IRS Numbers Shred Biden’s “Fair Share” Platitudes

[Vambram]

The truth is that there is a class warfare in the United states and the money is flowing from the poor to the rich.

All I can say to that..... is that appears to be something I have heard socialists and even communists say. I apologize for that comparison, because I believe that you are not a socialist or a communist.

As for the rest of your post, well, I shall try to endeavor to respond when I have the time to do so. Right now, I've got to get ready to go to my job.

 

[Vambram]

That depends on how you define "fair share". No one disputes that the wealthy pay the largest portion of federal income taxes, or even that they pay a greater percentage of their income than other income brackets (though this can vary on an individual basis thanks to creative accounting).

The arguments are that:

1. The government is short on money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Tax cuts have not caused it to materialize as promised, and the government has shown itself incapable of cutting expenses in any meaningful way.
2. Those people in higher income backets are more easily able to bear a tax increase as they have significantly more disposable income.

The government is short of on money because the government spends too much money. Have you noticed the $34 trillion dollar National Debt? How much longer is that going to be sustainable?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The government is short of on money because the government spends too much money. Have you noticed the $34 trillion dollar National Debt? How much longer is that going to be sustainable?

I believe I mentioned that:

The arguments are that:

1. The government is short on money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Tax cuts have not caused it to materialize as promised, and the government has shown itself incapable of cutting expenses in any meaningful way.
2. Those people in higher income backets are more easily able to bear a tax increase as they have significantly more disposable income.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The entire point of the article in the OP was to show that the vast majority of the federal income tax burden is continuing to be paid by those whom can afford to do so. Any attempts by the progressive left politicians to suggest that the rich and wealthy are not paying their fair share is more attempts by the progressive left to hide the truth.

I don't really like the "fair share" language, either, but while it's true that the bulk of the tax burden falls on the wealthy, they also get the bulk of the income. Remember, the difference in tax rates among the top half of returns is about 16% for folks making around $46k and 26% for folks making over $682k. We're not over-taxing the wealthy.

 

[o_mlly]

But the averages for the Top 2-5 percentiles are listed in cells G138-J138, with the lowest being 23.29%, but he said averaged to 18.9%.
Top 10 - 25 have avg tax rates between 18.44% - 21.47%, which he averages to 10.3%.
Top 25 - 50 have avg tax rates between 16.24% - 18.44%, which he averages to 7.2%.
The bottom 50% isn't even listed on this chart, but he averages it to 3.3%.

I see your points but correcting the averages only serves to strengthen the author's primary argument.

But the averages for the Top 2-5 percentiles are listed in cells G138-J138, with the lowest being 23.29%, but he said averaged to 18.9% 24.51%.
Top 10 - 25 have avg tax rates between 18.44% - 21.47%, which he averages to 10.3% 19.7%.
Top 25 - 50 have avg tax rates between 16.24% - 18.44%, which he averages to 7.2% 17.4%.
The bottom 50% isn't even listed on this chart, but he averages it to 3.3% 2.3% (1-97.66%)

 

[iluvatar5150]

I see your points but correcting the averages only serves to strengthen the author's primary argument.

But the averages for the Top 2-5 percentiles are listed in cells G138-J138, with the lowest being 23.29%, but he said averaged to 18.9% 24.51%.
Top 10 - 25 have avg tax rates between 18.44% - 21.47%, which he averages to 10.3% 19.7%.
Top 25 - 50 have avg tax rates between 16.24% - 18.44%, which he averages to 7.2% 17.4%.
The bottom 50% isn't even listed on this chart, but he averages it to 3.3% 2.3% (1-97.66%)

No, it doesn't support his argument. It undermines it. His argument is that the tax rates are "steeply progressive." They are not. They're much flatter than he claimed.

You can't calculate the average for the bottom 50% because that data wasn't published (as far as I've seen).

 

[o_mlly]

So the only alternative, according to you, is to drastically cut the budget (or, as Republicans prefer, throw caution to the winds and skyrocket the deficit.).

Let's see how the rich like Banana Republic social services.

Yes, like the Guatemalans (who are generally happier than most other countries #42 out of 143*), conservatives prefer that family first, the church second, and the local community third care for those in need.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

 

[o_mlly]

No, it doesn't support his argument. It undermines it. His argument is that the tax rates are "steeply progressive." They are not. They're much flatter than he claimed.

You can't calculate the average for the bottom 50% because that data wasn't published (as far as I've seen).

The author only notes the tax system has progressively increased: "It’s also important to note that the U.S. income tax system has become more progressive since the 2017 tax cuts under former President Donald Trump, not less".

His argument is: "Do wealthy Americans pay their “fair share” of income taxes? If “fair” is defined as a reasonable equilibrium between someone’s share of income earned and their share of income taxes paid, then wealthier Americans actually pay more than their fair share".

The average for the bottom is mathematically: 1 - the average for the top 50% as shown above.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The author only notes the tax system has progressively increased: "It’s also important to note that the U.S. income tax system has become more progressive since the 2017 tax cuts under former President Donald Trump, not less".

No, that wasn't the only thing he noted. I quoted the portion of his claim undermined by the corrected rates.

His argument is: "Do wealthy Americans pay their “fair share” of income taxes? If “fair” is defined as a reasonable equilibrium between someone’s share of income earned and their share of income taxes paid, then wealthier Americans actually pay more than their fair share".

That argument depends on an entirely subjective definition of the word "reasonable." Is it reasonable for there to be only a 10-point spread in effective rates between a shift supervisor at McDonald's and a neurosurgeon who makes 15x as much?

The average for the bottom is mathematically: 1 - the average for the top 50% as shown above.

Where are you getting data on the average tax rate for the bottom 50%? It's not listed in the IRS data that was linked to. You can't take an average of numbers that don't exist.

 

[rambot]

All I can say to that..... is that appears to be something I have heard socialists and even communists say. I apologize for that comparison, because I believe that you are not a socialist or a communist.

Oh. I'm just quoting Warren buffet.

Given that it a a successful capitalist who said that, maybe that idea is worth consideration; If the evidence alone is not enough.

I would posit that we have to use the power of the government (which is currently being used AGAINST working people) to change the above mentioned fact because it is NOT going to come from them.

 

[o_mlly]

No, that wasn't the only thing he noted. I quoted the portion of his claim undermined by the corrected rates.

I don't see how you can support your claim.

That argument depends on an entirely subjective definition of the word "reasonable." Is it reasonable for there to be only a 10-point spread in effective rates between a shift supervisor at McDonald's and a neurosurgeon who makes 15x as much?

The author does define what he believes is reasonable and then defends his claim based on that definition.

If you disagree that his definition is reasonable then ought you to explain why?

The author does not claim it is reasonable that a neurosurgeon makes 15x that of a McDonald's shift supervisor so that does not nullify his definition of what is reasonable as to one's fair share of taxes. However, I know which one of those two I would rather be poking around my brain with a sharp instrument.

 

[o_mlly]

Where are you getting data on the average tax rate for the bottom 50%? It's not listed in the IRS data that was linked to. You can't take an average of numbers that don't exist.

If the total income tax share as a percentage of the top 50% is 97.66% then the bottom 50% must be 2.34% as noted.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't see how you can support your claim.

What don't you see? He claimed that the tax code was "steeply progressive." (his words) His numbers supported that claim, but his numbers were wrong. I corrected his numbers. The definition of "steeply" is a matter of opinion, but ranging between 16% and 26% doesn't strike me as all that steep.

The author does define what he believes is reasonable and then defends his claim based on that definition.

No, he doesn't define what he believes is reasonable. One can read between the lines and infer that he thinks a flat tax would be reasonable, but nowhere does he define what he thinks is "reasonable." If you think I'm wrong, feel free to quote the passage where he defines reasonable. Or if it's too long to quote, sum up his definition of it.

The author does not claim it is reasonable that a neurosurgeon makes 15x that of a McDonald's shift supervisor so that does not nullify his definition of what is reasonable as to one's fair share of taxes.

You misread my comment. What I said was "Is it reasonable for there to be only a 10-point spread in effective rates..." I never claimed he said anything about the compensation. I was talking about the difference in effective tax rates.

If the total income tax share as a percentage of the top 50% is 97.66% then the bottom 50% must be 2.34% as noted.

The figure we were talking about was an average tax rate of 3.3%, not a share of taxes of 2.34%.

Regardless, I think I see where he calculated the number from.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

At this point, Biden and company may as well print up a couple of gazillion dollars and pay off all debt—loans, debts, mortgages, credit cards—everything. Just add it all to the deficit and call it quits. Get it over with. This is where we are headed anyway. Declare everyone a millionaire while you are at it. Don't forget to punctuate it with "If you vote for me!"

 

[KCfromNC]

All I can say to that..... is that appears to be something I have heard socialists and even communists say.

Are they they only people saying it? Because I've seen lots of non-socialist mainstream economists say the same thing.

It'd be like pointing out that socialists and communists say the sky is blue or water is wet. A group you don't like recognizing facts doesn't make the facts go away.

 

[o_mlly]

He claimed that the tax code was "steeply progressive."

No, he noted that, "It’s also important to note that the U.S. income tax system has become more progressive since the 2017 tax cuts under former President Donald Trump, not less." The author cites the data ("approximately 39% to today’s 45.8%") to support the truth of his claim.

Regarding the code being "steeply progressive" the author notes, "... it’s impossible to intelligently argue that the U.S. tax system itself isn’t steeply progressive." You have yet to make an objective argument countering that statement.

His numbers supported that claim, but his numbers were wrong. I corrected his numbers.

In which of your posts did you correct the author's numbers?

One can read between the lines and infer that he thinks a flat tax would be reasonable, but nowhere does he define what he thinks is "reasonable." If you think I'm wrong, feel free to quote the passage where he defines reasonable. Or if it's too long to quote, sum up his definition of it.

No need to "sum up"; the author was quite succinct.

One can infer almost anything they can imagine; better to simply take the author literally: "... a reasonable equilibrium between someone’s share of income earned and their share of income taxes paid." If you disagree then you ought to give us your alternative as to what constitutes a reasonably fair method to evaluate the fairness of the tax code.

You misread my comment. What I said was "Is it reasonable for there to be only a 10-point spread in effective rates..." I never claimed he said anything about the compensation. I was talking about the difference in effective tax rates.

No. I read your comment correctly and noted that it does not apply as a counter argument to the author's claim.

The figure we were talking about was an average tax rate of 3.3%, not a share of taxes of 2.34%.

Regardless, I think I see where he calculated the number from.

What do you now see?

 

[Laodicean60]

Some sort of flat tax and do away with right-offs that mainly the rich use. The government has to control spending before it's implemented.

 

[BCP1928]

While they do not directly benefit from a lot of social services (in that they do not draw from them themselves), they do benefit indirectly in many ways. Robust social services keep society functioning as a whole - they reduce crime, keep people off the streets, and help maintain a healthy, educated workforce. Sure, if you're wealthy, you can deal with a society that lacks those things - you can build a wall around your mansion, hire guards to defend it, and treat your workforce as a disposable commodity, but is that really a society that you want to live in?

That's not a fair question to ask a conservative.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Some sort of flat tax and do away with right-offs that mainly the rich use. The government has to control spending before it's implemented.

Flat taxes are extraordinarily regressive in that they disproportionately disadvantage lower income taxpayers.

 

[probinson]

Flat taxes are extraordinarily regressive in that they disproportionately disadvantage lower income taxpayers.

How so?

I live in PA where we have flat state income tax of 3.07%. How do you think that disproportionately disadvantages Pennsylvanians with lower income?