Who pays for government?

[ronburgundy]

Point of Clarification: Are the tax numbers reported in the OP link actual taxes paid based upon the direct empirical evidence of actual filings of specific people or theoretically estimated taxes paid based upon official tax rates and a host of questionable assumptions?

 

[Axulus]

Point of Clarification: Are the tax numbers reported in the OP link actual taxes paid based upon the direct empirical evidence of actual filings of specific people or theoretically estimated taxes paid based upon official tax rates and a host of questionable assumptions?

Direct empirical evidence of actual findings. The CBO provides a comprehensive report and cites its sources, and is considered to be nonpartisan in its analysis. The only "theoretical" part of the report is when it estimates the impact of the 2013 tax increases on the tax burden distribution.

 

[maxparrish]

Let the the CBO speak to truth:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...ts/49440-Distribution-of-Income-and-Taxes.pdf

 

[maxparrish]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

Yes the US has the most progressive tax system.

 

[Trausti]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

Yes the US has the most progressive tax system.

That's all well and good, but the only way we can tax our way to prosperity is to make taxes even more progressive.

 

[ksen]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

Yes the US has the most progressive tax system.

What's that have to do with Axulus' claim that right now the US income tax system is at one of its most progressive levels in US history?

 

[Jayjay]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

Yes the US has the most progressive tax system.

That's all well and good, but the only way we can tax our way to prosperity is to make taxes even more progressive.

The problem with that is, that the more progressive tax is, the more rich and powerful will try to reduce taxes overall. and eing rich and pwoerful, they have a pretty good shot at getting their way. In the end what you get is a highly progressive tax system that collects almost nothing.

 

[dismal]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

Yes the US has the most progressive tax system.

This chart does not appear to net (cash paid in - cash paid out) as does the table in the OP.

If you do this, by my count the top 20% pay 270% of all taxes.

 

[Jayjay]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us

Yes the US has the most progressive tax system.

This chart does not appear to net (cash paid in - cash paid out) as does the table in the OP.

If you do this, by my count the top 20% pay 270% of all taxes.

270% of what? Gross, net, or the money left over?

 

[dismal]

This chart does not appear to net (cash paid in - cash paid out) as does the table in the OP.

If you do this, by my count the top 20% pay 270% of all taxes.

270% of what? Gross, net, or the money left over?

It's like the lunch bill for 5 comes and it's $100. One guy puts in $20, one guy puts in $270, and the other three each reach in and take out $63.

One guy paid 270% of the bill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suspect that's counting public education--and counting the whole per-student budget even though a good chunk of that actually goes to special ed.

I don't think so. From the report:

Government transfers are cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs. Those transfers include payments and benefits from federal, state, and local governments.

I don't think that general education would be classified as "government assistance program". Some special education might be, but that's probably not relevant... the point of the table is that after you count taxes and transfers, most people are net recipients.

I can't imagine where they are finding that much in transfer payments to the middle class, then. The only things they're going to get in any substantial amount are Social Security and Medicare--but most of the middle class isn't old enough to be getting either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But I think that they do because they earn too much of the nation's income.

They don't earn it.

They steal it from workers who create wealth. Gains in productivity mainly go to the people at the top in the form of dividends on stock owned.

Capital does not create wealth, labor does.

When capital assumes a superior position through the force of law and government reality is turned on its head.

Gains go mostly to those who make the gains possible.

The workers are for the most part not working harder or smarter, why would they be getting more?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

270% of what? Gross, net, or the money left over?

It's like the lunch bill for 5 comes and it's $100. One guy puts in $20, one guy puts in $270, and the other three each reach in and take out $63.

One guy paid 270% of the bill.

And he should have paid a lot more than that because he consumed a lot more than that. He's getting off stiffing the guys who paid less.

By your standards he ate ten rounds of caviar and lobster while the other guys shared a rice cake and you want him to pay the same as everyone else. As they used to say, "Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs."

 

[Jayjay]

270% of what? Gross, net, or the money left over?

It's like the lunch bill for 5 comes and it's $100. One guy puts in $20, one guy puts in $270, and the other three each reach in and take out $63.

One guy paid 270% of the bill.

That's not a useful number.

Suppose the lunch bill is $0 (you found a fly in your soup or something). One guy puts in $1 and the others take it away. The first guy ends up paying an infinite percentage. But in reality hardly any money exchanged hands and the group got a free meal anyway.

 

[Duke Leto]

More detail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States. Is that because that's how the oligarchy wants it?

I skimmed through the thread to check that the following criticism had not already been made.

This is a pretty magnificent example of Macbeth's "Fiend that Lies like Truth."

The problem with this chart is that it mixes the actual undertaxed oligarchs, the centimillionaires and billionaires, AKA the 1% and the 0.1%, in the same pot as the rest of the well-off professionals: doctors, lawyers and upper managers, all in the top 25%.

Were those categories broken out from the top quintile, what one would see is a flattening and reversal of of the percentage of income paid in taxes as incomes increase up above $250,000, especially prior to the blunting of the Bush Tax cuts when Dividend income was tax free. At that point, the only effective tax on income would be Capital Gains, so one would see cases like Warren Buffet getting an effective tax rate of 11% for the period under discussion compared to a Doctor or Lawyer at $250,000 paying 18.9%.

And this is before one takes into account the overspending the government makes towards private contractors like Haliburton, the ownership of which is tilted to the uppermost echelons of the income distribution and the absurd capital gains for which are not counted as "transfers".

Shame on you, Axulus, for either expecting us not to be aware of these major caveats to your misleading chart or for being sufficiently blind and stupid to have accepted the argument you are making at face value after getting it from some right-wing hack rag.

 

[Axulus]

More detail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

We currently have one of the most progressive tax systems in place in the history of the United States. Is that because that's how the oligarchy wants it?

I skimmed through the thread to check that the following criticism had not already been made.

This is a pretty magnificent example of Macbeth's "Fiend that Lies like Truth."

The problem with this chart is that it mixes the actual undertaxed oligarchs, the centimillionaires and billionaires, AKA the 1% and the 0.1%, in the same pot as the rest of the well-off professionals: doctors, lawyers and upper managers, all in the top 25%.

Were those categories broken out from the top quintile, what one would see is a flattening and reversal of of the percentage of income paid in taxes as incomes increase up above $250,000, especially prior to the blunting of the Bush Tax cuts when Dividend income was tax free. At that point, the only effective tax on income would be Capital Gains, so one would see cases like Warren Buffet getting an effective tax rate of 11% for the period under discussion compared to a Doctor or Lawyer at $250,000 paying 18.9%.

And this is before one takes into account the overspending the government makes towards private contractors like Haliburton, the ownership of which is tilted to the uppermost echelons of the income distribution and the absurd capital gains for which are not counted as "transfers".

Shame on you, Axulus, for either expecting us not to be aware of these major caveats to your misleading chart or for being sufficiently blind and stupid to have accepted the argument you are making at face value after getting it from some right-wing hack rag.

Shame on you for making baseless claims without clicking on the non-partisan link (right wing hack rag, the CBO?, my ass). Turns out you are completely wrong. Will you admit that you are wrong, apologize, and revise your position accordingly?

The top 1% chart you are requesting is literally no more than clicking on the link and rolling your mouse wheel for no more than a few miliseconds.

Your turn. Instead of making baseless bullshit claims, how about actually posting some real data about the tax rates of the top .1% (not included in this analysis) instead of talking straight out of your ass and spraying verbal diarrhea all over the place?

 

[dismal]

It's like the lunch bill for 5 comes and it's $100. One guy puts in $20, one guy puts in $270, and the other three each reach in and take out $63.

One guy paid 270% of the bill.

That's not a useful number.

Suppose the lunch bill is $0 (you found a fly in your soup or something). One guy puts in $1 and the others take it away. The first guy ends up paying an infinite percentage. But in reality hardly any money exchanged hands and the group got a free meal anyway.

An odd criticism in that the numbers involved are rather large.

If we assume 25 million households per quintile, the total net taxes paid by quintile are:

5th - receive $215 billion
4th - receive $313 billion
3rd - receive $228 billion
2nd - pay $18 billion
1st - pay $1,163 billion
Total net = pay $425 billion

The percentages are -51%, -74%, -54%, 4%, 274%.

The top 20% pay 274% of the net taxes collected.

It's just facts.

 

[Axulus]

That's not a useful number.

Suppose the lunch bill is $0 (you found a fly in your soup or something). One guy puts in $1 and the others take it away. The first guy ends up paying an infinite percentage. But in reality hardly any money exchanged hands and the group got a free meal anyway.

An odd criticism in that the numbers involved are rather large.

If we assume 25 million households per quintile, the total net taxes paid by quintile are:

5th - receive $215 billion
4th - receive $313 billion
3rd - receive $228 billion
2nd - pay $18 billion
1st - pay $1,163 billion
Total net = pay $425 billion

The percentages are -51%, -74%, -54%, 4%, 274%.

The top 20% pay 274% of the net taxes collected.

It's just facts.

Something seems off, given that the defense department spending alone in 2011 was ~712 billion

 

[dismal]

An odd criticism in that the numbers involved are rather large.

If we assume 25 million households per quintile, the total net taxes paid by quintile are:

5th - receive $215 billion
4th - receive $313 billion
3rd - receive $228 billion
2nd - pay $18 billion
1st - pay $1,163 billion
Total net = pay $425 billion

The percentages are -51%, -74%, -54%, 4%, 274%.

The top 20% pay 274% of the net taxes collected.

It's just facts.

Something seems off, given that the defense department spending alone in 2011 was ~712 billion

We borrow a lot of money.

 

[laughing dog]

It's like the lunch bill for 5 comes and it's $100. One guy puts in $20, one guy puts in $270, and the other three each reach in and take out $63.

One guy paid 270% of the bill.

That's not a useful number.

Suppose the lunch bill is $0 (you found a fly in your soup or something). One guy puts in $1 and the others take it away. The first guy ends up paying an infinite percentage. But in reality hardly any money exchanged hands and the group got a free meal anyway.

Hey, you are arguing with a poster who knows how many zeros make up a trillion, so he knows what he is posting about.