The 25%ers vs 99%ers

[TurtleDude]

Actually, by basing your argument solely on income taxes it is you that forgot those.

When you add in all federal taxes, your claimed 40% drops down to 24.5% (see my post #185). Is that why you forgot those other taxes?

Uh that makes no sense. you are confusing share of taxes with marginal total tax rates.

The fact is no group pays a higher overall tax rate or more of the tax burden per capita than the top one percent.

 

[mpg]

I'd say above 20k per household. And no, I don't believe that half of Americans shouldn't pay income taxes. I believe they should have jobs good enough that they're above the cut off point for not having to pay income taxes.

I'm pretty sure that most households earn more than $20k/year.

 

[Karl]

None [no source] is needed unless you want to dispute it. [...]

The world is flat. Prove me wrong.

By the way, I've already not only disputed the 40% claim, I've already proved it wrong (in post #185) (so has MissedAB, by providing a 37% figure in post #194).

 

[TurtleDude]

The world is flat. Prove me wrong.

By the way, I've already not only disputed the 40% claim, I've already proved it wrong (in post #185) (so has MissedAB, by providing a 37% figure in post #194).

nope you are confused

the top 1% pay almost 40% of the federal income tax

They don't pay 40% of all the taxes because their share of some other taxes are lower

They have a marginal rate of 35% on their income-when you add the marginal rate from all taxes it is well above 40%

 

[Mach]

By doing so, there is no way to hide taxes... as one poster is trying to do by basing his 'poor little rich folks' argument on federal income tax alone.

I don't dispute the convention, only that it doesn't support your implication. What I wrote still stands in opposition to your notion of his intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Missed AB]

No. Do your own research. Don't ask others to do it for you.

I'm not asking you to do research. You need to understand what you are reading and writing. That is not our responsibility. If these topics are above you, then step back and stop being disruptive asking for sources for common knowledge items.

Seriously google is your friend. Try it.

Stop asking everyone to prove it to you. A novel debating tactic is to take the time to disprove another's claim. When you expect others to prove to you, it allows for them to prove their point. When YOU put in the time to research the claim, then disprove their point, that makes this a better place for all. When you just question things that are obvious it shows your knowledge base... of which have not impressed thus far.

 

[Karl]

Uh that makes no sense. you are confusing share of taxes with marginal total tax rates. [...]

Ah. The obfuscation begins. TurtleDude was talking about share of taxes. He is now going to tell me that he was talking about marginal tax rates.

So, your previous argument was that the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes, correct?

Now you claim that your argument was really that the marginal tax rate of the top 1% is 40%? Have I summarized your position correctly (at this point in time, subject to change in a few more posts)?

[...] and no one can seriously argue that the top one percent-people who pay 40% of the income tax use more government [...]

 

[Missed AB]

Ah. The obfuscation begins. TurtleDude was talking about share of taxes. He is now going to tell me that he was talking about marginal tax rates.

So, your previous argument was that the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes, correct?

Now you claim that your argument was really that the marginal tax rate of the top 1% is 40%? Have I summarized your position correctly (at this point in time, subject to change in a few more posts)?

Are you bored? If TD says black do you say white? Ever hear of oppositional behavior? I fully understand TD's point be it the top 1% pay 35 to 40 percent of all taxes, OR they pay more than a 40 percent of their income when all other taxes are factored into the equation...

What is YOUR point that you are arguing?

 

[TurtleDude]

Ah. The obfuscation begins. TurtleDude was talking about share of taxes. He is now going to tell me that he was talking about marginal tax rates.

So, your previous argument was that the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes, correct?

Now you claim that your argument was really that the marginal tax rate of the top 1% is 40%? Have I summarized your position correctly (at this point in time, subject to change in a few more posts)?

the top 1 percent pay about 40% of the federal income tax burden
the top 1 percent have a marginal federal income tax rate of 35%
the top 1 percent have an effective federal tax rate much lower than 35% but higher than any other group even when including the top thousand or so whose effective federal tax rate is about 17% due to the tax rates on dividends or capital gains.
the overall marginal tax rate on those of us in the top 1 percent is much higher than 35% because in addition to the 35 cents on every next dollar we make going to the federal government we have (here in ohio) we have a tax rate of 11,506.20 PLUS 7.5% over 200,000. Then there are state sales taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, hotel taxes, airport taxes FICA taxes etc. and when we die (this changes constantly) you can lose more than half of what you earned which really jacks up the marginal and effective tax rate.

 

[TurtleDude]

Are you bored? If TD says black do you say white? Ever hear of oppositional behavior? I fully understand TD's point be it the top 1% pay 35 to 40 percent of all taxes, OR they pay more than a 40 percent of their income when all other taxes are factored into the equation...

What is YOUR point that you are arguing?

Its pavlovian responses. He didn't read what I wrote.

 

[Karl]

nope you are confused

the top 1% pay almost 40% of the federal income tax [...]

It seems the confusion is contagious, since:

1. You previously claimed 40%, not "almost" 40%. You provided no source for this claim, and still have not done so, despite revising the figure downward.

2. I provided a source that showed the figure to be 31.6%, not 40%, and not "almost" 40%.

3. Missed AB provided a source (kinda sorta) that showed the figure to be 36.7%, which is not 40%, but I guess it could be "almost" 40%.

Of course, using income tax alone for the argument you are trying to make is an intellectually dishonest exercise, as I have already posted (since personal income tax comprises somewhat less than half of total federal receipts), and you have not seriously defended (understandable, since there is no defense), although you have seemed to acknowledge. So, if we can both agree that your argument is bogus, my work is done here

 

[Missed AB]

It seems the confusion is contagious, since:

1. You previously claimed 40%, not "almost" 40%. You provided no source for this claim, and still have not done so, despite revising the figure downward.

2. I provided a source that showed the figure to be 31.6%, not 40%, and not "almost" 40%.

3. Missed AB provided a source (kinda sorta) that showed the figure to be 36.7%, which is not 40%, but I guess it could be "almost" 40%.

Of course, using income tax alone for the argument you are trying to make is an intellectually dishonest exercise, as I have already posted (since personal income tax comprises somewhat less than half of total federal receipts), and you have not seriously defended (understandable, since there is no defense), although you have seemed to acknowledge. So, if we can both agree that your argument is bogus, my work is done here

Again, I still have no idea what you are arguing? is 36.7 that different than 40? Is that the argument? 3.3%?

 

[Karl]

I'm not asking you to do research. You need to understand what you are reading and writing. [...]

When I read your claim that the 40% figure was common knowledge, I clearly understood what I was reading. Total, complete, unmitigated bull****.

[...] Like a term paper, sources are not required for common knowledge... [...]

 

[Karl]

[...] A novel debating tactic is to take the time to disprove another's claim. [...]

I disproved the claim back in post #185, long before the bovine aroma wafted in from post #194.

Another novel debating tactic is to keep up.

 

[Karl]

Again, I still have no idea what you are arguing? is 36.7 that different than 40? Is that the argument? 3.3%?

The argument, which has been stated prior to your post (see my post #185), is that it is intellectually dishonest to argue government receipts based upon personal income tax contributions alone.

The inaccurate and unsourced figure is just a side dish of steamed credibility, sauteed in public embarrassment.

 

[Karl]

[...] I fully understand TD's point be it the top 1% pay 35 to 40 percent of all taxes [...]

Oh, sorry, wrong answer!

TD's point was that they pay 40% of [federal] income taxes.

Wow... you missed that one by a pretty wide margin :shock:

[...] and no one can seriously argue that the top one percent-people who pay 40% of the income tax use more government [...]

 

[TurtleDude]

It seems the confusion is contagious, since:

1. You previously claimed 40%, not "almost" 40%. You provided no source for this claim, and still have not done so, despite revising the figure downward.

2. I provided a source that showed the figure to be 31.6%, not 40%, and not "almost" 40%.

3. Missed AB provided a source (kinda sorta) that showed the figure to be 36.7%, which is not 40%, but I guess it could be "almost" 40%.

Of course, using income tax alone for the argument you are trying to make is an intellectually dishonest exercise, as I have already posted (since personal income tax comprises somewhat less than half of total federal receipts), and you have not seriously defended (understandable, since there is no defense), although you have seemed to acknowledge. So, if we can both agree that your argument is bogus, my work is done here

wow 40% versus about 40%. I have posted citations to the IRS constantly that demonstrate tha the rich pay a bit more than 39% of the total federal income tax burden and the top 10% pay more than half of the total income tax burden. You want to quibble over 39+ and 40% so be it

 

[oldreliable67]

Perhaps this will help. But being from 2005, it is a bit dated, though it does include all taxes.

View attachment effective_marginal_by_earnings_2005.pdf

According to these estimates, taking federal, state and local taxes into account, the effective tax rate for the highest decile of earners ranged from 31.88% to 45.19% for 2005.

Note that these are estimates based on "Congressional Budget Office simulations using data from the Internal Revenue Service’s Statistics of Income database."

 

[Missed AB]

I disproved the claim back in post #185, long before the bovine aroma wafted in from post #194.

Another novel debating tactic is to keep up.

You disproved nothing. You stated your opinion.

"Anyone who offers an argument using income taxes alone as a proportional measure of government contributions (payments) is not arguing from a position of seriousness, but of intellectual dishonesty."

You said nothing of substance in that post, or any subsequent post.

 

[Higgins86]

in regards to the OP no one should join the military just so they can have a job! You join because you want to fight or serve your country, I knew a couple of people who joined the army because they wanted a job and one of them ended up having his left leg taken off and the other was a liability and a danger to the rest of us. If you join you have to mean it.

 

[Missed AB]

in regards to the OP no one should join the military just so they can have a job! You join because you want to fight or serve your country, I knew a couple of people who joined the army because they wanted a job and one of them ended up having his left leg taken off and the other was a liability and a danger to the rest of us. If you join you have to mean it.

My point was in the OP that there are options instead of collecting welfair checks and protesting the success of others.

 

[whysoserious]

He's saying that they pay 40% of the total income taxes collected. No source for that claim was provided.

If 1% of the economy has somewhere around 40-50% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay at least that share in income tax? That seems like a less than shocking "statistic".

 

[oldreliable67]

30 years ago the top income tax rate was 70%, today it is 35%

Good try; you're on the right track. But don't forget that along with the lowering of the top rate was a large change in deductions. No longer are interest expenses on everything deductible, as they were then. No longer are state and local sales taxes deductible, as they were then (excise taxes and taxes on specific items remain deductible, I think). There are now limits on how much various other categories of deductions previously available. And the standard deduction was changed, though in your example, a CEO was hardly likely to employ the standard deduction and much more certain to be an itemizer. The majority of the changes in top rates, until the Bush cuts, were designed to be revenue neutral. That is, changes in allowable deductions coupled with changes in rates produced essentially the same tax revenue, the point being to broaden the tax base to include more payers at lesser rates - something we seem to have neglected in recent years. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most comprehensive of these changes.

It simply isn't a fair representation to look only at the top marginal rate without considering the changes in deductions. The weighted average rate and the effective rate are more informative.

 

[cpwill]

If 1% of the economy has somewhere around 40-50% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay at least that share in income tax? That seems like a less than shocking "statistic".

no, because wealth is a reflection of earnings + habits over time. I earn exactly as much as the guy who works next to me, and I am much wealthier than he is for the simple enough reason that I live debt free and don't feel the need to waste my money gambling. Choosing to take extra from me and less from him in order to reward his poor decisions and punish my good ones would be a horrendously destructive set of incentives to create.

 

[Mach]

If 1% of the economy has somewhere around 40-50% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay at least that share in income tax? That seems like a less than shocking "statistic".

Because almost nothing else works that way. When you get a roommate and split the living areas, do you split the rent or do you check out their income and say "hey, you make 10x more than me, you should pay 10x more of the share of rent!!!". Of course you don't, that would be shocking and stupid...