It's time - the rich must pay their way!

[Bullseye]

That link uses the top 10% as comparison, not the rich.

Never Mind the 1 Percent. Let’s Talk About the 0.01 Percent

Examining the macroeconomic impact of America’s top earners.

review.chicagobooth.edu

Why worry about what someone else has?

 

[TurtleDude]

They should at least pay the same rate. They can afford to.

I must ask, with all the moral issues to fight, why do you choose to defend the ultra-Rich’s right to keep more of their money?

1) the uber rich pay the highest rate on any source of income
2) you seem upset that many of them don't have wage income and that means their income tax rate is lower
3) but you ignore that they pay far more actual dollars.

 

[MTAtech]

1) the uber rich pay the highest rate on any source of income
2) you seem upset that many of them don't have wage income and that means their income tax rate is lower
3) but you ignore that they pay far more actual dollars.

That mostly pay capital gains tax. That rate is 15%, nothing like what workers pay.

 

[TurtleDude]

That mostly pay capital gains tax. That rate is 15%, nothing like what workers pay.

most workers pay lower than 15% on their wages.

 

[skeptic llc]

What you doubt is not economically relevant, same old tried argument we hear every time about raising the minimum wage, that has never proven to be true.

Proof would be more meaningful than bare assertion. Particularly given the kind of obvious logic that if you make labor more expensive, businesses will want to try to reduce reliance on labor.

 

[MTAtech]

Why worry about what someone else has?

It should be obvious but I guess it isn’t. When the rich have low taxes, others have to pay more to make up for it.

 

[MTAtech]

Looks like a lot of mumbo-jumbo.

The article presumed a reading level able to understand it.

 

[nvflash]

Proof would be more meaningful than bare assertion. Particularly given the kind of obvious logic that if you make labor more expensive, businesses will want to try to reduce reliance on labor.

True, but business will always look to reduce labor, or any other factor that adds to the bottom line.

Amazon looked to automation to reduce labor, but they found that just created more jobs and more profits.

A human being is an amazing machine, so versatile and intuitive, those things are intangible, and it's going to be a very long time before they can ever be replaced with anything but a human being. That's not to say many won't be displaced, but that happens all the time with global economies and new technologies, yet we find more and more need for human workers.

Labor has already been stripped to bear minimum across most industries, to pad the bottom line, if they thought they could get by with less workers, they would do it now, not wait for the minimum wage to be raised.

 

[TurtleDude]

It should be obvious but I guess it isn’t. When the rich have low taxes, others have to pay more to make up for it.

when the others pay less than they should, the rich have to make up for it

which has been the case for decades. The rich pay a higher share of the income tax now than they have for most of the last 7 decades

 

[skeptic llc]

True, but business will always look to reduce labor, or any other factor that adds to the bottom line.

Very true in general. But the cost-benefit of replacing labor with something else (automation, reduced customer service, whatever) changes when labor costs go up, whether by legislation or otherwise. This is as close to simple math as I can imagine anything being in a politics discussion. When you raise the minimum wage you are directly incentivizing companies with minimum-wage workers to hire less than before and fire more than before.

 

[nvflash]

Very true in general. But the cost-benefit of replacing labor with something else (automation, reduced customer service, whatever) changes when labor costs go up, whether by legislation or otherwise. This is as close to simple math as I can imagine anything being in a politics discussion. When you raise the minimum wage you are directly incentivizing companies with minimum-wage workers to hire less than before and fire more than before.

That's just not true, in 1977 minimum wage was $2.30/hr, the workforce participation rate was 62.7, and GDP was $6.31 trillion. By 1997 minimum wage had more than doubled to $5.15 an hour, the workforce participation rate was 67.2, and GDP was $11.522 trillion.

 

[Waddy]

I don't care how rich the rich are. So long as they keep making the pie bigger I get mine. About every 35 years the economy doubles. If you can't make yours under those conditions you're an idiot or incredibly lazy. There is opportunity everywhere you look. Just ask all those immigrants now owning their own businesses. They ain't bitchin', they just get after it.
This is what we get when everybody gets a trophy.

 

[Bullseye]

The article presumed a reading level able to understand it.

LOL, of course. Fiction always does.

 

[Bullseye]

It should be obvious but I guess it isn’t. When the rich have low taxes, others have to pay more to make up for it.

It is obvious. It’s called jealousy or envy. Whining about someone having more tha you is childish and self-destructive.

 

[Lafayette]

ALL BY OURSELVES?

Your entire premise is built on America being something it isn't. You are tilting hard at those windmills.

The windmills are in you mind ! I am tilting not at but with the factual evidence!

America is what we make of it. And we missed the Social Democracy train when it left the station after WW2. So imbued were we with the victory over vicious Nazism.*

Anyone who wants a better-life-at-the-bottom should take note!

*We do not take note that it was a Communist Army that first punctured Germany and rolled on to Berlin forcing Hitler to commit suicide and his "empire" to crumble! Because we Yanks don't bother to learn history properly. We actually think we won WW2 all-by-ourselves! (From here and here US/USSR WW2 military deaths uniquely: US - 420K, USSR - 8.7 million)

 

[Lafayette]

No, it's evidence that the European model that leftists luv makes people poorer and worse off.

More blah-blah-blah ...

Lifespans in the EU are 3/4 years longer than in the US. (See data here: Life expectancy at birth, 2017)

Open your closed&shut eyes ... !

 

[OpportunityCost]

ALL BY OURSELVES?



The windmills are in you mind ! I am tilting not at but with the factual evidence!

America is what we make of it. And we missed the Social Democracy train when it left the station after WW2. So imbued were we with the victory over vicious Nazism.*

Anyone who wants a better-life-at-the-bottom should take note!

*We do not take note that it was a Communist Army that first punctured Germany and rolled on to Berlin forcing Hitler to commit suicide and his "empire" to crumble! Because we Yanks don't bother to learn history properly. We actually think we won WW2 all-by-ourselves! (From here and here US/USSR WW2 military deaths uniquely: US - 420K, USSR - 8.7 million)

You aren't. You are claiming your opinion is factual evidence. But you keep getting historical information wrong. Its hard to find the guy who is wrong over and over is presenting factual information. I'm going to stick with the windmill opinion, it seems entirely more sound.

 

[Lafayette]

Here is household disposable income per capita for 2019:

Thanks for asking me to update the figures, as France is even poorer relative to the US in 2019.

Social democracy obviously makes people worse off, so why would you want the US to copy the failure that is France?

Poorer? I'm sending my kids to university for $1500 a year. How much does it cost YOU in the US? The US-cost looks like this (from here):

For the 2017-18 academic year, annual current dollar prices for undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board were estimated to be $17,797 at public institutions, $46,014 at private nonprofit institutions, and $26,261 at private for-profit institutions.

And in the European Union (EU)?

The only cost for ... university is a small administrative fee of around 300 Euros per semester. That's just $335 dollars for an entire semester of school! The only other cost is the cost of living. In Göttingen, the cost of living is similar to Berlin at around 700 euros, or less than $800 a month.

Which means by-the-numbers the EU-student pays a very-low-cost university tuition-fee and gets into better-paying jobs than those without a post-secondary degree in the US.

Some English-speaking universities here in Europe are so "plagued" by requests from US high-schoolers that they quote tuition-fees for foreign-students at almost the same as in the US! (Yes! Why-in-hell should my tax-dollars here in Europe pay for YOUR KID'S SCHOOLING in the US ... !)

PS: My Point is consistent - for the two key-aspects of any lifestyle (Healthcare and Post-secondary Education) the European Union has got-it-right and the US has got it wrong, wrong, wrong!
PPS: Why do American kids join the army? Because the army promises them to cover an after-service post-secondary schooling. If they can stay alive, that is!

 

[Lafayette]

The rich pay more in relative taxes here than anywhere else in the developed world, let that sink in..

More blah-blah-blah from the Rabid-Right!

From the (American) Tax Foundation here:

Key Findings

• This report compares top effective marginal tax rates on labour income in 41 OECD and EU countries.
• The top effective marginal tax rate is the total tax paid on the last dollar earned by a high-earning worker, taking social security contributions and consumption taxes into account in addition to income taxes. It is a measure of the degree of progressivity and redistribution in the tax system. As such, it is of great policy interest.
• The highest marginal tax rate is found in Sweden, 76 percent, and the lowest in Bulgaria, 29 percent.
• In general, the Nordic and the Western European countries have the highest effective tax rates.

 

[Lafayette]

THEY MAKE THE BIGGEST PART OF THE PIE!!!!

View attachment 67331888

Seventy-two percent of the nation's wealth goes to just 5% of the population!

And some rightist-jokers here on this site think that we-the-sheeple are "sick" to ask for a more equitable evolution of economic-fairness?

Stoopid is as stoopid does - as led by pernicious selfishness, egocentricity, narcissism, navel-gazing, self-absorption, and selfness.

Bravo America ... !

 

[nvflash]

Seventy-two percent of the nation's wealth goes to just 5% of the population!

And some rightist jokers here on this site think that we-the-sheeple are "sick" to ask for a more fair evolution of economic-fairness?

Stoopid is as stoopid does - as led by pernicious selfishness, egocentricity, narcissism, navel-gazing, self-absorption, and selfness.

Bravo America ... !

It's just plain old greed, same as it ever was, sent Jesus to the cross, and has continued unabated for 2000 years.

 

[aociswundumho]

Which means by-the-numbers the EU-student pays a very-low-cost university tuition-fee and gets into better-paying jobs than those without a post-secondary degree in the US.

Again, if your system was better, your incomes would reflect its inherent superiority. But they don't. France is dirt poor compared to the US.

 

[bave]

That link uses the top 10% as comparison, not the rich.

If the top 10% aren't rich, I am not sure what we are talking about. When you talk about the top decile, you are talking about the rich. Now if you want to talk about the wealthy that is going to be the ~2%. The ultra-wealthy, top .1-.2%. Whatever the case, the studies all show the fact that the progressivity of the IRC extends all the way to the top. You might not think it is enough, fine you have your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the US has the most progressive tax code in the world, which was my original statement despite some self proclaimed internet economists saying I am crazy.

I must ask, with all the moral issues to fight, why do you choose to defend the ultra-Rich’s right to keep more of their money?

I steadfastly believe in everyone's right to keep more of their property. The problem with the current political climate is that it has been framed as the rich not paying their fair share and thus justified in taxing one small portion of the economic class to pay for massive new welfare programs and government spending programs. When in fact that is all built on a lie. You listed to AOC, Biden, Warren, Sanders et al talk about the rich not paying their fair share. I have yet to hear someone ask them why then does the US have the most progressive tax code.

That mostly pay capital gains tax. That rate is 15%, nothing like what workers pay.

This is where I tell you that you are probably in over your head. You seem to not understand taxation of the wealthy, avoidance schemes, and the overall structure of the tax code. First off, you are off on your rate by more than 50%. The actual federal rate on investment income (QDI and LTCG) is 23.8%, then state, and then local tax applied. STCG are taxed as unearned income. In California or New York the wealthy, in the best cases, are looking at a rate of 35-37%, effective at that. As a comparison point, France's investment income tax is 19%. Anything else or we done?

Poorer? I'm sending my kids to university for $1500 a year. How much does it cost YOU in the US? The US-cost looks like this (from here):

Which means by-the-numbers the EU-student pays a very-low-cost university tuition-fee and gets into better-paying jobs than those without a post-secondary degree in the US.


PS: My Point is consistent - for the two key-aspects of any lifestyle (Healthcare and Post-secondary Education) the European Union has got-it-right and the US has got it wrong, wrong, wrong!
PPS: Why do American kids join the army? Because the army promises them to cover an after-service post-secondary schooling. If they can stay alive, that is!

Well, as a general rule of thumb, the elite and even "good" universities in the EU are largely based on merit. Sure they are free, but pretty much only for the top students. It drops off pretty quickly from there which is why relatively fewer number of European students end up going to university. However the point of this entire debate isn't about your kids, or those kids, or any other individual but the economy as a whole. Any economist worth their salt will talk about the economic underperformance of european economies (mostly) over the last several decades. Most will draw the conclusion that higher taxes combined with higher regulation has stifled economic growth and expansion which has in turn smacked the average household pretty hard in wage growth, disposable income, and job growth. It's not that the EU is bad, they just made choices I wouldn't necessarily agree with.

Your analysis on right or wrong is inaccurate to say the least, similarly to your reason why Americans joined the armed forces, which btw are the reason why you aren't speaking German..... twice.

 

[Lafayette]

Again, if your system was better, your incomes would reflect its inherent superiority. But they don't. France is dirt poor compared to the US.

Blah, blah, blah.

You're desperate for a cogent response. And the above is NOT one ... !

 

[MTAtech]

If the top 10% aren't rich, I am not sure what we are talking about. When you talk about the top decile, you are talking about the rich. Now if you want to talk about the wealthy that is going to be the ~2%. The ultra-wealthy, top .1-.2%. Whatever the case, the studies all show the fact that the progressivity of the IRC extends all the way to the top. You might not think it is enough, fine you have your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the US has the most progressive tax code in the world, which was my original statement despite some self proclaimed internet economists saying I am crazy.


I steadfastly believe in everyone's right to keep more of their property. The problem with the current political climate is that it has been framed as the rich not paying their fair share and thus justified in taxing one small portion of the economic class to pay for massive new welfare programs and government spending programs. When in fact that is all built on a lie. You listed to AOC, Biden, Warren, Sanders et al talk about the rich not paying their fair share. I have yet to hear someone ask them why then does the US have the most progressive tax code.



This is where I tell you that you are probably in over your head. You seem to not understand taxation of the wealthy, avoidance schemes, and the overall structure of the tax code. First off, you are off on your rate by more than 50%. The actual federal rate on investment income (QDI and LTCG) is 23.8%, then state, and then local tax applied. STCG are taxed as unearned income. In California or New York the wealthy, in the best cases, are looking at a rate of 35-37%, effective at that. As a comparison point, France's investment income tax is 19%. Anything else or we done?



Well, as a general rule of thumb, the elite and even "good" universities in the EU are largely based on merit. Sure they are free, but pretty much only for the top students. It drops off pretty quickly from there which is why relatively fewer number of European students end up going to university. However the point of this entire debate isn't about your kids, or those kids, or any other individual but the economy as a whole. Any economist worth their salt will talk about the economic underperformance of european economies (mostly) over the last several decades. Most will draw the conclusion that higher taxes combined with higher regulation has stifled economic growth and expansion which has in turn smacked the average household pretty hard in wage growth, disposable income, and job growth. It's not that the EU is bad, they just made choices I wouldn't necessarily agree with.

Your analysis on right or wrong is inaccurate to say the least, similarly to your reason why Americans joined the armed forces, which btw are the reason why you aren't speaking German..... twice.

The top 10% is anyone making incomes over $100,000 a year while the top 0.1% have an income of greater than $1,600,000 a year. That’s why conservatives use top 10%, because it masks the truly wealthy.

In 2020 the capital gains tax rates are either 0%, 15% or 20% for most assets held for more than a year. Capital gains tax rates on most assets held for less than a year correspond to ordinary income tax brackets (10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% or 37%).