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

[OldWiseGuy]

Respectfully, I'm not sure we disagree or agree on what Adam Smith meant when suggesting a theory of labor value. The theory of labor value is that the value of the dollar should be based on one's labor as in how much a person contributes to a society as the society necessarily labors as a whole. Hence they who labor more in a society to produce more should get paid accordingly. That theory is juxtaposed to the theory that the value of the dollar is based upon supply and demand of goods and/or services.

These two theories can create opposing narratives in the semantics of economic terms. That is why I originally said, Labor is the true value of the dollar according to Adam Smith, but also that which the labor accomplished should have value in extension to the labor.

"Value" notwithstanding, money=labor, when it is spent on the products of labor of labor directly.

 

[durangodawood]

That's usually a very short period of time, often just minutes.

Its not the time you sit on it that counts when we discuss what the money represents.

 

[KCfromNC]

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Might want to double check this bit, since it is false : David R. Kamerschen

"Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of "Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics." Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it."

If it can't get the simple stuff right - like the name of the guy who wrote it - I can't imagine the other stuff is any more accurate. Figure out which economist is actually backing this sort of stuff and it might be worth reading.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Sounds like something you'd hear being preached from a pulpit. Thanks, but I prefer to have my tax policy based on reality instead of taken on faith.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It is morally wrong, to demand others pay a higher percentage of their income, than you do, for the cost of running the country. That is my point.

I'm all for cutting all corporate welfare. Start with farm subsidies, renewable energy grants, and electric car grants and subsidies.

Some of those subsidies exist in the form of tax cuts. For example, the government giving me a tax break for buying an electric car is, effectively, the government giving a subsidy to Tesla.

No on the military. The military is the defacto reason for having a Federal Government. We don't need to cut it.

It's much larger than what we need, and it's a huge source of corporate subsidies. In one of the more famous examples, Congress keeps buying Abrams tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want:

Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want

Notice that it's a congressman from Ohio pushing for the purchase, and they're built in the district of another congressman... from Ohio.

I grew up in a town with an AFB during BRAC in the early 90s and watched how folks all over the country fought and fought to keep their bases open. They took away our planes (B-52's and KC-135's) early on but threw us a bone by leaving the NEADS, DFAS, and AFRL facilities open, though, over time, most of those left, too. Last year, they finally bulldozed the building where I did my college internship and met my ex-wife.

The military is as much a federal jobs program as anything, both in terms of federally-employed personnel and contractors who service the industry.

What services are you talking about that "vastly benefit the rich".

For services, most any kind of regulatory or law enforcement agency is going to provide the most benefit the people who use it the most and/or have the most assets to protect. The SEC, for example, provides a lot more value to people heavily invested in the market than it does to somebody with a small retirement account, or no investments at all. Trade agreements most benefit those engaged in international trade. In my own line of work (audio production), the FCC's rule changes governing UHF frequency spectrum allocation have greatly benefited very large players in the industry (e.g. T-Mobile) while costing end-users (including churches) lots of money (well into the tens of thousands in most cases).

They are not freeload off anyone. Being able to keep 'more' of the income they rightfully earned, doesn't mean they are 'freeloading'.

You should read up on how real estate investors get to write off depreciation on buildings that don't actually depreciate:

Jared Kushner Paid No Federal Income Tax for Years, Documents Suggest

That's freeloading. It's also legal.

I think the reason we don't "get this" is because you are factually wrong.

Maybe you don't know history, but this country created a middle class, when there was no safety net all. The middle class became the middle class, when we has zero unemployment insurance, zero welfare, zero food stamps, zero anything.

lol, wut?

The middle class in this country was more-or-less created in this country after the depression via New Deal and other post-WW2 government programs. The social security act was passed in 1935, and the unemployment act in 1939. All of those 1950's suburbs everywhere exist because of FHA-subsidized loans. The social security act also created the AFDC, which was a cash welfare program and the precursor to TANF. Food stamps didn't come until LBJ in the 60's, but those safety nets are part of what helped create the middle class.

We have more poor people now as a percentage of population, than before we started this 'war on poverty'.

That just isn't true.
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf

If you think taking from the rich, by using the force of the government, helps the poor... just look at Venezuela. They literally have people starving to death, in a country that has enough oil, that in a capitalist system would make the country wealthy.

Venezuela's problem isn't taxes. It's controls on prices and imports, along with myriad other forms of mismanagement.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is morally wrong, to demand others pay a higher percentage of their income, than you do, for the cost of running the country. That is my point.

You might want to check the tables posted earlier in the thread which show that the rich are the ones paying a lower percentage of their income than other groups.

 

[wing2000]

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 they 1% than you guys want it to seem.

...and real estate developers who think the government should pay them:

Kushner’s exceedingly low tax bills resulted from depreciation, a tax benefit that allows developers like him and the president to deduct a portion of the cost of their buildings from their taxable income each year, generating paper losses. Despite the fact that the White House adviser’s family business, Kushner Companies, has been profitable and generated millions in cash annually for young Jared, the depreciation deduction—which assumes buildings decline in value when in fact they often gain—has basically let him decide what his tax bill should be. And it may or may not surprise you to hear he often thought his federal tax bill should be zero, or in some cases, that the government ought to pay him.

Jared Kushner’s Guide to Gettin’ Rich: Pay No Federal Income Taxes

 

[KCfromNC]

I think the reason we don't "get this" is because you are factually wrong.

Maybe you don't know history, but this country created a middle class, when there was no safety net all.

Aside from the facts mentioned earlier in the thread, what was the rate for the highest tax bracket during the time the middle class was "created"?

 

[FireDragon76]

The wealthy have so many breaks, and the poor have such a high 'poverty penalty,' that they don't have much to gripe about. The wealthy, and even the comfortable, have companies offering them perks right and left to court their favor. Discounts, credit card rebates, frequent flier miles, etc.

The poor don't get 5% mortgage rates. They don't get 10% credit card rates. They even have to pay higher premiums on their car and home insurance because they are "less reliable." (Our credit rating is over 800 now, but in the early 2000's our credit rating went down from super-duper to just average--and they raised our premiums.)

What's more, the rich BENEFIT when the middle class thrives--and the middle class and working classes won't thrive unless there are good wages and a strong safety net. The taxes the rich pay to insure a stable economy with lots of motivated consumers buying their products and services helps their bottom line.

Why Republicans don't "get this" I don't know. I was on a mission trip in Guatemala. We went to the "tablon," a squatter's village with no roads, electricity, water, shacks made from garbage bags and scrap metal. On the way there was a coffee factory, and the factory owner's walled estate, complete with tennis courts, pools, guest houses, etc., etc., etc. What kind of quality of life do you think he had--with starvation all around him, no malls, entertainment, resorts, etc., surrounded by dire poverty? Pretty bad, I think, between the guilt and the isolation. The rich want a thriving economy with all sorts of amenities, good healthcare, education, shopping, entertainment, etc. Unless there are enough people who can afford those things, they are isolated and miserable.

South and Central America still suffer from the effects of the Ecomienda system. It created a class of people that own little or nothing, virtual serfdom, that persisted long after the practice officially ended. Every time "Land Reform" is discussed, the CIA or the School of the Americas swoops in.

 

[variant]

That work is represented by the bank's revenue. Not by what they lend out.

Sure, but what they do is lending for interest. If my wealth were say land instead I could put it to work by using it to grow crops. I could even lease it out to other people to use.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

You realize these stats are pretty stupid and make a poor argument....right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

To put it as simply as possible....these stats are given as if everyone benefits from society equally....so such a small group of people paying so much is unfair to them!

This isn't a communist society though, and everyone doesn't benefit equally. It's a capitalist society...and wealth benefits the wealthy. That's the easiest way to explain it.

That top 1% owns a whopping 40-50% of all the wealth depending on your source. The bottom 80% owns only 7% of the wealth. So even if we take the average (say the top 1% owns 45% of the wealth) then at 37% of the taxes....they're still coming in at almost 10% lower than their "fair share".

That bottom 50% that pays 3% of the taxes? Easily covering their fair share.

Massive wealth inequality doesn't help any economy....and the wealthy are wealthier than they've ever been in recorded history. If anything, the tax system should be skewed so that it slightly favors the losers....not the winners of this system.

That gives the most people the best quality of life....instead of an outrageously high quality of life for just a few.

I'd argue that whatever the exact numbers are (at the moment anyway), the tax shares should break down like this...

Top 1% pays 50% of the taxes.

99-80% covers the next 45% of the taxes.

80-0% covers 5%.

At least until the difference in wealth between those at the very top and the very bottom isn't so gargantuan.

 

[Andrew77]

Well here in the USA people would scream bloody "socialism!!!" if we tried to do anything like the govt action that Denmark does.

Like what specifically?

Like a corporate tax rate at 22% compared to the 39% that Trump cut?

Like not having welfare at all? You do know that Denmark has no welfare right? It only has unemployment insurance. You don't work, you don't get jack. And unemployment insurance is limited to 1 year, and during that year if you refuse even one single job offer, you lose your benefits.

By the way, that is paid for in taxes on employees, not the company.

How about Denmarks commitment to religious expression, where a crucifix is on the Danish passport?

Or how about that Danish homogeneity. Not much diversity going on in Denmark.

Or how about health care. Far from being free, you want medication? You pay for it. You want dental care? You pay for it.

Yeah, they do have some things, like primary care, and child care, that are highly subsidized. That's true.

Here is what you people need to grasp. This is what all of you people, that support the Bernie Sanders socialist policies, that you say the Nordic countries have, don't seem to grasp.

You are going to live in a smaller place, with less stuff, and a lower standard of living. Why? Because you are going to pay 60% of your paycheck in taxes.

The lowest tax rate, is 55%, plus you pay 25% sales tax on everything you buy, and that doesn't include Social Security.

This is the reality. You want free health care? You want free child care? You have to pay for it. Nothing is really "Free".

You take a person making $20,000 a year, and pay $10,000 in taxes, and add in a 25% cut on everything you buy.... Is that better, or worse of a deal, than me paying for my own health insurance in the US?

That is much worse. Worse by far.

 

[Andrew77]

This isn't a communist society though, and everyone doesn't benefit equally. It's a capitalist society...and wealth benefits the wealthy. That's the easiest way to explain it.

Huh? So last year I made $25K. That was the most I've ever earned in my life.

So let me understand this. You claim the wealth benefits the wealthy, but not me? Or am I the wealthy?

Because I just used my Iphone to use PayPal, to order a pizza from a chain store, delivered in a Ford Focus, to my home in built by a large construction company, eating on a couch from Pier 1 Imports, watching a movie from netflix on a projector made by Dell, while typing on this laptop, through a high speed network connection to a forum across the country............

About how none of the wealth in this great country benefits me....

Do you see the problem with that claim? You don't see people in the Congo, having this discussion. Most of the 8 Billion people on this planet, don't have a fraction of what I have.

As for communism benefiting everyone equally... that is only true in the area of everyone who is poor, being equally poor. The rich elite in government, were never 'equal' to the impoverished peasants.

The only equality is that all the peasants were equally impoverished.