US billionaires paid lower tax rate than working class in 2018

KnowThyself

Active Member
Oct 7, 2019
35
21
Roanoke, Illinois
✟1,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
A new book-length study on the tax burden of the ultrarich begins with a startling finding: In 2018, for the first time in history, America’s richest billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the working class.

But the tipping point came in 2017, with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That bill, championed by President Trump and then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, was a windfall for the wealthy: It lowered the top income tax bracket and slashed the corporate tax rate.

By 2018, according to Saez and Zucman, the rich were already enjoying the fruits of that legislation: The average effective tax rate paid by the top 0.1 percent of households dropped by 2.5 percentage points. The benefits the bill’s supporters promised — higher rates of growth and business investment and a shrinking deficit — have largely failed to materialize.

Well...Democrats should be mad at their politicians for lying to them for so many years about only republicans are supposedly in the top 1percent, when most of their donors are people like Jeffrey Buzz buzz Bezzos the owner of Amazon, and the richest person in America! and the list goes on. Mark Zuckerberg(owner of facebook, owe and zuck suck also suppresses Republican voices on his site, which is unethical, and he's a Democrat), Mark Cuban, the owner of Google(the largest search engine in the world. Google also suppresses Republicans by flooding their searches with a lot more Liberal information than republican based. Talk about corruption, and brainwashing! lol. they cheat and still can't win!).
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You mean generous enough?

There's a difference between "giving out of one's abundance" and the Godly version of being generous.

The latter makes a real difference and brings healing and salvation too.

Poverty in a slave/vassal state was common in those days. Today's poverty is often self-inflicted and inexcusable in an era of prosperity, freedom, and opportunity.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You mean generous enough?

There's a difference between "giving out of one's abundance" and the Godly version of being generous.

Jesus pointed to stewardship, not just generosity. I give to charity, but most of my money is available for low interest loans that would help others build wealth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mark 12:
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Are the rich not generous?

Are they?
 
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Poverty in a slave/vassal state was common in those days. Today's poverty is often self-inflicted and inexcusable in an era of prosperity, freedom, and opportunity.
Again, wow. Just wow.
 
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well...Democrats should be mad at their politicians for lying to them for so many years about only republicans are supposedly in the top 1percent, when most of their donors are people like Jeffrey Buzz buzz Bezzos the owner of Amazon, and the richest person in America! and the list goes on. Mark Zuckerberg(owner of facebook, owe and zuck suck also suppresses Republican voices on his site, which is unethical, and he's a Democrat), Mark Cuban, the owner of Google(the largest search engine in the world. Google also suppresses Republicans by flooding their searches with a lot more Liberal information than republican based. Talk about corruption, and brainwashing! lol. they cheat and still can't win!).
Which goes back to the concept of, both sides serve evil and it's time to leave them both behind.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Mark 12:
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”



Are they?

Did you miss the part where "many rich threw in large amounts"?
 
Upvote 0

Ricky M

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2017
1,905
1,319
66
Los Angeles
✟130,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Did you miss the part where "many rich threw in large amounts"?
Apparently you missed the part where JESUS said the old woman gave more, even tho all she gave was a penny.

Ok we've gone beyond (way beyond) my 3- exchange limit so I'll bid you good day. Good luck with your love of riches!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
How long do you think it should take to become comfortably well off? At age 44 I was still in debt. At age 54 my net worth was about $20,000, and no retirement savings.
We're not talking about merely being "comfortably well-off." To be in the top 1% ("rich" for purposes of this discussion) you need a net worth of around $10,000,000 at least. Something you say anyone an achieve by working hard and living clean.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I wonder why that is?

I've probably used this example a dozen times on CF, but it's basically the different in the buying process between consumer electronics (like a new TV set) and mission-critical services (like healthcare or as it's been trending over the past couple decades, post-secondary education)

When you're in a market where the consumers have all of the leverage, supply side economics work rather well. For instance, if Samsung wants me to buy a new TV, the onus is completely on them to convince me to do that (whether it be offering me a tempting price, or demonstrating that they're better than other companies that make TVs). So it makes all the sense in the world just to get out of the suppliers way, and give them the environment they need to compete for our business in the most efficient way possible.

In markets where consumers have no leverage and the good/service is a necessity (IE: the inelastic demand I was referring to), supply side models allow suppliers/providers to exploit that fact that and rake consumers over the coals. Our current healthcare model is a prime example of that...and recently, with the trends showing the earning potential by educational attainment, post-secondary education has become another example.

Now, it should be pointed out...
The inverse is also true, in markets where consumers do already have all of the leverage, Keynesian-style price controlling (aka price-fixing) are problematic because it kills the incentive for suppliers to make better products. If the government put a measure in place tomorrow that said "Nobody should have to pay more than $50 for a TV", TV makers aren't going to have any interest in innovating and making better products.


That's where the Nordic model really shines as it does a good job of a "best of both worlds" approach. They don't tamper with pricing and markets for non-essential, non-critical goods and services and just let the markets do their thing. However, for critical services like healthcare and education, they apply well-thought out price controls that both A) ensures someone who gets cancer isn't going to have to go bankrupt or in massive debt to afford treatments, but B) still allows the medical field to be a lucrative profession that still incentivizes people to want to pursue that field and ensures the motivation for innovation still exists with adequate profit potential.
 
Upvote 0

High Fidelity

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 9, 2014
24,258
10,276
✟897,101.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Vote for Sanders or Warren, they'll fix it so everyone pays 50 percent.

Unlikely. But hey, it works for the happiest countries in the world.

You already pay a lot in taxes. You're being robbed on health insurance and university fees, though. You don't get much for your money other than propping up the glorified jobs program called the military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ricky M
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Apparently you missed the part where JESUS said the old woman gave more, even tho all she gave was a penny.

Ok we've gone beyond (way beyond) my 3- exchange limit so I'll bid you good day. Good luck with your love of riches!

I do love riches, agape that is. :wave:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
OWG - WAKE UP! It's soup!

So taken literally the rich should give everything they have to a Jewish synagogue as an offering the church?

In another narrative Jesus condemned the Pharisees for allowing money to be given as an offering that should have been used to provide for aging parents. Which clearly implied that such offerings would not be spent on the needs of the poor.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I've probably used this example a dozen times on CF, but it's basically the different in the buying process between consumer electronics (like a new TV set) and mission-critical services (like healthcare or as it's been trending over the past couple decades, post-secondary education)

When you're in a market where the consumers have all of the leverage, supply side economics work rather well. For instance, if Samsung wants me to buy a new TV, the onus is completely on them to convince me to do that (whether it be offering me a tempting price, or demonstrating that they're better than other companies that make TVs). So it makes all the sense in the world just to get out of the suppliers way, and give them the environment they need to compete for our business in the most efficient way possible.

In markets where consumers have no leverage and the good/service is a necessity (IE: the inelastic demand I was referring to), supply side models allow suppliers/providers to exploit that fact that and rake consumers over the coals. Our current healthcare model is a prime example of that...and recently, with the trends showing the earning potential by educational attainment, post-secondary education has become another example.

Now, it should be pointed out...
The inverse is also true, in markets where consumers do already have all of the leverage, Keynesian-style price controlling (aka price-fixing) are problematic because it kills the incentive for suppliers to make better products. If the government put a measure in place tomorrow that said "Nobody should have to pay more than $50 for a TV", TV makers aren't going to have any interest in innovating and making better products.


That's where the Nordic model really shines as it does a good job of a "best of both worlds" approach. They don't tamper with pricing and markets for non-essential, non-critical goods and services and just let the markets do their thing. However, for critical services like healthcare and education, they apply well-thought out price controls that both A) ensures someone who gets cancer isn't going to have to go bankrupt or in massive debt to afford treatments, but B) still allows the medical field to be a lucrative profession that still incentivizes people to want to pursue that field and ensures the motivation for innovation still exists with adequate profit potential.

As I have explained elsewhere the Nordic model won't work here as we don't have the citizen participation needed for success. This from Wikipedia,

"The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies, as well as typical cultural practices, common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden)."

Note the importance of cultural practices, which largely reflects a homogenous culture, based primarily on ethnic and historical homogeneity. No such thing is found in the U.S.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,613
9,331
the Great Basin
✟325,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I have explained elsewhere the Nordic model won't work here as we don't have the citizen participation needed for success. This from Wikipedia,

"The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies, as well as typical cultural practices, common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden)."

Note the importance of cultural practices, which largely reflects a homogenous culture, based primarily on ethnic and historical homogeneity. No such thing is found in the U.S.

I can't agree with that. Also from Wikipedia about Norway, "Immigrants constituted 13% of the population at the start of 2015, and an additional 2.6% were born in Norway by immigrant parents (up from 8,3% and 1,5% in 2006). The same year, 19% of births in Norway were to immigrant parents. In 2006, non-Western immigrants constituted 75% of the total number of immigrants. They contribute much of the population growth."

While you might not consider 15% to be a large percentage, it is enough -- were the "Nordic model" dependent on cultural practices -- to show that it can work in less than a "homogenous culture."
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
As I have explained elsewhere the Nordic model won't work here as we don't have the citizen participation needed for success. This from Wikipedia,

"The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies, as well as typical cultural practices, common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden)."

Note the importance of cultural practices, which largely reflects a homogenous culture, based primarily on ethnic and historical homogeneity. No such thing is found in the U.S.

Why are those cultural practices required for success?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I can't agree with that. Also from Wikipedia about Norway, "Immigrants constituted 13% of the population at the start of 2015, and an additional 2.6% were born in Norway by immigrant parents (up from 8,3% and 1,5% in 2006). The same year, 19% of births in Norway were to immigrant parents. In 2006, non-Western immigrants constituted 75% of the total number of immigrants. They contribute much of the population growth."

While you might not consider 15% to be a large percentage, it is enough -- were the "Nordic model" dependent on cultural practices -- to show that it can work in less than a "homogenous culture."

What that demonstrates is that those immigrants assimilated into the culture. We are overwhelmed by immigrants that don't accept our culture. In fact because of it we don't really have a culture to assimilate in to.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0