The Rich Pay All The Taxes, So Of Course They Huge Tax Cuts

[scombrid]

Rethuglicans want to keep the focus on income tax while they repeal the AMT and inheritance taxes. And all the while, their wealth (the top 1% now owns more shit than the bottom 90% in the US) is un-taxed.
I pay taxes on my income, my home, rental property, cars whether or not they appreciate ... but none on my meager equity holdings (which constitute a small fraction of my net worth) are taxed as "property"..

Feudalism. Pay tribute to our lords and beg for crumbs. My county is doing that. Give huge tax subsidies to MegaCorpX (including not charging them any property tax) in exchange for MegaCorpX jobs. Meanwhile my property tax bill keeps going up to make up the shortfall.

99% of the population should pay 99% of the taxes even if they only hold 1% of the wealth.

Not sure how that is going to fund the government but that seems to be the plan.

Maybe that is why BannonTrump are trying to wreck the government?

Then the multinationals can step in and make us plebes play by their rules exclusively?

 

[Elixir]

99% of the population should pay 99% of the taxes even if they only hold 1% of the wealth.

Well, I'm not sure it's quite that inequitable yet, but... the top 0.1% who own more than the bottom 90% should be paying more tax than the bottom 90%.

 

[Malintent]

99% of the population should pay 99% of the taxes even if they only hold 1% of the wealth.

Well, I'm not sure it's quite that inequitable yet, but... the top 0.1% who own more than the bottom 90% should be paying more tax than the bottom 90%.

... a greater amount, or a greater percentage of their total amount?

 

[Elixir]

Well, I'm not sure it's quite that inequitable yet, but... the top 0.1% who own more than the bottom 90% should be paying more tax than the bottom 90%.

... a greater amount, or a greater percentage of their total amount?

Just a greater amount, proportionate to their percentage of the total wealth. That would help a lot.

 

[Treedbear]

...
... I dislike the idea of eliminating all taxes on the lower brackets. I want to see some tax on all income above the poverty line--everyone should have skin in the game.

I think the problem is more than not having skin in the game and the pride in knowing one contributes to society. It creates a situation in which you suddenly have to start paying some significant portion of your income, therefore abruptly lowering your net income, causing you to think twice about getting that raise or a better job or working harder. It creates an artificial barrier and institutionalizes a lower economic class with all its limitations. But then that's one of the current faults with the ACA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, I was responding to the post discussing reducing taxes on S corps. But I would reduce all taxes on all corporations. Again, I'd prefer a system where wages and distributions were taxed, but companies encouraged to retain profits in order to grow.

Companies presently have retained, what, some $2.3 trillion in profits held offshore? I don't see them using it to grow....

If you want to encourage them to *spend* it, suggest something (e.g., increased limits on expensing capital investments).

Because the tax bite of bringing it home is more than the value of using it. I don't know what the proper fix is here other than I would like to see corporate taxes abolished entirely--tax the distributions instead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rethuglicans want to keep the focus on income tax while they repeal the AMT and inheritance taxes. And all the while, their wealth (the top 1% now owns more shit than the bottom 90% in the US) is un-taxed.
I pay taxes on my income, my home, rental property, cars whether or not they appreciate ... but none on my meager equity holdings (which constitute a small fraction of my net worth) are taxed as "property".

Taxing ALL property including stocks, bonds and other equities would instantly solve deficit problems and quickly mitigate the imbalance of wealth in this country. Do the math - a mere 0.1% annual tax on those holdings would wipe out our debt in just a few years. But let's not talk about that - let's quibble about Cheato's desire to establish a Trump Dynasty...

And take a bite out of everyone's pensions and 401ks and be a real problem for startups that aren't making money yet. Wealth taxes cause the wealth to flee the country.

- - - Updated - - -

...
... I dislike the idea of eliminating all taxes on the lower brackets. I want to see some tax on all income above the poverty line--everyone should have skin in the game.

I think the problem is more than not having skin in the game and the pride in knowing one contributes to society. It creates a situation in which you suddenly have to start paying some significant portion of your income, therefore abruptly lowering your net income, causing you to think twice about getting that raise or a better job or working harder. It creates an artificial barrier and institutionalizes a lower economic class with all its limitations. But then that's one of the current faults with the ACA.

I don't think that the rates should be high until you reach at least upper middle class. I'm just in favor a few percent tax on everyone not in poverty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And take a bite out of everyone's pensions and 401ks and be a real problem for startups that aren't making money yet. Wealth taxes cause the wealth to flee the country.

- - - Updated - - -

...
... I dislike the idea of eliminating all taxes on the lower brackets. I want to see some tax on all income above the poverty line--everyone should have skin in the game.

I think the problem is more than not having skin in the game and the pride in knowing one contributes to society. It creates a situation in which you suddenly have to start paying some significant portion of your income, therefore abruptly lowering your net income, causing you to think twice about getting that raise or a better job or working harder. It creates an artificial barrier and institutionalizes a lower economic class with all its limitations. But then that's one of the current faults with the ACA.

I don't think that the rates should be high until you reach at least upper middle class. I'm just in favor a few percent tax on everyone not in poverty.

Roughly 45 percent of the US already doesn't pay any Federal income tax.

 

[Elixir]

And take a bite out of everyone's pensions and 401ks and be a real problem for startups that aren't making money yet.

How many startups have you run, or even invested in? If they are accumulating real property or equities, they are making money and a 1% surcharge isn't going to hurt - especially in the flush environment that taxed holdings would enable.

Wealth taxes cause the wealth to flee the country.

Let it flee - once it's taxed. And good riddance - the absence of the parasitic profits bled out of the system will create vast opportunity for those willing to play by the rules.

 

[Harry Bosch]

How many startups have you run, or even invested in? If they are accumulating real property or equities, they are making money and a 1% surcharge isn't going to hurt - especially in the flush environment that taxed holdings would enable.

Wealth taxes cause the wealth to flee the country.

Let it flee - once it's taxed. And good riddance - the absence of the parasitic profits bled out of the system will create vast opportunity for those willing to play by the rules.

Equity is simply assets - liabilities. There are many many companies with equity that have never generated a dime in profit or cash flow.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How many startups have you run, or even invested in? If they are accumulating real property or equities, they are making money and a 1% surcharge isn't going to hurt - especially in the flush environment that taxed holdings would enable.



Let it flee - once it's taxed. And good riddance - the absence of the parasitic profits bled out of the system will create vast opportunity for those willing to play by the rules.

Equity is simply assets - liabilities. There are many many companies with equity that have never generated a dime in profit or cash flow.

Don't you mean the other way around. Engineering companies often have little equity, but generate money.

 

[Malintent]

... a greater amount, or a greater percentage of their total amount?

Just a greater amount, proportionate to their percentage of the total wealth. That would help a lot.

ya, I agree... I saw Bernie Sanders speaking in a debate with Paul Ryan regarding tax reform and he seemed to imply he opposed a tax break, equal across all brackets... an audience member said he thought all Americans should get equal benefit, regardless of wealth or lack thereof. Bernie disagreed, to my surprise, and clarified that he thought the rich should get less of a tax break.

I support a flat tax with no deductions or loopholes for anyone... That is my concept of equality.

Bernie's concept of equality, again to my surprise, seems to be that if you earn more money you are liable for a greater proportion. That is how it is today, but when speaking of a reduction in rate, I feel that reduction should be equal across the board for all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just a greater amount, proportionate to their percentage of the total wealth. That would help a lot.

ya, I agree... I saw Bernie Sanders speaking in a debate with Paul Ryan regarding tax reform and he seemed to imply he opposed a tax break, equal across all brackets... an audience member said he thought all Americans should get equal benefit, regardless of wealth or lack thereof. Bernie disagreed, to my surprise, and clarified that he thought the rich should get less of a tax break.

I support a flat tax with no deductions or loopholes for anyone... That is my concept of equality.

Here is the tricky thing... a progressive tax rate is an equitable tax rate setup. Everyone pays the same for the first $15k, then $30k, then $100k (however the brackets are set up).

Bernie's concept of equality, again to my surprise, seems to be that if you earn more money you are liable for a greater proportion. That is how it is today, but when speaking of a reduction in rate, I feel that reduction should be equal across the board for all.

The top 1% took in 19% of the income in 2013.

The top 1% earned took home $1,715 billion dollars in 2013. That same group paid $465 billion in taxes. Let's do some division... that turns out to be an effective tax rate of 27%. Now I ask... is that number really too high? The highest tax rate in the US is 39.6%... but the effective tax rate on the top 1% who took in nearly $1 in every $5 taken home in America was 27%. Also 1.3 million people in that top percent, meaning an average take home of $1.3 million (how is that for a coincidence, irrelevant, but interesting).

Now the Tax Foundation holds back on some info. Let's look at the bottom 50%. They paid an effective tax rate of just 3.3%, which is 8 times less that the top 1%. OMFG right? Not really. That bottom 50%, if we do a little math, took in $1,043 billion home. That'd be 64% of what the top 1% took home. Of course, the bottom 50% also consists of 69.1 million people, an average of $15,094 per person.

Now we get to the good part. Let's go equal and see that it would mean shit. If you taxed the bottom of 50% at the same effective tax rate, you'd raise $281 billion, instead of $34 billion. That's right, if you octupled the effective tax rate of the bottom 50% of taxpayers (as in increase the tax rate of 69.1 million people by 800%), you'd only rate $250 billion more, increasing the total collected income tax revenue for the nation by just 20%.

So as a review, the bottom 50% (69.1 million people) averages an individual income of $15,000. Which is why asking them to provide an equitable percentage to the income tax cofffers wouldn't do much to help increase the coffers and would clearly take away money they desperately need to do things like... eat. When the top 1% takes home $1 in every $5 in income (is that 1 in 100 really doing 20% of the nation's work?!), yeah, they damn well better expect to be paying more in taxes. And an effective rate of 27% is not high.

 

[Derec]

So as a review, the bottom 50% (69.1 million people) averages an individual income of $15,000.

I call bullshit on that.
Are you confusing $15k with $50k perhaps?

 

[ZiprHead]

Just a greater amount, proportionate to their percentage of the total wealth. That would help a lot.

ya, I agree... I saw Bernie Sanders speaking in a debate with Paul Ryan regarding tax reform and he seemed to imply he opposed a tax break, equal across all brackets... an audience member said he thought all Americans should get equal benefit, regardless of wealth or lack thereof. Bernie disagreed, to my surprise, and clarified that he thought the rich should get less of a tax break.

I support a flat tax with no deductions or loopholes for anyone... That is my concept of equality.

Bernie's concept of equality, again to my surprise, seems to be that if you earn more money you are liable for a greater proportion. That is how it is today, but when speaking of a reduction in rate, I feel that reduction should be equal across the board for all.

Was that Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz? I watch the Sander/Cruz debate. Interesting stuff. Available on CNN On Demand if you've got it.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/7gV_UYMpmF0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Malintent]

ya, I agree... I saw Bernie Sanders speaking in a debate with Paul Ryan regarding tax reform and he seemed to imply he opposed a tax break, equal across all brackets... an audience member said he thought all Americans should get equal benefit, regardless of wealth or lack thereof. Bernie disagreed, to my surprise, and clarified that he thought the rich should get less of a tax break.

I support a flat tax with no deductions or loopholes for anyone... That is my concept of equality.

Here is the tricky thing... a progressive tax rate is an equitable tax rate setup. Everyone pays the same for the first $15k, then $30k, then $100k (however the brackets are set up).

Bernie's concept of equality, again to my surprise, seems to be that if you earn more money you are liable for a greater proportion. That is how it is today, but when speaking of a reduction in rate, I feel that reduction should be equal across the board for all.

The top 1% took in 19% of the income in 2013.

The top 1% earned took home $1,715 billion dollars in 2013. That same group paid $465 billion in taxes. Let's do some division... that turns out to be an effective tax rate of 27%. Now I ask... is that number really too high? The highest tax rate in the US is 39.6%... but the effective tax rate on the top 1% who took in nearly $1 in every $5 taken home in America was 27%. Also 1.3 million people in that top percent, meaning an average take home of $1.3 million (how is that for a coincidence, irrelevant, but interesting).

Now the Tax Foundation holds back on some info. Let's look at the bottom 50%. They paid an effective tax rate of just 3.3%, which is 8 times less that the top 1%. OMFG right? Not really. That bottom 50%, if we do a little math, took in $1,043 billion home. That'd be 64% of what the top 1% took home. Of course, the bottom 50% also consists of 69.1 million people, an average of $15,094 per person.

Now we get to the good part. Let's go equal and see that it would mean shit. If you taxed the bottom of 50% at the same effective tax rate, you'd raise $281 billion, instead of $34 billion. That's right, if you octupled the effective tax rate of the bottom 50% of taxpayers (as in increase the tax rate of 69.1 million people by 800%), you'd only rate $250 billion more, increasing the total collected income tax revenue for the nation by just 20%.

So as a review, the bottom 50% (69.1 million people) averages an individual income of $15,000. Which is why asking them to provide an equitable percentage to the income tax cofffers wouldn't do much to help increase the coffers and would clearly take away money they desperately need to do things like... eat. When the top 1% takes home $1 in every $5 in income (is that 1 in 100 really doing 20% of the nation's work?!), yeah, they damn well better expect to be paying more in taxes. And an effective rate of 27% is not high.

Your entire point seems to revolve around an "effective tax rate"... which is different than the actual tax rate, due to the number and types of loopholes and exemptions available to them. Remove all exemptions, and tax every American a flat rate.

The 'complaint' that those in the poverty level are not contributing a useful amount regardless of the percentage, due to the gross being so low doen't float with me. Firstly, it all adds up to something usefull... secondly, that flat tax rate should be set such that the feds get what they need from the total gross income of all Americans, so the argument that (example) 25% of very little is too little is nonsense... everyone is part of the whole. Lastly, in my travels I have come to find that the happiest societies I have seen are those with the least amount of economic stratification... in other words, when everyone has access to the same things and everyone pulls the exact same amount of weight, everyone treats everyone else far better than in a 'pure capitalist' society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So as a review, the bottom 50% (69.1 million people) averages an individual income of $15,000.

I call bullshit on that.
Are you confusing $15k with $50k perhaps?

First off, I gave a link and hints on how to do the math, so you can flip off for the 'calling bullshit' part. If I made a mistake, you can feel free to find it (and if it exists, I'll own up to it and correct my math) but don't accuse me of trying to mislead anyone.

Here is the math again (though I now notice The Tax Foundation mixes 2012 and 2013, so there is a little loss in translation):

$1.23 trillion paid in income taxes.
Bottom 50% (69.1 million) paid 2.8% of that.
Bottom 50% had an effective tax rate of 3.3%.

$1230 billion times 2.8% = $34 billion paid in taxes
$34 billion / 3.3% = $1043 billion total revenue
$1043 billion / 69.1 million people = $15,094.07 revenue per person

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is the tricky thing... a progressive tax rate is an equitable tax rate setup. Everyone pays the same for the first $15k, then $30k, then $100k (however the brackets are set up).

Bernie's concept of equality, again to my surprise, seems to be that if you earn more money you are liable for a greater proportion. That is how it is today, but when speaking of a reduction in rate, I feel that reduction should be equal across the board for all.

The top 1% took in 19% of the income in 2013.

The top 1% earned took home $1,715 billion dollars in 2013. That same group paid $465 billion in taxes. Let's do some division... that turns out to be an effective tax rate of 27%. Now I ask... is that number really too high? The highest tax rate in the US is 39.6%... but the effective tax rate on the top 1% who took in nearly $1 in every $5 taken home in America was 27%. Also 1.3 million people in that top percent, meaning an average take home of $1.3 million (how is that for a coincidence, irrelevant, but interesting).

Now the Tax Foundation holds back on some info. Let's look at the bottom 50%. They paid an effective tax rate of just 3.3%, which is 8 times less that the top 1%. OMFG right? Not really. That bottom 50%, if we do a little math, took in $1,043 billion home. That'd be 64% of what the top 1% took home. Of course, the bottom 50% also consists of 69.1 million people, an average of $15,094 per person.

Now we get to the good part. Let's go equal and see that it would mean shit. If you taxed the bottom of 50% at the same effective tax rate, you'd raise $281 billion, instead of $34 billion. That's right, if you octupled the effective tax rate of the bottom 50% of taxpayers (as in increase the tax rate of 69.1 million people by 800%), you'd only rate $250 billion more, increasing the total collected income tax revenue for the nation by just 20%.

So as a review, the bottom 50% (69.1 million people) averages an individual income of $15,000. Which is why asking them to provide an equitable percentage to the income tax cofffers wouldn't do much to help increase the coffers and would clearly take away money they desperately need to do things like... eat. When the top 1% takes home $1 in every $5 in income (is that 1 in 100 really doing 20% of the nation's work?!), yeah, they damn well better expect to be paying more in taxes. And an effective rate of 27% is not high.

Your entire point seems to revolve around an "effective tax rate"... which is different than the actual tax rate, due to the number and types of loopholes and exemptions available to them. Remove all exemptions, and tax every American a flat rate.

The effective tax rate is what actually matters. It is what is actually paid.

The 'complaint' that those in the poverty level are not contributing a useful amount regardless of the percentage, due to the gross being so low doen't float with me. Firstly, it all adds up to something usefull... secondly, that flat tax rate should be set such that the feds get what they need from the total gross income of all Americans, so the argument that (example) 25% of very little is too little is nonsense... everyone is part of the whole.

Relative to the value it has to the bottom 50%, it is worthless. The additional tax would be around $3,300, which, when you are making $15,000, is an absolute fortune.

Lastly, in my travels I have come to find that the happiest societies I have seen are those with the least amount of economic stratification... in other words, when everyone has access to the same things and everyone pulls the exact same amount of weight, everyone treats everyone else far better than in a 'pure capitalist' society.

Okay, you don't seem to be understanding the math here.

In 2013, the US took in $1.23 trillion... and still ran a decent deficit. So we weren't even close to breaking even. Regardless, in order to use a flat tax and reach $1.23 trillion, the effective tax rate would be 13.6%.

That would mean:
top 50% -> a 10% tax cut (worth 1.5% of the salary)
bottom 50% -> a 400% tax hike (worth 10% of their salary).
top 1% -> a 50% tax cut (worth 13.6% of their salary)

That is why some people want a flat tax. Fuck the poor, let the wealthy off the hook.

 

[Elixir]

Here is the tricky thing... a progressive tax rate is an equitable tax rate setup. Everyone pays the same for the first $15k, then $30k, then $100k (however the brackets are set up).

Bernie's concept of equality, again to my surprise, seems to be that if you earn more money you are liable for a greater proportion. That is how it is today, but when speaking of a reduction in rate, I feel that reduction should be equal across the board for all.

The top 1% took in 19% of the income in 2013.

The top 1% earned took home $1,715 billion dollars in 2013. That same group paid $465 billion in taxes. Let's do some division... that turns out to be an effective tax rate of 27%. Now I ask... is that number really too high? The highest tax rate in the US is 39.6%... but the effective tax rate on the top 1% who took in nearly $1 in every $5 taken home in America was 27%. Also 1.3 million people in that top percent, meaning an average take home of $1.3 million (how is that for a coincidence, irrelevant, but interesting).

Now the Tax Foundation holds back on some info. Let's look at the bottom 50%. They paid an effective tax rate of just 3.3%, which is 8 times less that the top 1%. OMFG right? Not really. That bottom 50%, if we do a little math, took in $1,043 billion home. That'd be 64% of what the top 1% took home. Of course, the bottom 50% also consists of 69.1 million people, an average of $15,094 per person.

Now we get to the good part. Let's go equal and see that it would mean shit. If you taxed the bottom of 50% at the same effective tax rate, you'd raise $281 billion, instead of $34 billion. That's right, if you octupled the effective tax rate of the bottom 50% of taxpayers (as in increase the tax rate of 69.1 million people by 800%), you'd only rate $250 billion more, increasing the total collected income tax revenue for the nation by just 20%.

So as a review, the bottom 50% (69.1 million people) averages an individual income of $15,000. Which is why asking them to provide an equitable percentage to the income tax cofffers wouldn't do much to help increase the coffers and would clearly take away money they desperately need to do things like... eat. When the top 1% takes home $1 in every $5 in income (is that 1 in 100 really doing 20% of the nation's work?!), yeah, they damn well better expect to be paying more in taxes. And an effective rate of 27% is not high.

Your entire point seems to revolve around an "effective tax rate"... which is different than the actual tax rate, due to the number and types of loopholes and exemptions available to them. Remove all exemptions, and tax every American a flat rate.

The effective tax rate is what actually matters. It is what is actually paid.

The 'complaint' that those in the poverty level are not contributing a useful amount regardless of the percentage, due to the gross being so low doen't float with me. Firstly, it all adds up to something usefull... secondly, that flat tax rate should be set such that the feds get what they need from the total gross income of all Americans, so the argument that (example) 25% of very little is too little is nonsense... everyone is part of the whole.

Relative to the value it has to the bottom 50%, it is worthless. The additional tax would be around $3,300, which, when you are making $15,000, is an absolute fortune.

Lastly, in my travels I have come to find that the happiest societies I have seen are those with the least amount of economic stratification... in other words, when everyone has access to the same things and everyone pulls the exact same amount of weight, everyone treats everyone else far better than in a 'pure capitalist' society.

Okay, you don't seem to be understanding the math here.

In 2013, the US took in $1.23 trillion... and still ran a decent deficit. So we weren't even close to breaking even. Regardless, in order to use a flat tax and reach $1.23 trillion, the effective tax rate would be 13.6%.

That would mean:
top 50% -> a 10% tax cut (worth 1.5% of the salary)
bottom 50% -> a 400% tax hike (worth 10% of their salary).
top 1% -> a 50% tax cut (worth 13.6% of their salary)

That is why some people want a flat tax. Fuck the poor, let the wealthy off the hook.

B-b-b-but then the rich people would all move to Switzerland and the Caymans! Who would buy our political ads, huh?

 

[Derec]

$1043 billion / 69.1 million people = $15,094.07 revenue per person

Oh, I see. You said "income", when you meant "taxes".