Top 1% of Taxpayers Pay More Than Bottom 90% Combined

[Veritas]

Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016

• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

• The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.

Explanation for those unable to comprehend: The top .001% or just 1400 people in the entire country pay 3.25% of ALL taxes, whereas the bottom 50% pay 3%. Further, the top .001% are paying more NOW than they did in 2001 and the bottom 50% are paying less.

So when we hear the worn out mantra of the left that Bush or Trump are giving tax breaks to the "richest 1%", it's not only not true, but the fact is the top 1% are paying MORE than their fair share. Don't they deserve a break? Many of them employ others, buy a lot of stuff and donate to charity. Between their taxes and spending, etc. they are major contributors to the economy. Why do people on the left think that taxing the wealthiest into oblivion will somehow irradicate poverty or improve the economy? How is it fair that the top 50% of payers pay virtually ALL the taxes? How do you give tax breaks to the bottom 50% who pay just 3% of ALL taxes?

 

[USincognito]

That's because they have so much more money than the 90%. Why do you guys keep spreading this meme in a vacuum. In context it's even worse for the 1% than you guys want it to seem.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

From a 4th century Church father:

 

[iluvatar5150]

Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016

• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

• The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.

Explanation for those unable to comprehend: The top .001% or just 1400 people in the entire country pay 3.25% of ALL taxes, whereas the bottom 50% pay 3%. Further, the top .001% are paying more NOW than they did in 2001 and the bottom 50% are paying less.

So when we hear the worn out mantra of the left that Bush or Trump are giving tax breaks to the "richest 1%", it's not only not true, but the fact is the top 1% are paying MORE than their fair share. Don't they deserve a break? Many of them employ others, buy a lot of stuff and donate to charity. Between their taxes and spending, etc. they are major contributors to the economy. Why do people on the left think that taxing the wealthiest into oblivion will somehow irradicate poverty or improve the economy? How is it fair that the top 50% of payers pay virtually ALL the taxes? How do you give tax breaks to the bottom 50% who pay just 3% of ALL taxes?

Looks like somebody doesn't understand math all that well. Note that this only includes income tax, not payroll or capital gains tax, both of which skew the effective rate in a way that favors the wealthy.


Also, there's this, which I suspect does include at least capital gains:

Notice anything odd?

 

[Halbhh]

Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016

• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

• The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.

Explanation for those unable to comprehend: The top .001% or just 1400 people in the entire country pay 3.25% of ALL taxes, whereas the bottom 50% pay 3%. Further, the top .001% are paying more NOW than they did in 2001 and the bottom 50% are paying less.

So when we hear the worn out mantra of the left that Bush or Trump are giving tax breaks to the "richest 1%", it's not only not true, but the fact is the top 1% are paying MORE than their fair share. Don't they deserve a break? Many of them employ others, buy a lot of stuff and donate to charity. Between their taxes and spending, etc. they are major contributors to the economy. Why do people on the left think that taxing the wealthiest into oblivion will somehow irradicate poverty or improve the economy? How is it fair that the top 50% of payers pay virtually ALL the taxes? How do you give tax breaks to the bottom 50% who pay just 3% of ALL taxes?

"...the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

So, they have most of the wealth, and pay more taxes also....

Do you feel that should change though? Perhaps it would be best for the rich if they did --

Christ said (our reading in church this last Sunday) --

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ”

20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

---------------
The rich would be wise to give more of that wealth away to those in need! That's their personal choice...and it's often a Life or Death (second death) choice.

 

[Halbhh]

Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016

• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).

• The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of total individual income taxes.

In other words, the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Which small percentile of tax payers also paid 3 percent or more? You might have guessed it. It is the top 0.001%, or about 1,400 taxpayers. That group alone paid 3.25 percent of all income taxes. In 2001, the bottom 50 percent paid nearly 5 percent whereas the top 0.001 percent of filers paid 2.3 percent of income taxes.

Explanation for those unable to comprehend: The top .001% or just 1400 people in the entire country pay 3.25% of ALL taxes, whereas the bottom 50% pay 3%. Further, the top .001% are paying more NOW than they did in 2001 and the bottom 50% are paying less.

So when we hear the worn out mantra of the left that Bush or Trump are giving tax breaks to the "richest 1%", it's not only not true, but the fact is the top 1% are paying MORE than their fair share. Don't they deserve a break? Many of them employ others, buy a lot of stuff and donate to charity. Between their taxes and spending, etc. they are major contributors to the economy. Why do people on the left think that taxing the wealthiest into oblivion will somehow irradicate poverty or improve the economy? How is it fair that the top 50% of payers pay virtually ALL the taxes? How do you give tax breaks to the bottom 50% who pay just 3% of ALL taxes?

For the last question: The Earned Income Tax Credit, supported widely by people across the political spectrum -- helping to reduce taxes on the working poor.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Looks like somebody doesn't understand math all that well. Note that this only includes income tax, not payroll or capital gains tax, both of which skew the effective rate in a way that favors the wealthy.


Also, there's this, which I suspect does include at least capital gains:

Notice anything odd?

The Trump tax reductions aren't listed yet?

 

[sfs]

Notice anything odd?

To whom much has been given, not a whole lot will be required.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"...the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent".
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

So, they have most of the wealth, and pay more taxes also....

Do you feel that should change though? Perhaps it would be best for the rich if they did --

Christ said (our reading in church this last Sunday) --

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ”

20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!”

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

---------------
The rich would be wise to give more of that wealth away to those in need! That's their personal choice...and it's often a Life or Death (second death) choice.

Many of the rich become philanthropists later in life. However they don't usually distribute their wealth to the poor directly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps the rich don't help the poor in America as much as they 'should' because they see no good excuse for being poor where so many opportunities exist.

 

[Halbhh]

Perhaps the rich don't help the poor in America as much as they 'should' because they see no good excuse for being poor where so many opportunities exist.

We know it's a terrible mistake and error, to judge others in a condemning way, without love. We should pray for any brothers or sisters that we hear doing so, that they might be turned and saved.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We know it's a terrible mistake and error, to judge others in a condemning way, without love. We should pray for any brothers or sisters that we hear doing so, that they might be turned and saved.

I agree. However I wouldn't criticize those who are discerning in regard to the poor.

 

[childeye 2]

Perhaps the rich don't help the poor in America as much as they 'should' because they see no good excuse for being poor where so many opportunities exist.

I wonder what you think Christ would have said if this was the rich man's response to him.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There wouldn't be as much disparity in income and wealth if the poor would stop making the rich.......rich. If the poor would take better care of their health (easily done) there would be fewer rich doctors.

 

[Halbhh]

I agree. However I wouldn't criticize those who are discerning in regard to the poor.

I expect we'd often choose in similar ways. I want to see the poor in need be fed and find work (that they can do).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I wonder what you think Christ would have said if this was the rich man's response to him.

Jesus inspired Paul to write, "If a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat." Separate the 'goats' from the 'sheep' first, then look at the 'problem' again.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I expect we'd often choose in similar ways. I want to see the poor in need be fed and find work (that they can do).

In the meantime they have plenty...actually too much....to eat. Many have such severe mental problems that they are unable to contribute in any meaningful way. For them we need caring institutions where they can be rehabilitated. We often lump all the poor into one homogenous group. Not a good idea.

 

[Halbhh]

In the meantime they have plenty...actually too much....to eat.

Ah, yes, the other issues of the day, so many. Including not only those who 'their gods are their bellies' (as Paul put it), but also the diabetes and other ills from such things as excess sugars like corn syrup added to some foods, and other modern junk food harmful products.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah, yes, the other issues of the day, so many. Including not only those who 'their gods are their bellies' (as Paul put it), but also the diabetes and other ills from such things as excess sugars like corn syrup added to some foods, and other modern junk food harmful products.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". -God.

 

[childeye 2]

Jesus inspired Paul to write, "If a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat." Separate the 'goats' from the 'sheep' first, then look at the 'problem' again.

I think that is a good point. There probably are rich people who do not labor for their food, and some poor people who live off of welfare. But personally, I am going to refrain from believing that poor people are simply lazy people, and rich people are simply lazy people, lest to my shame I find myself projecting my own vanity upon others.