Forum Post: 70% Of All Taxes Are Paid For By The Top 20%
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 10:49 p.m. EST by jhc
(46)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The most common and recurring assertion that I have been hearing from OWS is that the wealthy do not pay their fair share.
The fact is that the wealthy pay more than their fair share. According to the Tax Policy Center (using 2007 data provided by the Congressional Budget Office), the top 1% of income earners in America were responsible for 28.1% of all taxes collected by the Federal Government. The top 10% of income earners were responsible for 55%. In layman terms, 55 cents of every dollar spent by our Government was paid for by 10% of our population.
Some people have argued that the tax burden has shifted towards the middle class; however, that is also an unfounded, unsubstantiated assertion. The figures show that between 1982 and 2007, the tax burden increased by approximately 120% for the top 1% and by approximately 45% for the top 10%. Note: top 1% were responsible for 12.8% of all taxes in 1982 and 28.1% in 2007; the top 10% were responsible for 38% in 1982 and 55% in 2007.
The same data shows that 20% of the population (highest quintile) is responsible for approximately 70% of the Federal Government’s tax revenues. The bottom 40% of income earners is responsible for about 5% of the tax revenues and the middle 40% of income earners is responsible for about 25%.
The main point here is that the wealthy are already paying more than their fair share.
Sources are embedded into my blog post: http://occupyblamestreet.wordpress.com/
========== FOLLOW UP #1 ==========
Many OWS’ers have responded to my post by stating that although the high income earners are responsible for a greater share of the tax revenue of the Federal Government, the income earned by the high earners as a percentage of the total income pool is much greater.
That assertion is false. The raw data tells a different story.
The income earned by the top 1% of earners represents 19.4% of the total income pool. They are responsible for 28.1% of the total tax revenue for the Federal Government.
The income earned by the top 10% of earners represents 42.0% of the total income pool. They are responsible for 55.0% of the total tax revenue for the Federal Government.
The income earned by the top 20% of earners represents 55.9% of the total income pool. They are responsible for 68.9% of the total tax revenue for the Federal Government.
The income earned by the bottom 20% of earners represents 4.0% of the total income pool. They are responsible for 0.8% of the total tax revenue for the Federal Government.
My point here is to demonstrate that the wealthy do pay their fair share plus more.
That still begs the question of whether or not the income earned by the top 1% of earners SHOULD represent 19.4% of the total income pool; however, that is a wholly different topic from this one (I am simply asserting that the wealthy do pay their fair share). I will attempt to address the topic of “should” in another post.
Sources: 1) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=558 2) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
The progressive tax code has been an accepted part of the social contract since the turn of last century, but that has been reversed since the 80s. It is regressive and is DIRECTLY correlated to our staggering income and wealth inequality which are higher than any advanced nation.
Could you provide sources for that argument?
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20080618/
No time for detail, but you can probably work it out with these three as a starting place.
I was looking for a build up of the argument you presented. I may or may not be able to put together your argument by reviewing those sources ... but I will try. Thanks anyways.
Feel free to send me any other information/opinions as well.
You can skew the statistics any way you want. The bottom line is that the middle class has steadily lost ground since Reagan got elected. Most people on here (but not all) are not so much anti-rich as pro-prosperity for everyone. What we lack is a true prosperity based on a sound economy. The average joe may not be an economist but he knows when the entire financial system has been rigged to ensure profits to the traders, and the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill when it explodes.
How is the data skewed? I am simply presenting the data as-it-is presented by the Tax Policy Center. Nothing is skewed.
Before we cry tears for the rich, lets look at some facts....
Some facts from 2007....(from wikipedia... a)US GDP : 14 trillion b) Total Federal Tax: 2.406 Trillion c) Total State Tax - 0.749 Trillion d) Total Federal and State Tax Revenue - 3.149 Trillion d) Income of the top 1 % as a fraction of GDP - 25% (approximately) e) Income of the top 1% - 3.5 Trillion f) Income of the top 10% as a fraction of GDP - 48% (approximately) g) Income of the top 10% - 6.72 Trillion d) Capital gains @17% applied to income of top 1% @ - 595 Billion e) Fraction of Federal tax as contributed by the top 1% - 25%
This shows that most of the Federal tax collected from the top 1% is via captial gains tax(which is of only 17%), since applying a tax of 17% to the income of the top 1% results in a tax contribution of 595 billion, which is 25% of Federal tax revenue. I am sure that the other 3% comes from income that could not be classified as due to capitol gains.
What I find interesting is that the income of the top 1% is greater than the combined tax revenue of Federal and State COMBINED . What is also interesting that the top 10% have income greater than twice the income of the Federal and States combined. One should consider this...Federal and State tax revenues are spent on programs that maintain the present and future health of the United States. The top 10% derive most of their income from the USA, and need the USA and the other 90% of the people to remain healthy and prosperous. Many federal and State programs are now foundering because of a lack of tax revenue and due to excessively high debt levels, which means the future prospects of the United States will be jeopardy. Shouldn't the top 10% contribute more money, in order to maintain and promote the health of their own nation?
Most American conservatives take it as an article of faith that the less governmental involvement in affairs of the market and pocketbook the better. The rich do not, whatever they might say--for much of their wealth comes from the "power and preferment of government." So writes Kevin Phillips, the accomplished historian and one-time Washington insider, in the book 'Wealth and Democracy" an extraordinary survey of plutocracy, excess, and reform. "Laissez-faire is a pretense," he argues; as the wealth of the rich has grown, so has its control over government, making politics a hostage of money. Examining cycles of economic growth and decline from the founding days of the republic to the recent collapse of technology stocks, Phillips dispels notions of trickle-down wealth creation, pricks holes in speculative bubbles, and decries the ever-increasing "financialization" of the economy--all of which, he argues, have served to reduce the well-being of ordinary Americans and government alike. Highly readable for all its charts and graphs, Phillips's book offers a refreshing--and, of course, controversial--blend of economic history and social criticism. His conclusions won't please all readers, but just about everyone who comes to his pages will feel hackles rising. --Gregory McNamee
You need to get into more detail to understand the tax issue. For example, more than half of the households who pay no income taxes made less than $16,812. Do you expect people in that tax bracket to pay federal taxes? What are they supposed to cut out -- food? When you add in households that make less than about $30,000 (try supporting a family on that), you're up to 70% of those "freeloaders" who pay no federal taxes.
No, the issue is not so much who pays most of the federal income taxes, because the people with all the money pay all the taxes. The real issue is who gets all the money? And why do so few get so much?
As for financial wealth, as gobsmackingly incredible as it may seem, the top 1% of households owned 35% of all privately held wealth in 2007, and the top 20% owned more than 50%, meaning 21% of households owned 85% of the wealth, leaving 15% for the remaining 80% of households!
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
How can this be right? Do you really think only 20% of people in this country work hard? How hard does one have to work in order to get a share of the wealth?
As for
Suggesting that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 'more than their fair share' because they contribute the largest share of total taxes is a specious argument. Of course they would pay the largest fraction of total taxes as long as their income is growing at a faster rate than their marginal tax rate is decreasing. Using an extreme example to make my point, assume ALL (100%) income went to the top 1% and the remaining 99% got nothing. The tax contribution of the top 1% would be 100% of total taxes. Would you call that a 'fair share'? How does your statistic address equity and fairness for ALL Americans?
70% of all wealth is owned by the top 10%. They sell to the rest of us and the government. The top 1% don't pay taxes, they collect the vig from govt. et al.
http://www.agkaiser.org/posts-2011/Where-Is-the-Money.pdf
http://www.agkaiser.org/endgame/HowDoesThatWork.pdf
Good thread, nice breakdown of the data. It's really funny how people act like the rich aren't having their balls broken by DC in the first place.
The top 20% also take in more than 70% of the income. Do the fucking math, idiot.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
The income earned by the top 20% represents 55% of the total income pool. The tax paid by the top 20% of income earners represents 70% of the total tax revenue by the Federal Government.
Also, please do not use profanity or engage in name calling. My post wasn't intended to be confrontational. Possibly controversial, but not confrontational. It was intended to promote open exchange of information and opinions.
Amazing...the message gets lost in the rhetoric and the math...
If 400 people earned all of the income and the remaining 310,000,000 were all slaves and earned nothing, who should pay federal taxes? This is a serious mental exercise for you. Would it be valid for the 400 to complain that they were paying all of the taxes?
Change the equation slightly. 400 people are earning almost all of the income. The remaining 310,000,000 each earn $1 per year. Since they are paid, and no longer technically slaves, they are expected to contribute to their own boarding, which costs more than the dollar they earned. Should they pay taxes? Or should the 400 still pay all taxes while the rest pay none?
That is not true. Please read my post for information. There are sources available as well.
If I pay 1k in taxes and only make 20k a year, it's a much bigger burden on me than 90% of 1 million. Not that I'm proposing a 90% tax.
Well, since they own over 80% of the wealth according to this CBS chart: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120052-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody I don't really care. Besides, I'm not here trying to get them to pay more taxes - I'm here for reforms to the financial system and stop the debt slavery of education, housing and health care.
the bottom 70% pay directly to the top 20%
a conservative off the envelope guess
Rich pay too much in tax. The middle class pay too much in tax. The poor pay too much in tax.
The government does not spend it well enough for us to donate extra.
I think the rich pay more then their fair share of taxes and this is coming from a guy making less then $30k a year.
I say scrap the tax code and get rid of ALL deductions for corporations, married couples and single individuals...also know as EVERYBODY. Then charge an across the board FLAT TAX.
A flat tax is the most fair because everybody is paying the same rate. You shouldn't be penalized for being rich. When you pay a state sales tax, it is a flat tax. A millionaire pays the same amount of sales tax on a $1000 LCD television as a guy that makes minimum wage. It doesn't any get more fair then that.
A liberal mindset would have the cashier charge 2-3 times as much tax on the millionaire's LCD TV purchase simply because he's "rich". That mindset along with the loopholes is the problem with the current tax system.
Also.....Liberals believe in a "windfall tax" which means a company is taxed at a higher rate simply because a company made a higher profit then it was expecting then simply charging the normal tax rate on the unexpected additional income. Among other words.... you better not make more profit then we want you to or we will tax you at a higher rate to punish you for it. There is nothing FAIR about that.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php
Except for those nasty race of people we call corporations.
No that is Obama talk.
I've seen a lot of commonts on thes thread and I have to say taht I"m in agrreeance with 99% of them. We need to have the top 5% of the wealthy people give me their money nd weed. It's all ao conspiracy!!!!!!!1 they take ALLLLLL the weed. if you think that most rich people don't smoek weed, you're crazy. It's all about hiding weed. Come down to wallstreet and smoke ith me. I'm mike. I'm next to starbucks (my favorite place for showering!)
This is unproductive.
LOUD NOISES! We disregard actual data on facts here and just use the same talking points over and over again
100% of all American jobs sent to China were sent there by the top wage earners.
This is a complete different topic.
Let me frame this in a way that you might understand.
If wages go up for rubber bands, it means that the American consumer will have to pay more for rubber bands. Not substitute rubber bands with virtually all the commodity goods that "China" manufactures and you have a major issue of inflation in the US, which means that people will find normal goods to be much more expensive. I will elaborate in a different post.
[Deleted]
More income for a small portion of people. Higher costs for a greater number of people.
You're wrong. The retailers charge the same amount for a pair of socks made in china as they charge for a pair of socks made in the USA. Banning imports from China will NOT raise the price of socks by one penny, but it will put several Americans to work.
And you know this how? Please provide primary data.
Look at it another way, there are tons of "skilled" jobs available right now but there are not enough "skilled" labor. Rather than protesting for your right to manufacture socks, why you don't encourage people to retool themselves in a skilled trade?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43590587/ns/business-careers/t/skills-gap-leaves-firms-without-worker-pipeline/
My comment was the result of an exhaustive market research when I walked into Target looking for a pair of socks last week. Same socks same number of pairs same price one made in China one made in the USA. It's sad.
[Deleted]
They paid more taxes.
That's because the top 10% control 2/3 of all Wealth & Income. Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.
So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.
Maybe 70% of all taxes are paid by the top 20%. However, if you look at the percentage of taxes paid by individuals, in comparison to their income, you will see a major difference. Also, look at the disparity of wages between the top 20% and the bottom 40%; it's ludicrous. The middle class citizens are being hit hard, and paying a larger percentage of their income. Fair is fair. All of us should pay the same percentage of our income in taxes, whether we are rich or not. It isn't fair that those making the most money get tax benefits to protect their income, while others don't. We should all be treated equally in the eyes of OUR government, regardless of how much money we earn, or how much wealth we possess.
False. Tax rates are progressive. That means that the wealthy have a higher tax rate. A caveat is if you reinvest capital gains (which are income from dividends from your investments), you get a tax benefit. This tax benefit is available for everyone. It is also based on a progressive method, which means that a lower to middle class benefit more from this. The reason for a capital gains tax benefit is to create incentives to reinvest in the economy, thus creating jobs.
Also a flat tax would imply that the poor would have to shoulder a greater portion of the tax burden, which is the biggest criticism to Cain's 9-9-9 ("flat") tax proposal.
I do know the wealthier have a higher tax rate, however they still qualify for many more breaks than those that are not wealthy. Although not wealthy, I receive many more tax breaks than some of my friends, simply because I own a home, run a small home-based business, etc. Unfortunately, we are all not able to invest our income to be able to take advantage of capital gains. Many of us work every day, only to see most of our income eaten away by city, state, and federal taxes. Because we aren't wealthy, and don't have the extra money to spare, we aren't able to invest to make the money we do have work for us. There is absolutely no reason the working class work their tails off to get nowhere, while America's wealthy reap the benefits.
Also, the capital gains tax benefit hasn't done our country much good. Many of these wealthy Americans have taken advantage of the tax breaks, moved their business to foreign lands and taken our jobs with them. I think these corporations need face higher tax rates, when sending America's jobs out and putting even more of our citizens out of work.
jhc, do you understand that the vast majority of workers have not seen their real incomes increase for FORTY YEARS? While the wealthiest minority has gotten richer and richer and richer? It is odd when people act as if the wealthy should receive all of the benefit but shoulder none of the responsibility. People say they are "job creators" and "innovators" - but then aren't THEY they ones to blame when they fail to create jobs and spread wealth?
And to whoever said the top 20% of the population own 70% of the wealth, I believe it is actually 85% of the wealth.
Wealth does not equal income. Please read carefully.
So freaking what? Like I said, the majority of us have not seen our incomes rise in FORTY YEARS. The wealthy, however, have seen astronomical income increases. AND wealth increases. So if they want to hoard the wealth (and the INCOME), they can pay for the crappy society they create.
Amen, LaughinWillow! Rather than receiving a pay raise this year, I had a pay freeze, an increase in health insurance, and a decrease in my salary of almost $30 per pay. I work in the public sector, have a degree and still don't see a raise.
Again false, living standards are measured by income not wealth.
You seem to be arguing nothing. They have seen massive increases in wealth AND income. The majority of people have seen increases in NEITHER.
Allow me to elaborate:
Your income (e.g. paycheck) enables you to purchase goods and services (e.g. place to live, food). That is what is called standard of living. When income goes up, the price of these goods go up. When income goes down the price of these goods go down. That is what the Consumer Price Index measures. It is relatively unchanged.
So you are now suggesting that though incomes have not risen in 40 years, prices have not risen in 40 years either? I mean, is this really your position? Have you actually SEEN the Consumer Price Index on a graph??? http://www.multpl.com/cpi/ This appears "unchanged" to you??? What are you talking about?
Oh come on! Please don't tell me you flunked third grade math?!
Do you mean to tell me, if you get $1 million a year and I get $5000 and I pay $500 in taxes and you pay $1000, that means it's unfair because you're paying more?!?! ROFLMFAO!
Yea, thats exactly what they're saying when they pull out statistics that represent the share of the total tax burden pie that the rich pay.
The rich have income from capital gains which gets taxed at a straight 15% with no other payroll taxes.
The poor lower & middle income slobs whose only income is a paycheck have a myriad of deductions coming out of that paycheck.
In addition, percentagewise, anyone earning under 107K per year pays a full 7% of FICA tax plus his employer contributes another 7% of the guy's TOTAL income.
Someone with a W2 income of 1 million per year would be paying less than one percent of their income in FICA taxes.
They can crow about how big their slice of the paying taxes pie is till doomsday, if they keep shifting taxes & expenses down to the working man til it becomes not even worth it to have a job...well, I don't know, they all might decide to occupy wall street or something.
Imagine earning 60K a year gross, taking home 40K, paying for food, clothing, shelter, child care and health care...and then the govt schemes to get more and more of the 89 dollars a month you have left because "the rich already pay too much tax and they are the job creators".
False. Capital gains tax benefits are available for everyone. Not just the wealthy. It is also progressive, which means that the lower to middle class benefit more from this tax break.
A capital gains tax is a tax on the income earned from the dividends of your investments, e.g. stocks and bonds that "normal" people buy too. Government offers tax breaks on capital gains in order to create incentives to reinvest the income in the capital markets, the money which is used to make equity investments or loans to businesses that create jobs.
Yes, "capital gains tax benefits are available for everyone"...everyone with investment income.
Take away the 401k holders, whose gains (if any) aren't taxable as income until they cash out, and you're left with a population of "everyone" that reduces down to...the 1%.
A statement like the above is a classic example of the disingenuous framing that pro big-business arguments absolutely need to repeat to defend their corruption of the tax code and Congress.
Call bullshit on these feints at every turn.
Americans choose not to benefit from the capital gains tax by spending way more money than he/she should. The savings/investment rate in America is virtually non-existent or pitiful compared to other countries. The fact is that the average American would rather choose to purchase an iPhone, the newest TV set, etc.
The average millionaire in America are actually blue-collar workers, who happen to SAVE money. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
Five minutes ago, jhc, you told us capital gains tax benefits were available for "everyone". But now you say they're only available for those who don't live paycheck to paycheck. So you're moving your position, fine, we expect that of shills for big business.
But now, you're going to blame the poor for being poor. We've had wages not move since 1972, a massive upward transfer of wealth, but this doesn't register with you. You think the poor bought gadgets and that's why they're not millionaires.
And to back this nonsense up, you posted a link to a detailed, objective demographic study of how most millionaires are "self-made".
Oh, wait, no you didn't. You posted a link to a 1996 self-help book written by a pair of cheerleaders for the stock market, published at a time the stock market was at a historic high.
Here's the reality: a long, boring study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve about what assets the rich hold. It ain't savings, genius. I point out table 4, where unincorporated business, stocks and investment real estate are at the top of the list. http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/97/07/9707jw.pdf
Read more studies and fewer fifteen year old rah-rah books written for consumers of rah-rah books before you try running this shit past us.
Also the point I was making with the average millionaire is that the average millionaire is actually someone who spends, saves, and invests in a planned, sustainable manner. They are not the big corporate giants that is often portrayed in the media. The average millionaire doesn't drive luxury cars or are members of some country club. Odds are your neighbor is a millionaire.
On another point, this topic of wages goes beyond the point I was making with this post. My aim here was to demonstrate that high income earners do pay their fair share, which I have. If you choose to ignore the facts, then so be it. I will address this issue of wages at another time in another post. That is a wholly separate discussion.
First, I did not move my position. My position is still the same. Please read my post carefully.
Capital gains tax benefits are available for everyone; however, whether or not an individual benefits from it depends on the individual's consumption/investment/savings habits. If a person "chooses" to spend a lot and save little, then guess what? They will not benefit from it.
Second, try to engage in civil discourse rather than confrontation. Re-read my posts and compare my tone to yours. I have yet to use the word "non-sense, rah-rah, genius, etc". This doesn't help your cause at all and it certainly will not help convince me otherwise.
Oh, don't worry about my cause. I don't expect you to be convinced, nor do I really care if you are or not. You believe provably untrue things, such as things I disproved in this thread. But what you believe is not my interest.
My interest is to show everybody else reading your nonsense how easy it is to knock over and how unlikely you are to win the argument. To show how you're way more likely to ignore facts and repeat unsubstantiated claims than to, you know, prove anything.
Thanks for that!
The poor have virtually no capital gains income. It is also extremely disproportionately a wealthy form of income, not middle class.
lol they're only available to people who have capital gains not to people who have no money to invest and only work for a paycheck.
And businesses create jobs when they have customers not because you give them a tax break.
If you look at consumer spending patterns, it is a different story. To frame this differently, American people choose not to save/invest. They would rather buy an iPhone, the newest TV sets, etc.
The average millionaires are actually people who earned normal incomes and saved a shit ton of money (excuse my french).
Yes you are right about businesses creating jobs when they have customers. Problem is that businesses have immediate operating costs (e.g. purchasing inventory), which requires capital. That capital comes from ... Wall Street.
I think you're the one who needs to check his/her basic math skills.
30% of $1 million = $300K in taxes
they dont pay 30% on the million. Thats the thing...its called loopholes. they havent payed that since bush.
What?! But then I guess I should have expected an incoherent response from somebody who doesn't know third grade math. Maybe you thought I was calculating 30%? But you didn't mention that 30% of $5000 is 15k. Guess what? I was giving you a simple example so that you could hopefully calculate it even with your less than third grade math. Apparently not. In the first case, the person collecting $5000 a year would be paying 10% tax. The millionaire would be paying 1%. In other words, even though the millionaire is paying TEN TIMES LESS taxes than the poor person, the total amount he's paying is higher.....as it should be. All you've told us is that the wealthy have gotten SOOO much richer, that they are paying a larger portion of the total tax dollars because they're taking so much money away from us.
If you want the poor and middle class to pay more in taxes, just take 90% of the wealthiest people's money and give it to them. Then they'll pay a much higher portion of the total tax dollars.
That is false. The top 1% income earners pay more taxes as a total "percentage" than they earn as a total "percentage". I'm not going to explain again. You either get it or you don't.
Also, it's extraordinarily disingenuous to exclude FICA taxes from your calculations.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=558
Scroll down to "Social Insurance Tax Liabilities".
Here is the breakdown of liabilities of the total share: Top 20% of earners pay 42.9% of all social security tax Top 40% of earners pay 67.6% of all social security tax Bottom 60% of earners pay 32.4% of all social security tax
The bottom 20% that you are referring to only contributes 4.8% to the total pool.
And btw: Your link is just as misleading as your statements.
You can't really compare quintiles between social periods as diverse as 1979 and 2007 since income quintiles measure household income and households have changed dramatically during that time period. In fact, since households have generally gained more income earners (since a larger proportion of women are in the work-force), the fact that the lowest quintiles have remained relatively constant in their income is actually somewhat disturbing. It should have gotten significantly higher. Also, the fact that the productivity of Americans has dramatically increased yet their income hasn't is also disturbing. Your link doesn't prove anything that you said to me. In fact, it tends to indicate that what I've said is the correct interpretation. The rich are getting richer yet paying lower taxes while we're getting poorer but paying higher taxes.
I didn't call you any names. I just told you you don't know how to do math. And you don't.
Pay attention.
Do you disagree that if the rich gave us 90% of their money, that we would pay a higher portion in taxes? How can that be if they're so burdened by their taxes?
You've got to be kidding if you think we're going to pity the rich. They absolutely DO NOT pay more of their fair share. Warren Buffet just released his tax return and he paid about 19 1/2% in federal taxes. I paid 21%. And I'm doing well. I know lots of people that are struggling to barely make ends meet and you think they should pay even higher taxes?!
Not until you richies pay them more!
Once again, your figures are GROSSLY misleading. Are you telling me that somebody who can barely put food on the table should pay the same percentage as somebody who can afford a brand new Rolls Royce every year?
Sorry, but we ALL know that's completely absurd!
Oh jeez! You just don't know how to do math do you? Who cares if they're paying 42.9% of all society security tax when they are making so much more money? They should pay even more. You're also not taking into account earnings from Capital Gains.
Ok, fine. Give back some of the poor's money and they'll pay more taxes. Pay them higher wages and they'll pay more taxes. Until then, to ask people who are struggling to get by to pay more is blatantly sick.
What is with you and name calling? Are you incapable of engaging in dialogue without name calling? Please control yourself.
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
Figures show that the % of total income earned by the top 1% of earners is significantly less than the % of total tax liabilities that they are responsible for.
Top 1% of earners accounted for 19.4% of the total income and they were responsible for 28.1% of the total tax revenues of the Federal Government. Top 10% of earners accounted for 42.0% of the total income and they were responsible for 55.0% of the total tax revenues of the Federal Government.
So yes, they do pay more than their fair share. The same data also shows that low earners pay significantly less tax as a percentage of total tax liabilities than they earn as a percentage of total income.
If you want to argue that wages should be higher, then that is a different topic. I will create another post to respond to that topic. This topic is whether or not high income earners pay their fair share. The hard numbers say that they are plus more.
That's completely irrelevant. If somebody is earning poverty wages and they pay zero percent of their income in taxes but the millionaire thinks that means he should pay no taxes, that's grossly unfair and everybody here (except apparently you) knows that. Secondly, you aren't taking into account Capital Gains which is very much "income" even though it may not be "wages".
Millionaires do not pay no tax. That is the whole point of the article.
You can't really compare quintiles between social periods as diverse as 1979 and 2007 since income quintiles measure household income and households have changed dramatically during that time period. In fact, since households have generally gained more income earners (since a larger proportion of women are in the work-force), the fact that the lowest quintiles have remained relatively constant in their income is actually somewhat disturbing. It should have gotten significantly higher. Also, the fact that the productivity of Americans has dramatically increased yet their income hasn't is also disturbing. Your link doesn't prove anything that you said to me. In fact, it tends to indicate that what I've said is the correct interpretation. The rich are getting richer yet paying lower taxes while we're getting poorer but paying higher taxes.
No, they are not paying their fair share!
Nobody is saying they are. We're saying they aren't paying enough.
And, oh, btw, they aren't paying us enough wages either (well, actually, I'm fine but too many people aren't).
Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
Figures show that the % of total income earned by the top 1% of earners is significantly less than the % of total tax liabilities that they are responsible for.
Top 1% of earners accounted for 19.4% of the total income and they were responsible for 28.1% of the total tax revenues of the Federal Government. Top 10% of earners accounted for 42.0% of the total income and they were responsible for 55.0% of the total tax revenues of the Federal Government.
So yes, they do pay more than their fair share. The same data also shows that low earners pay significantly less tax as a percentage of total tax liabilities than they earn as a percentage of total income.
thank you!
The top 1% make aprox 1000:1 of every dollar . So how is it they pay only 28% of taxes. They should pay 99% of taxes if they were taxed appropriately according to their income. Or we can mandate living wages so we could afford to pay more taxes, mainly because we would earn what we are worth. I dont mind taxes, they pay for schools and roads and libraries, all of which I use. The top 1% make 1000:1, think about it.
That is false. As I have stated before: Another set of stats show that the % of total income earned by the top 1% of earners is significantly less than the % of tax liabilities that they are responsible for. I would provide you with a link but the Tax Policy Center's server is down. I'll post it up later.
If you dont have the link, then you dont have the proof and there is really no reason to believe you. I have done my homework as well. Since the Bush era tax cuts they havent paid anywhere near that figure because of loopholes and tax breaks.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458
your numbers are wrong. There's a difference between income and wealth.
well, its the top 10% of the top 1%, but saying the top one percent is easier to say.
Thank you. For everyone, please note "income earners".
living wages = inflation
Co-opt manufacturing= corporate obsolescence. Grow our own food, build our own machines, dictate our own wages, and keep our prices low. A CD case for example takes $0.10 to manufature. That is including overhead and wages. The rest of the $0.90 is pure profit. I think that could be distributed a little differently in a working model that focused on bringing jpobs back to America.
why would you buy a CD. i get my music off of bandcamp
The richest 1 percent SHOULD pay at least 28.1% of all taxes, as that's about the amount of wealth they own.
The top 20% own 70% of the wealth. Don't you see a problem with that?
On another note, no I do not see a problem with the top 20% owning 70% of the wealth, AS LONG AS BASIC SOCIAL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED.
Equality in opportunity does not equal equality in outcome. The two are mutually exclusive.
But there isn't equality in opportunity. A boy growing up in the Southie neighborhood of Boston isn't going to be going to as good a public school as the boy in Westchester County, New York.
That is not true. I grew up in a blue collar, immigrant family in Queens, NY. I graduated from the NYC public school system, attended one of the top public universities in this country, and worked my way into a job.
That said, I understand that I am fortunate to be where I am. I do sympathize with you to a certain degree. The solution; however, involves working through our existing legislative process rather than through meaningless, disorganized protest.
The protests help to convince the politicians to do what they already know they should do and they energize people like me who have the wherewithal to influence the politicians to work harder to do so.
So why are you not directing this towards Congress? There are a group of people in Wall Street and Times Square. It doesn't make any sense.
I am.
More power to you. :)
Things are allot different and much worse for our children now my friend. When we elected Obama that was our goal, work through the legislative process. There are so many frauds in congress half of Dems didnt even vote for the Jobs Bill. Politicians are bought with all that money.
So you agree with the sentiments of the protesters, but not the protests?
I grew up in a fairly privileged city (Somerville, MA), and I can certainly see that I was far better off than someone growing up in Roxbury. However, someone growing up in rich Acton or Newton was probably way better off than me.
This goes to a broader topic, what is the sentiment of the protesters? There is no coherent sentiment. There are anti-war activists, anti-capitalism activists, anti-government activists, anti-anti-union activists, etc. So no I do not agree with the sentiment of the protestors.
I agree with you that there is a caveat to the equal opportunity theory. It is one that has been addressed through the public works, e.g. public school systems, social welfare programs. Strengthening these programs does not equate to anything these people are doing.
So should they just be an anti-military-industrial complex protest group? That way we could cut military expenditures and put that piece of the pie into education, which is only a fraction of the government's budget right now.
But can't you agree with THIS sentiment of the protest: It's time to speak up! We can't just sit idly by and let the futures of disenfranchised children go down the tube. Sure, the inner-city youth who excels at sports can easily find his way to a good college. But what about the potential philosopher (and I use that in the actual definition) who hasn't come into his own yet? what about the kid who comes from a broken home, whose dad was killed over in Afghanistan? Whose mom is addicted to meth?
There are a lot of X-Factors we have to consider when we say "but capitalism is equal opportunity." Only in textbooks and theory is our society in any way equal opportunity.
That is false. As I have stated before: Another set of stats show that the % of total income earned by the top 1% of earners is significantly less than the % of tax liabilities that they are responsible for. I would provide you with a link but the Tax Policy Center's server is down. I'll post it up later.
There needs to be protest that is how democracy is conducted however I am disappointed at the disorganization of it all. I was on my own at 16 I worked two jobs and went to school I inevitably had to drop out of college because of financial reasons I didnt let it stop me I kept working kept saving kept living below my means now I own my own business that even in this economy is doing great. However that docent mean that I agree with how corporations have screwed the American public. Most of you have no clue into the inter workings of corporations literally PROFIT is the bottom line that's all that matters they go as far as their lawyers can find ways around the effects on the population is of no consequence. the only value they have is to their shareholder which means profit. and for people like "JHC" no offense employees are like pieces of machinery if you get a good piece of equipment that works well you definitely want to take care of it it will benefit your bottom line. But as soon as it becomes more profitable to replace it then there isnt a second thought. You are expendable. There for to have a country run on these principals will NEVER serve anyone except for the wallets of the highest few, the 1%, It will keep getting worse until they rise up and demand a stop you will then cease make some concessions then eventually began again on the endless quest of profit..... The problem is when the government is ran by people with such a mentality then the populace of such a country is expendable. Their rights, freedoms, health, and quality of living are second place to profit. Do any of you ever ask yourselves why the candidate that raises the most money inevitably wins? Well if you ask me the candidate that raises the most money owes the most favors. So JHC you are a fine drone son keep up the good work and work harder Just like the draft horse in animal farm you will be briefly missed when your career is at an end for in what ever case you become less profitable. As for the rest of people arguing. Your reasons for protesting are sound however you modus operandi is severely flawed your demands are too many, your message is diluted, and you are unwilling to compromise for the greater good. Until this happens nothing will ever get done small groups with common purpose need to compromise and unify to achieve victory. The intractability of most in this movement is making the 1% of the people you seek to destroy sleep better. Until the masses form a cohesive unit this is nothing more than a mere publicity stunt.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_5.gif
This study basically says that the top 1% own over 30% of the overall wealth in America.
Read the rest here:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
"But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half" this came from that same article, something to think about.
I agree, that is something to think about. That means the the very tippy-top of our pyramid has much more wealth than those immediately below them.
You are mistaking wealth with income. I have explicitly stated income in my post.
As per wealth, please read my previous comment.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_7.gif
Then is this the graph we should be looking at?
that graph shows top 20%, that really distorts the figures. They pay more taxes than the top half of the 1%
It doesn't distort the graph if the graph is being broken off only in portions of every 20%. That's just the point of THAT graph. The graph isn't making a political statement, it's remarking on statistics.
Your basic premise is flawed. Those statistics don't take into account the amount of money they earn compared to everybody else.
Premise is not flawed. Another set of stats show that the % of total income earned by the top 1% of earners is significantly less than the % of tax liabilities that they are responsible for. I would provide you with a link but the Tax Policy Center's server is down. I'll post it up later.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE DON'T YOU GET it?
We're all moron hippies bro! we are the 99% of weed smokers! 4:20 all day, rperesent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wall street? More like..... sSTONER STREET WHOA! I"M SOOOOO HIGH!
This is unproductive.
Dude! Smoke weed. Thats the answer! Smokin' weed get's your clothes clean and a job. Dude - get edukatedd. duh! Look on youtubes for vidoes on how the world would be beter off with weed smokers, just like the protestings people. yyeh dude
JHC, don't try to argue with these out of work idiots. 90.9% of us working folks will never convince them that a cellphone is not a God given right.
You have to try.
It was their parents job to teach them the lessons of hard work, staying out of debt, saving, and sacrifice. They should right in their parents front yards.