do you think benefit from social services like Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security?
Just because the checks aren't going straight into your bank account doesn't mean you don't benefit from these things.
Just because the checks aren't going straight into your bank account doesn't mean you don't benefit from these things.
100% of the funds for those come from taxes... Meaning, Capital One would likely make more money if those customers weren’t using those welfare services.
Think for an instances, where their hospital bills would go?
More than that, there’s the loss value due to the overhead of redistribution. Imo again if we are just looking at my salary, I’d be better off without the payroll taxes from both angles.
Think for an instances, where their hospital bills would go?
More than that, there’s the loss value due to the overhead of redistribution. Imo again if we are just looking at my salary, I’d be better off without the payroll taxes from both angles.
Complex contracts? Pretty sure the rich pay for their own lawyers for those.
And you’re also not looking beyond first order beneficiaries. The factory worker also benefits from the court system that allows for complex contracts as it allows his employer to operate and him to have a job.
And you’re also not looking beyond first order beneficiaries. The factory worker also benefits from the court system that allows for complex contracts as it allows his employer to operate and him to have a job.
Absolutely.
1. Forced Arbitration clauses in an employment contract.
2. Successful reduction of workplace safety laws.
3. Easy relocation of factories and capital to low-wage locations.
4. Poor environmental protections
5. the elimination of defined benefit pension programs
6. CEO income being 400-1000x greater than average worker at same firm.
Oh, I see you are talking about factory workers in South-East Asia.
1. Forced Arbitration clauses in an employment contract.
2. Successful reduction of workplace safety laws.
3. Easy relocation of factories and capital to low-wage locations.
4. Poor environmental protections
5. the elimination of defined benefit pension programs
6. CEO income being 400-1000x greater than average worker at same firm.
Oh, I see you are talking about factory workers in South-East Asia.
The problem with your comment is that it assumes that because someone benefits more from something they represent the bulk of the cost of that thing. That's just not true.
Or that taxation should be made pro rata of the utility someone derives from something which is an odd idea.
Once you give up that calculus you will be hard-pressed to defend these levels of taxation without consciously conceding that this is in fact organized racket. You can dress it with a skirt and call it necessary, moral, or utilitarian, it's still the same beast underneath.
Or that taxation should be made pro rata of the utility someone derives from something which is an odd idea.
Once you give up that calculus you will be hard-pressed to defend these levels of taxation without consciously conceding that this is in fact organized racket. You can dress it with a skirt and call it necessary, moral, or utilitarian, it's still the same beast underneath.
I just don't think that is true.
> The court system makes complex contracts possible in a way that really only benefits holders of capital.
The court system is not all that expensive to run. Furthermore, just enforcing arbitrary contract would also allow most of these contracts.
> Infrastructure for transportation and information technology benefits everyone, but especially people who own companies that ship goods and deliver services over the internet.
Again, infrastructure is not the major cost of the government. Secondly, many people who make their living form simple stuff like pluming NEED the roads to make money also.
I think its hard to argue that OVERALL, richer people profit more from infrastructure then poorer.
> The police tend to provide better protection to wealthier people in wealthier communities, who have more to lose from property crimes in any case.
Again, the police is actually not a major cost of the government.
Furthermore, property protection is a pretty small part of police work and there a LARGER force of private security already operating to do that.
> Government contracts benefit people who have a stake in the companies that service those contracts.
That point I actually agree with.
> The court system makes complex contracts possible in a way that really only benefits holders of capital.
The court system is not all that expensive to run. Furthermore, just enforcing arbitrary contract would also allow most of these contracts.
> Infrastructure for transportation and information technology benefits everyone, but especially people who own companies that ship goods and deliver services over the internet.
Again, infrastructure is not the major cost of the government. Secondly, many people who make their living form simple stuff like pluming NEED the roads to make money also.
I think its hard to argue that OVERALL, richer people profit more from infrastructure then poorer.
> The police tend to provide better protection to wealthier people in wealthier communities, who have more to lose from property crimes in any case.
Again, the police is actually not a major cost of the government.
Furthermore, property protection is a pretty small part of police work and there a LARGER force of private security already operating to do that.
> Government contracts benefit people who have a stake in the companies that service those contracts.
That point I actually agree with.
This is so much BS. Wealthy people slide their income into whole owned businesses. Those businesses use deductions to reduce their income in ways that you or I can't.
Simple example, to avoid paying income tax on $40,000
1. Create a business.
2. That business buys a car.
3. That business then leases the car to the business's owner
4. The owner as an independent contractor to the business deducts the 'cost' of leasing the car.
5. The business depreciates the car net the lease 'income'.
Result: The cost of the new car is a tax deduction for the business.
The business owner never has to take the $40,000 to go out and buy the car themselves.
How about that fancy mansion?
Also simple!
1. Have a separate LLC buy the house.
2. Host company events at the mansion.
3. The company pays a high fee for the privilege of hosting the CEO's Christmas party at the CEO's house.
4. All the CEO has to do is make sure to invite enough customers' CEOs to the event and it becomes an IRS approved business function.
Simple example, to avoid paying income tax on $40,000
1. Create a business.
2. That business buys a car.
3. That business then leases the car to the business's owner
4. The owner as an independent contractor to the business deducts the 'cost' of leasing the car.
5. The business depreciates the car net the lease 'income'.
Result: The cost of the new car is a tax deduction for the business.
The business owner never has to take the $40,000 to go out and buy the car themselves.
How about that fancy mansion?
Also simple!
1. Have a separate LLC buy the house.
2. Host company events at the mansion.
3. The company pays a high fee for the privilege of hosting the CEO's Christmas party at the CEO's house.
4. All the CEO has to do is make sure to invite enough customers' CEOs to the event and it becomes an IRS approved business function.
In other news, top 3% of us taxpayers earned the majority of income in 2016
So you’re willing to concede that the rich pay their fair share?
Please define fair, and rich.
Isn't the other half of the statistic something like "the top 0.1% of U.S. taxpayers earned majority of income"?
How did you come up with that?
The article just says that top 3% of US taxpayers pay the majority of income taxes.
If they pay 60% of all income tax paid, but have e.g. 80% of income, they're still paying "the majority of income taxes", but not a fair share of them.
The article just says that top 3% of US taxpayers pay the majority of income taxes.
If they pay 60% of all income tax paid, but have e.g. 80% of income, they're still paying "the majority of income taxes", but not a fair share of them.
Your hypothetical is not the case (as you can see in one of the graphs in the article).
I don't know what "fair share" means exactly, but the 3% in question make far less a % of national income than they pay in income taxes.
I don't know what "fair share" means exactly, but the 3% in question make far less a % of national income than they pay in income taxes.
My hypothetical was an extreme example to show how this can be still fair.
Besides this extreme example, you can get the 3% much lower in their share of income and still be justified for the taxes they pay.
Say, a person makes 1M year and a 999999 people make 10K per year. The first person earns just 0,01% of the total income combined, but he might be the only one paying taxes if the others are below the taxable income level.
So, he might pay e.g. 20% of 1M (and 100% of taxes), while he only makes 0.01% of the income -- and that could still be fair.
Now add many dirt poor, many middle class, and a 3% of upper middle class, millionaires, billionaires and so on.
Besides this extreme example, you can get the 3% much lower in their share of income and still be justified for the taxes they pay.
Say, a person makes 1M year and a 999999 people make 10K per year. The first person earns just 0,01% of the total income combined, but he might be the only one paying taxes if the others are below the taxable income level.
So, he might pay e.g. 20% of 1M (and 100% of taxes), while he only makes 0.01% of the income -- and that could still be fair.
Now add many dirt poor, many middle class, and a 3% of upper middle class, millionaires, billionaires and so on.
sintaxi(1)
No chance. There are lies and there are statistics. It misses the point about local taxes and fees.
If you flip it around, and ask, how much of your total income is used to pay taxes and fees for federal, state, and local taxes, the ones at the lower end will be paying a much higher percentage of their income.
There is only so much you actually have to pay for when you become rich where the folks on the lower end must pay for certain things that take a larger part of their income.
No chance it is “fair” and we know who is writing the tax laws.
If you flip it around, and ask, how much of your total income is used to pay taxes and fees for federal, state, and local taxes, the ones at the lower end will be paying a much higher percentage of their income.
There is only so much you actually have to pay for when you become rich where the folks on the lower end must pay for certain things that take a larger part of their income.
No chance it is “fair” and we know who is writing the tax laws.
If you flip it around, and ask, how much of your total income is used to pay taxes and fees for federal, state, and local taxes, the ones at the lower end will be paying a much higher percentage of their income.
This is simply false.
One can certainly argue that our tax code should be more progressive than it is, but denying that it is progressive at all is contradicted by the facts.
This is simply false.
One can certainly argue that our tax code should be more progressive than it is, but denying that it is progressive at all is contradicted by the facts.
Progressive for federal income taxes, yes. But overall progressive, the answer is simply no.
Many places switched from part of income tax to fees. Skyrocketed increase for fees to national parks this past year. Went up 300% for a weekly pass. You apply that over and over again in many parts of your life, and it adds up.
It just simply costs more of the percentage of your income to live and because of it, it takes a bigger chunk of your income and thus isn’t progressive.
Lastly, Social Security is a kicker for the one thing that is flat out regressive. Capital gains pays zilch for it, and it stops at 127K or so of income. That tax is burdened by the middle class.
That’s chump change for the wealthy, but anyone hit by it is burdened less and less the more money they make.
And don’t tell me it’s a “fund”. That’s not how the GOP acts with it.
Many places switched from part of income tax to fees. Skyrocketed increase for fees to national parks this past year. Went up 300% for a weekly pass. You apply that over and over again in many parts of your life, and it adds up.
It just simply costs more of the percentage of your income to live and because of it, it takes a bigger chunk of your income and thus isn’t progressive.
Lastly, Social Security is a kicker for the one thing that is flat out regressive. Capital gains pays zilch for it, and it stops at 127K or so of income. That tax is burdened by the middle class.
That’s chump change for the wealthy, but anyone hit by it is burdened less and less the more money they make.
And don’t tell me it’s a “fund”. That’s not how the GOP acts with it.
There are publicly available stats on this stuff. You can look them up on the IRS website. They disagree with your assertion.
Do you think marginal utility factors into fairness?
[deleted]
That doesn't actually follow, since average tax rates increase as you earn more.
I dont think it's true. Remember Buffet saying that his tax is less than his secretary's?
Specifically top 1% average rate is 27% while top 0.001 - 24%.
Specifically top 1% average rate is 27% while top 0.001 - 24%.
His effective tax percentage he meant. Since he has so many tax write-offs, capital gains distributions and carried interest, he was referring to the taxes he paid divided by the total money he earned. One can assume his secretary had only her income and the standard deduction.
That’s mostly irrelevant. If you had a trillion dollars in muni bonds and no other income, your federal tax rate would be zero. (And that’s a constitutional thing, too).
The other aspect is long term capital gains rate. Raising that has historically hurt capital formation, which, while it hurts those at the top, creates situations like the late 70’s for the rest of the population.
The other aspect is long term capital gains rate. Raising that has historically hurt capital formation, which, while it hurts those at the top, creates situations like the late 70’s for the rest of the population.
Buffett said that because he wants other to pay more tax. If he so wants to pay more tax as law requires it, then all he has to do is lobby Washington get rid of the “Dividend Received Deduction” or DRD, which he is the biggest beneficiary.
DRD is when a company, in this case Bershire Hathaway, received a dividend payment from a company they owned, Bershire can exempt up to 80% of the dividend from the income tax.
I love Buffett dearly and I think he is a great person. But when it come to tax, he is a hypocrite.
DRD is when a company, in this case Bershire Hathaway, received a dividend payment from a company they owned, Bershire can exempt up to 80% of the dividend from the income tax.
I love Buffett dearly and I think he is a great person. But when it come to tax, he is a hypocrite.
The drd doesn't effect his personal tax rate, it only affects Berthshire Hatheways tax rate.
It doesn't need to "follow." It is simply a fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Tax is paid on income. You linked to something about wealth.
I linked to an article with a section on Income Inequality as part of the larger topic of Wealth Inequality. Here's a direct quote from that very link:
> According to US economist Joseph Stiglitz the richest 1% of Americans gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010.[44][45] A study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty showed that the top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago.[46] People in the top one percent were three times more likely to work more than 50 hours a week, were more likely to be self-employed, and earned a fifth of their income as capital income.[47] The top one percent was composed of many professions and had an annual turnover rate of more than 25%.[48] The five most common professions were managers, physicians, administrators, lawyers, and teachers.[47]
Did you read what I linked or just read the title? There's literally an entire section on the topic of income inequality, but nobody took even the time to read the subsection headers let alone the actual section?
> According to US economist Joseph Stiglitz the richest 1% of Americans gained 93% of the additional income created in 2010.[44][45] A study by Emmanuel Saez and Piketty showed that the top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting the relevant data a century ago.[46] People in the top one percent were three times more likely to work more than 50 hours a week, were more likely to be self-employed, and earned a fifth of their income as capital income.[47] The top one percent was composed of many professions and had an annual turnover rate of more than 25%.[48] The five most common professions were managers, physicians, administrators, lawyers, and teachers.[47]
Did you read what I linked or just read the title? There's literally an entire section on the topic of income inequality, but nobody took even the time to read the subsection headers let alone the actual section?
The OP is about income tax, not assets & wealth. Two very different subjects.
Wealth and income are not the same thing.
The top 1% earned 23% of all income.
They also paid 40% of all income taxes.
They also paid 40% of all income taxes.
Not true.
If you read the article, you'll find a graph which shows the fractions of income: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itOyNXaN9ah...
The top 3% of US taxpayers had a combined ~28% of income. You have to go up to the top ~12% of US taxpayers to accumulate 50% of income.
If you read the article, you'll find a graph which shows the fractions of income: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itOyNXaN9ah...
The top 3% of US taxpayers had a combined ~28% of income. You have to go up to the top ~12% of US taxpayers to accumulate 50% of income.
What % of discretional income did the top 3% have?
Not sure what you mean by "discretional". Disposable (after-tax) income? Or discretionary income (which depends on where you draw the line for a "basic standard of living)?
In either case, this is irrelevant to the fact that getcrunk made a false claim.
In either case, this is irrelevant to the fact that getcrunk made a false claim.
The NY times recently ran a story about Jared Kushner paying no, or almost no taxes after showing a loss by using some legal, but creative accounting around depreciation. I've heard the same thing about owners of sports teams.
So, when it comes to the 1% it can be hard to measure who's actually in it.
So, when it comes to the 1% it can be hard to measure who's actually in it.
Asset depreciation is at best a temporary game - for example I racked up depreciation on a rental property, and during the years I did so, I paid less in taxes. When I sold the property I had to account for that depreciation and pay taxes on all of it.
There is a big difference between cherry picked examples and what happens on average.
We’ve all heard of millionaires paying no taxes, yet the top 0.1% pay an effective rate of 36% on average (too lazy to look up source again).
We’ve all heard of millionaires paying no taxes, yet the top 0.1% pay an effective rate of 36% on average (too lazy to look up source again).
There’s a lot of talk about wether this is ‘fair’ or not - let’s set that aside and ask if it’s good policy to have so much of the country’s revenue depend on the income of so few people.
Does this make the government more or less beholden to the rich? Does this put the government more or less at risk of exposure to financial events that only impact the wealthy? And does this incent the government to enact policies that increase the wealth of the top 3% over the bottom 30%?
Those are the questions we should be focusing on - not what’s ‘fair’. Life isn’t fair - if it were the wealth of the top 3% would be determined by how hard they work and how much good their work does to society. That’s not how we live, so let’s get back to crafting our society based on what’s good for it as a whole instead of how we feel about how much tax someone else pays.
Does this make the government more or less beholden to the rich? Does this put the government more or less at risk of exposure to financial events that only impact the wealthy? And does this incent the government to enact policies that increase the wealth of the top 3% over the bottom 30%?
Those are the questions we should be focusing on - not what’s ‘fair’. Life isn’t fair - if it were the wealth of the top 3% would be determined by how hard they work and how much good their work does to society. That’s not how we live, so let’s get back to crafting our society based on what’s good for it as a whole instead of how we feel about how much tax someone else pays.
How would shifting the tax burden more onto the poor reduce the influence of the rich on the government?
It seems like the wealthy's influence on politics is two fold. Indirect, people who get elected to Congress have wealthy friends, and interact more with wealthy people. I.e. they have way more friends that are doctors than burger flippers.
Direct, wealthy people and directly contributing larges amounts of money to access politicians.
It seems like the first would be unaffected, and the second would mbe made worse because the poor would have less, and the rich more disposable income to use to donate to and influence politics more.
It seems like the wealthy's influence on politics is two fold. Indirect, people who get elected to Congress have wealthy friends, and interact more with wealthy people. I.e. they have way more friends that are doctors than burger flippers.
Direct, wealthy people and directly contributing larges amounts of money to access politicians.
It seems like the first would be unaffected, and the second would mbe made worse because the poor would have less, and the rich more disposable income to use to donate to and influence politics more.
Well said.
The way I see it, we are all very closely tied together economically at all income levels. The top few percent don’t carry their wealth off into space, they spend it in shops and restaurants, they invest it in businesses even if indurectly through pension plans and funds. They employ basically everyone else one way or another.
On the other hand, they benefit from living in a stable society, with fair and equitable laws and a skilled healthy work force. We all do, but it has to be paid for somehow.
Here in the UK we faced this issue the hard way in World War 1. Many young men called to service were malnourished, sickly and unfit for duty. It became clear that a national effort to educate, economically support and maintain the health of the general population was a matter of national security. The consensus around the national health service may have been catalysed by socialists, I’ll give them that, but it gained cross party support because it’s just good governance.
Society doesn’t need to be a brutal zero sum game of haves versus have not’s.
I’m a true believer in capitalism. It’s raised billions of people out of poverty. It’s based on basic principles of individual freedom and responsibility and it works. But it also works best I think when woven into a durable, fair and equitable social fabric. Capitalism needs an educated work force that is healthy and well nourished. To the extent that free markets can provide those things fine, but where they fail to do so ideology should not prevent necessary intervention in the national interest and that needs to be funded somehow.
The way I see it, we are all very closely tied together economically at all income levels. The top few percent don’t carry their wealth off into space, they spend it in shops and restaurants, they invest it in businesses even if indurectly through pension plans and funds. They employ basically everyone else one way or another.
On the other hand, they benefit from living in a stable society, with fair and equitable laws and a skilled healthy work force. We all do, but it has to be paid for somehow.
Here in the UK we faced this issue the hard way in World War 1. Many young men called to service were malnourished, sickly and unfit for duty. It became clear that a national effort to educate, economically support and maintain the health of the general population was a matter of national security. The consensus around the national health service may have been catalysed by socialists, I’ll give them that, but it gained cross party support because it’s just good governance.
Society doesn’t need to be a brutal zero sum game of haves versus have not’s.
I’m a true believer in capitalism. It’s raised billions of people out of poverty. It’s based on basic principles of individual freedom and responsibility and it works. But it also works best I think when woven into a durable, fair and equitable social fabric. Capitalism needs an educated work force that is healthy and well nourished. To the extent that free markets can provide those things fine, but where they fail to do so ideology should not prevent necessary intervention in the national interest and that needs to be funded somehow.
The top 1% paid about 37% of income taxes. They also own over 38% of the wealth and 'took home 85% of income growth between 2009 and 2013. In 15 states, the top 1% captured all income growth during the same four-year period'. Based on this I would argue that they are in no way being taken advantage of and that income disparity is a very real problem that is only getting worse. This also does not include payroll taxes which are almost always paid by the middle and lower class while only sometimes by the wealthy as they are able to leverage their wealth to generate income.
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-one-percent-every-us-sta...
https://www.businessinsider.com/top-one-percent-every-us-sta...
So next time you hear about a tax plan that "benefits the rich", this is why.
It's really hard for a reduction in taxes to benefit the poor because they pay so little in the first place.
It's really hard for a reduction in taxes to benefit the poor because they pay so little in the first place.
It sure doesn't feel that way to some.
$1 is a very different amount depending on your income.
$1 is a very different amount depending on your income.
The "feeling of a $1" is more of an opinion type statement whereas the other comparisons are more fact based.
Let me put it another way.
$1 feels like the difference between eating and not eating to some people whereas other people wouldn't stoop to pick a dollar up from the sidewalk if they dropped it.
How "fact-based" do you need this to be?
$1 feels like the difference between eating and not eating to some people whereas other people wouldn't stoop to pick a dollar up from the sidewalk if they dropped it.
How "fact-based" do you need this to be?
But the question at hand is not income, it's tax reduction.
When you get comparisons in the news about this tax plan or the other, they don't adjust the numbers based on how "$1 feels".
They just use a percent of income - but since low income people pay so little tax in the first place, even a percent reduction looks meager.
When you get comparisons in the news about this tax plan or the other, they don't adjust the numbers based on how "$1 feels".
They just use a percent of income - but since low income people pay so little tax in the first place, even a percent reduction looks meager.
Bingo. This is what annoys me about mainstream pundits always parroting the claim that "those tax cuts were only for the rich".
Earned Income Tax Credit. ( https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-in... )
Indeed, and how much of the income did they make?
Keep in mind when a company "succeeds", they're succeeding on top of trillions of dollars of infrastructure - human capital (enabled by education! try hiring the same talent in an underdeveloped country), the transportation, subsidized energy production & grid, and municipal infrastructure underpinning movement of physical goods & digital goods; and finally the public order that assures safety of people, and the enforceability of contracts.
Keep in mind when a company "succeeds", they're succeeding on top of trillions of dollars of infrastructure - human capital (enabled by education! try hiring the same talent in an underdeveloped country), the transportation, subsidized energy production & grid, and municipal infrastructure underpinning movement of physical goods & digital goods; and finally the public order that assures safety of people, and the enforceability of contracts.
This is the Elizabeth Warren argument. It fails to point out that those trillions of dollars of infrastructure was paid for already with taxes (which the top 10% mostly account for). So when she spouts the “they’re only successful because of the roads, the schools, blah blah” you can rephrase that as “they’re only successful because of the taxes they’ve already paid into the system”.
A lot of it is property taxes, payroll taxes, local taxes etc. and in any event, paid by a different generation. If we're willing to go further back, let's also not forget that a lot of this was achieved by slave labor & after emancipation, an entire people denied basic civil rights. In any event, it was not as if Bill Gates paid for the Hoover Dam. Keep in mind some of the tools for creating capital and income was not available to large swathes of society - like access to subsidized higher education, homesteads / farmsteads, and mortgages. These are federal means to build capital which sets the stage for earning higher incomes.
>> let's also not forget that a lot of this was achieved by slave labor
C’mon, you know this isn’t accurate at all, “a lot” is just an over the top false statement.
C’mon, you know this isn’t accurate at all, “a lot” is just an over the top false statement.
"... and continue to pay into the system"
Infrastructure isn't a one time cost.
Infrastructure isn't a one time cost.
good point, never thought of it that way
The trick isn't getting them to pay the majority of income tax, the trick nobody has succeeded at (but desperately want to) is to get them not to want a proportionally larger say in the government for that money.
IE people want rich folks to simultaneously pay most of the money the government is getting from income taxes but also
1. Not get a larger say automatically
2. Not spend a lot of money on politics to try to get that larger say.
Regardless of whether one thinks these are good goals, neither is really happening right now, nor has it ever really happened (at least in the US).
(and the position that you just have to take away enough of their money through taxes that they can't afford to do that is clearly silly in a variety of ways. About the only thing it shows is that you can't scale your government effectively)
IE people want rich folks to simultaneously pay most of the money the government is getting from income taxes but also
1. Not get a larger say automatically
2. Not spend a lot of money on politics to try to get that larger say.
Regardless of whether one thinks these are good goals, neither is really happening right now, nor has it ever really happened (at least in the US).
(and the position that you just have to take away enough of their money through taxes that they can't afford to do that is clearly silly in a variety of ways. About the only thing it shows is that you can't scale your government effectively)
This is highschool math. Lets say you someone earning 70k and someone else 30k. Even with a flat tax rate of 10% the 70k earner pays 70% of the tax.
Your numbers are overly simplistic and do not reflect reality even closely - we don’t have a flat tax, and the article clearly shows that the top 3% earn about 25% of the income and pay about half of the income tax.
Throwing out completely made up figures when the correct ones are available doesn’t help much.
Throwing out completely made up figures when the correct ones are available doesn’t help much.
Pretty sure his example was just to illustrate his point. He even points out "even if" to show that it is an example and not the current tax system.
Is the point of the article to demonstrate that the tax system is unfair to the rich? If that's the point to be made, they're only looking at the most progressive part of the tax system. Add in payroll, property, state income, unemployment, and sales taxes, and the picture looks quite different.
Actually it doesn’t look that different.
Yes, the top incomes earners might pay 60% of income, but they still pay 50% of all taxes.
Yes, the top incomes earners might pay 60% of income, but they still pay 50% of all taxes.
Remember that national income taxes are but a fraction of total government revenue. It does not include, among other things, consumption taxes (like VAT) which disproportionally affect lower-income people. Nor does it include social security, which has a similar bend.
The thing is, if you own all the wealth, you pay yourself "income" effectively through the rent you're taking off the rest of society. The slaveholders I'm sure paid more taxes than the slaves. There are layers of indirection => you're rich so you can afford/get your way into an expensive university, you're placed in a position through nepotism, you "rise" to a senior directory of a company, you make X million but all you've really done is take your oligarchy shares.
If slaveholding is too extreme consider land-owning, the owner pays more tax than the rentiers, but he has income he's done nothing to achieve. Rentier capitalism is just this with more steps.
I'm sitting in an elite company, of the ten people (I'm not one) making serious money, 5/10 are nepotism hires and the others are socially elite who went to (and paid for) top universities.
If slaveholding is too extreme consider land-owning, the owner pays more tax than the rentiers, but he has income he's done nothing to achieve. Rentier capitalism is just this with more steps.
I'm sitting in an elite company, of the ten people (I'm not one) making serious money, 5/10 are nepotism hires and the others are socially elite who went to (and paid for) top universities.
It feels a little misleading to not emphasize that this is reported income.
On paper the top 0.1% appears to pay more than their fair share (2x proportional vs. their median counterparts paying closer to parity). But as recent articles about Donald Trump and Jared Kushner have highlighted they have both engaged in schemes (legal or not) to reduce the amount of income they have to report to the government.
What would be interesting here is determining the proportion of individuals/households using expensive tax advantaging techniques by each quantile and then try to make some estimate of the actual income for each group is...
On paper the top 0.1% appears to pay more than their fair share (2x proportional vs. their median counterparts paying closer to parity). But as recent articles about Donald Trump and Jared Kushner have highlighted they have both engaged in schemes (legal or not) to reduce the amount of income they have to report to the government.
What would be interesting here is determining the proportion of individuals/households using expensive tax advantaging techniques by each quantile and then try to make some estimate of the actual income for each group is...
These statistics are meant to be polarizing... income taxation may need fine tuning here and there, but seems to be generally fine.
That the top 0.0001% pay a smaller tax rate than the top 1% needs to be fixed though.
That the top 0.0001% pay a smaller tax rate than the top 1% needs to be fixed though.
How are the top .0001% paying a smaller tax rate?
If you are talking about the capital gains rates then there is definitely a huge reason that rate shouldn't be the same as income tax rates for obvious reasons.
If you are talking about the capital gains rates then there is definitely a huge reason that rate shouldn't be the same as income tax rates for obvious reasons.
That makes me recall that "47% paid no income tax".
If we all go to socialism directly, we will be all equally poor. If we stay with capitalism, a gap between rich and poor is part of the deal. Tax rate is one of the key method to stabilize the society, as the poor is the majority(the 80%, or the 99%) and if they struggle for too long a revolution is for sure to happen.
capitalism + welfare to the disabled(only the disabled please) + tax seems like the best solution still.
If we all go to socialism directly, we will be all equally poor. If we stay with capitalism, a gap between rich and poor is part of the deal. Tax rate is one of the key method to stabilize the society, as the poor is the majority(the 80%, or the 99%) and if they struggle for too long a revolution is for sure to happen.
capitalism + welfare to the disabled(only the disabled please) + tax seems like the best solution still.
These labels are getting tiresome. There is not a single socialist state on earth today. It's completely out of the question that the US would ever become such a thing.
The often-cited examples of Scandinavia are capitalistic through and through: It's private enterprises deciding prices, creating products, and generally competing.
That they levy rather high taxes and use them to soften some of the edges of that system's outcomes does in almost no way affect the dynamics within the system. If you're a baker, and your bread isn't good, you still fail and society will be spared suffering your products. You just don't starve.
The often-cited examples of Scandinavia are capitalistic through and through: It's private enterprises deciding prices, creating products, and generally competing.
That they levy rather high taxes and use them to soften some of the edges of that system's outcomes does in almost no way affect the dynamics within the system. If you're a baker, and your bread isn't good, you still fail and society will be spared suffering your products. You just don't starve.
"Pay their fair share"
3% of us are floating 50% of the population. How much more "fair" can we get?
3% of us are floating 50% of the population. How much more "fair" can we get?
”When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: 'Whose?'”
-Don Marquis
“When a topic is complex, offering quotes adds little to the conversation” - Anonymous
Sentences lose meaning over time?
True, Don Marquis will lose meaning after reparations.
“Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit” - Somerset Maugham
Nothing stopping you moving to a low tax environment and conducting all your business there if you think this is 'unfair'.
The concept of fair is alien with civilisation and taxation; society/economy/governments services are all intrinsically linked.
The concept of fair is alien with civilisation and taxation; society/economy/governments services are all intrinsically linked.
Actually the concept of fair is entirely inherent in civilization.
Nature doesn't care for "fair".
It's precisely within a civilization that you can deem a taxation scheme as fair or not.
Nature doesn't care for "fair".
It's precisely within a civilization that you can deem a taxation scheme as fair or not.
Wait, you’re in support of the common practice of wealthy going to tax havens?
The fact the US allows their money to go while they stay in the US is the point of contention.
If rich people want to actually leave then that's fully their right to so, but mysteriously that doesn't happen very much...
If rich people want to actually leave then that's fully their right to so, but mysteriously that doesn't happen very much...
I think they are in support of the uncommon practice of the wealthy living in those tax havens.
47% of the population doesn’t pay any federal income tax at all (Mitt Romney’s famous quote from the 2012 election). How can they justify demanding the rich “pay their fair share”?
Jared Kushner also doesn't pay any federal income tax. Is he not rich?
A popular sentiment was "no taxation without representation". Why not implement "no representation without taxation"? If you don't pay income tax, you don't get to vote that calendar year.
Maybe because it would be the opposite of all democratic principles we cherish and stand for?
Because tethering economic activity to citizenry participation goes against the fundamentals of the us constitution, for one
Because for rich people its trivial to pay income tax (and equally trivial to hire top accountants and lawyers to pay as little as possible, perhaps even less than an average middle class citizen). In any case, a rich person can pay $100K tax and still have tons to spare.
A poor person might not even afford to pay $1K.
A poor person might not even afford to pay $1K.
[deleted]
Why stop there. If you don't pay taxes you aren't entered into the draft system. And finally, only the taxed public will be entered into the state and national reserve.
Because we rich folks don't want to have the extremely exciting and terminal experience of being guillotined?
Also, wow why are we responding to this thoughtless comment, but you realize that income taxes aren't the only types of federal taxes, right?
Also, wow why are we responding to this thoughtless comment, but you realize that income taxes aren't the only types of federal taxes, right?
Why stop there? How about only white male landowners can vote?
because tax stamps are only acceptable to apply against some constitutional rights but not others
[deleted]
There was no income tax for over a third of United States history.
Income tax is immoral for it penalizes lower wage earners proportionally far greater than those generating higher amounts. For an individual spending 70% on living costs and 15% in direct income tax (not counting sales tax, telecommunications fees, etc) there is 15% left over out of $50,000 per year - $7,500 free. For someone in the top tax bracket of perhaps, those numbers may be 25% living costs and 40% taxes; out of $450,000 that leaves $157,500 free - far greater flexibility.
Again, income taxes harm lower income levels far more than higher. You can raise tax rates but then the higher earners simply leave due to their greater flexibility - yet again leaving lower income earners worse off.
It also funds destructive policies that effectively cannot be shut down without reporting to extreme measures. Government never scales back willingly.
Seek the truth of how reality works by observing rather than trying to force it to fit a perspective; you'll find things are very different than you expected.
Income tax is immoral for it penalizes lower wage earners proportionally far greater than those generating higher amounts. For an individual spending 70% on living costs and 15% in direct income tax (not counting sales tax, telecommunications fees, etc) there is 15% left over out of $50,000 per year - $7,500 free. For someone in the top tax bracket of perhaps, those numbers may be 25% living costs and 40% taxes; out of $450,000 that leaves $157,500 free - far greater flexibility.
Again, income taxes harm lower income levels far more than higher. You can raise tax rates but then the higher earners simply leave due to their greater flexibility - yet again leaving lower income earners worse off.
It also funds destructive policies that effectively cannot be shut down without reporting to extreme measures. Government never scales back willingly.
Seek the truth of how reality works by observing rather than trying to force it to fit a perspective; you'll find things are very different than you expected.
This is the problem with much of this inequality talk.
If you actually ask people what they believe to be true, the usually way overestimate how rich the 1% are, and they WAY underestimate how much taxes the 1% pay (or whatever 'richer' group you want pick).
If you ask them about what the 1% SHOULD pay they often pick numbers that are actually below what they actually DO pay.
The problem as in many spaces in politics is that the waste majority of people have no clue about the facts that they are voting on. And they have no intensive to actually learn the facts because their individual vote essentially doesn't matter. This is called rational ignorance, its simply not worth informing yourself about what is voted on.
Voting is way more about proclaiming alliance to some sort of party or set of ideologies.
If you actually ask people what they believe to be true, the usually way overestimate how rich the 1% are, and they WAY underestimate how much taxes the 1% pay (or whatever 'richer' group you want pick).
If you ask them about what the 1% SHOULD pay they often pick numbers that are actually below what they actually DO pay.
The problem as in many spaces in politics is that the waste majority of people have no clue about the facts that they are voting on. And they have no intensive to actually learn the facts because their individual vote essentially doesn't matter. This is called rational ignorance, its simply not worth informing yourself about what is voted on.
Voting is way more about proclaiming alliance to some sort of party or set of ideologies.
> If you ask them about what the 1% SHOULD pay they often pick numbers that are actually below what they actually DO pay.
Not if you ask about the percentage of their income and wealth generated yearly that they should pay. Typically someone will say the mega-rich should pay at least the same percentage as them, per individual. And typically the mega-rich do not in fact pay that same percentage or more. Thanks to capital gains and hiding wealth overseas and in corporations, the mega-rich pay way less as a percentage than the middle or lower class do.
Not if you ask about the percentage of their income and wealth generated yearly that they should pay. Typically someone will say the mega-rich should pay at least the same percentage as them, per individual. And typically the mega-rich do not in fact pay that same percentage or more. Thanks to capital gains and hiding wealth overseas and in corporations, the mega-rich pay way less as a percentage than the middle or lower class do.
According to this source [1] in Fiscal Year 2016 income tax made 47.3% of federal revenue and payroll tax accounted for 34.1%.
I don't know what the exact numbers are if you take both taxes into account, but I do know that the headline [2] is at best grossly misleading because so many people are going to forget about payroll taxes.
[1] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sourc...
[2] "Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016"