The rich are different — and not in a good way, studies suggest

[TheDemSocialist]

waiting for you to disprove the undeniable fact that the top 1 percent paying a higher amount of the federal income tax burden now than they did for the last 7 decades

Taxes are at a historic low for all of us and historic low for the rich as well TurtleDude do you fail not to recognize this?

 

[Geo Patric]

go ahead an try to prove it.

i have done so and you know it.

for one thing you are comparing apples and artichokes. the top 1% (numerically) pay about 37% (in dollars)... and they make approximately 37% of the dollars. and that is 'income', not wealth.... most wealth accumulation is in property and capital gains... taxed at an appreciably lower rate.

secondly, the top 10 percent pay about 68% of income tax and they make somewhat less than that in dollars, but after that the top 5% pay less (than the other 5 of the top 10) and the top 1% pay less than the other 4% (of the top 5). the tax rate for the top 5 percent of income earners is REGRESSIVE. and they pay far LESS in payroll tax... mostly going to social services you like to complain of.

i have shown that . and YOU know it.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

Taxes are at a historic low for all of us and historic low for the rich as well TurtleDude do you fail not to recognize this?

are you unable to understand the difference between marginal tax rates and share of the income tax burden? Historically low rates existed before 1930

 

[Geo Patric]

are you unable to understand the difference between marginal tax rates and share of the income tax burden? Historically low rates existed before 1930

it is not a myth anymore if you KNOW it is false. then it simply becomes a lie.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

i have done so and you know it.

for one thing you are comparing apples and artichokes. the top 1% (numerically) pay about 37% (in dollars)... and they make approximately 37% of the dollars. and that is 'income', not wealth.... most wealth accumulation is in property and capital gains... taxed at an appreciably lower rate.

secondly, the top 10 percent pay about 68% of income tax and they make somewhat less than that in dollars, but after that the top 5% pay less (than the other 5 of the top 10) and the top 1% pay less than the other 4% (of the top 5). the tax rate for the top 5 percent of income earners is REGRESSIVE. and they pay far LESS in payroll tax... mostly going to social services you like to complain of.

i have shown that . and YOU know it.

geo.

you are lying again

the top 1% make 22 PERCENT OF THE INCOME AND PAY ALMOST 40% of the INCOME TAXES. Include the DEATH TAX which only applies to about the top 1% as a surcharge, the Top one percent are paying at least 40% of the income tax

the richest one percent in the USA pay a higher share of the federal or national tax burden than the richest one percent in almost any other first world country because THE OTHER GROUPS PAY FAR MORE OF THE TAX BURDEN IN THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES

 

[teamosil]

I tend to think wealth distribution should be determined by the effort you put into acquiring it.

Sure, that would be great in theory, but how do you propose accomplishing that?

 

[Geo Patric]

you are lying again

you make that accusation altogether too easily. and you fail to demonstrate that any claim i make is untrue... to say nothing of deliberately untrue. in fact, you show nothing. if you have no respect for your opponent, you should have more respect for yourself than that,

now, you have seen that picture before. and you know its origins... the OMB. here is another.

- Wealth, Income, and Power, Prof. G. William Domhoff, U.C. Santa Clara.

DEATH TAXES? another extremist claim.... propagated by dupes who would actually suffer from the policies they would support. but we have been over this too... haven't we? and so you should know that you are propagating rightwing ideological mythology,

According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues (an estimated $1 trillion between 2012 and 2022) for the benefit of the heirs of the mere 0.6% of Americans whose death would lead to the payment of any estate taxes whatsoever (Citizens for Tax Justice, 2010b).

It is noteworthy that some of the richest people in the country oppose this ultra-conservative initiative, suggesting that this effort is driven by anti-government ideology. In other words, few of the ultra-conservative and libertarian activists behind the effort will benefit from it in any material way.

ibid

you know the truth. but keep propagating untruth.

geo.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Considering the number of new millionaires every year your assertion that people dont 'work hard' for their wealth is much more likely an indicator of your character and not theirs.

How many new millionaires are there each year, and, as a balance, how many households fall from the middle class to poverty or near-poverty? IIRC, there were 650,000 new millionaires in 2010, but approximately thirty times that number of households fell from the middle class to a lower wealth level.

I know many enrtepeneurs...people that have spent long hours in school, long hours at work, long hours creating personal success and wealth.

OK, but so what? If the question under discussion is whether those people are selfish and lack compassion or not, what does this have to do with anything? They may well work hard. They may also stab others in the back every chance they get, just in order to "earn" a buck. In my experience, that's fairly typical. The research under discussion seems to indicate the same.

But here's another observation: did you actually follow these people around to find out how much they work, or did you just take their word? My boss (who was genuinely rich, where I was just well-to-do) claimed to work long hours. But in truth, he blew into the office about 10 AM every day, yelled at a bunch of people, took a long lunch, and then was out of there by three or four. He didn't come in on weekends. These were the "long hours" he claimed to work. Now, occasionally, he would work a fairly long day (12-14 hours). But where his employees were doing this all the time, he was doing it only maybe once a month or something.

I dont know of very many old money millionaires. Old money types are usually in the dramatically obscene wealth category, and while many have inherited the wealth, I know of none who, like you apparently did, went around stealing from poor people. Its a pretty foolish proposition.

Not foolish at all. Just dig back into the history of these people and you'll find old political connections and various shady deals.

And as for myself, I am now aware what I did was wrong. But at the time, I was sold (as you seem to be) on the notion that Capitalism is the ultimate good, and what I was doing was all entirely legal. I just did what many other large companies do; we used money to buy political influence, which in turn caused more money to flow our direction.

 

[VanceMack]

There is a great difference between whining and being indignant and vocal about injustice to those of lesser means.

No...there isnt. Its whining...and its pathetic. Grow a set and stop expecting everyone else to pay for your failure.

 

[VanceMack]

By wealth distribution, do you include welfare for the rich in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, bail outs, etc.?

Who is "we"?

I have always been opposed to bailouts and have been pretty vocal. Ive always been against ALL subsidies....businesses should live or die based on market demand, not propped up by artifical means. Tax breaks...thats a bit of a different beast. Tax breaks to induce new business? All for it. We NEED to create private sector jobs.

'We' are the people I work with. 'We' work with people every day to provide opportunites and to help people see a different tomorrow.

 

[VanceMack]

you need, again, to give greater cosideration to the concepts you want to discuss and the language you employ i discussing them. to redistribute wealth is to take it from one place and move to to another (or others). Any form of taxation for a purpose is redistribution of wealth.

the road i front of your house, the cop on the corner, the thrilling exploits of Navy Seals are all examples of redistribution of wealth.

EVERYONE here accepts the premise of "wealth redistribution". what we disagree on is the underlying justification for it, the policies governing it, the extent to which it can be justified and the purpose(s) to which it is put.

you want to demonize a rational ideal by associating it with a hated ideology.... but there is nothing "Marxist" about using public monies for the public good.

geo.

I have said on numerous occasions...Im not opposed to taxes. I am opposed to foolish use of taxes. I am opposed to a government that cant handle the basic task of balancing a checkbook. I am opposed to taking more from the wealthy and continue to keep the crippled and dependent pets crippled and dependent. I believe in hand-up programs, not the suffocating wave of handout programs that do so much damage to the country. And I am opposed to the steady pathetic whine of people that have failed to provide for themselves and their family.

 

[Alyssa]

I have always been opposed to bailouts and have been pretty vocal. Ive always been against ALL subsidies....businesses should live or die based on market demand, not propped up by artifical means. Tax breaks...thats a bit of a different beast. Tax breaks to induce new business? All for it. We NEED to create private sector jobs.

'We' are the people I work with. 'We' work with people every day to provide opportunites and to help people see a different tomorrow.

Then how can you not be opposed to a system which regularly gives out welfare to banks, corporations, and the super wealthy?

 

[TurtleDude]

you make that accusation altogether too easily. and you fail to demonstrate that any claim i make is untrue... to say nothing of deliberately untrue. in fact, you show nothing. if you have no respect for your opponent, you should have more respect for yourself than that,

now, you have seen that picture before. and you know its origins... the OMB. here is another.

- Wealth, Income, and Power, Prof. G. William Domhoff, U.C. Santa Clara.

DEATH TAXES? another extremist claim.... propagated by dupes who would actually suffer from the policies they would support. but we have been over this too... haven't we? and so you should know that you are propagating rightwing ideological mythology,


ibid

you know the truth. but keep propagating untruth.

geo.

You keep engaging in falsehoods

that graph of yours does not prove what you claim

it shows the top one percent pay close to 40% of the federal income tax and have about 19% of pre tax income and 16.6% of after tax income

the lowest four quintiles percentage of BEFORE TAX INCOME is LESS THAN AFTER TAX INCOME SHARE but the top quintile its th other way around


the death tax is only 1% of the federal revenue and is merely a surcharge on the rich-the people who pay almost 40% of the income tax burden

 

[TurtleDude]

Then how can you not be opposed to a system which regularly gives out welfare to banks, corporations, and the super wealthy?

why do you rant about the "super wealthy" when all the tax hike schemes treat those making a few hundred k to a few million the same as billionaires?

 

[Slartibartfast]

so you basically are agreeing that GP was again WRONG and I was right?

the income tax cuts took lots of people off the tax rolls. The bottom 95% are carrying less of the tax burden now than in the past

GP? What is that an acronym for?

Which wouldn't have been necessary if incomes hadn't stopped growing in the 80s.

 

[AdamT]

You keep engaging in falsehoods

that graph of yours does not prove what you claim

it shows the top one percent pay close to 40% of the federal income tax and have about 19% of pre tax income and 16.6% of after tax income

the lowest four quintiles percentage of BEFORE TAX INCOME is LESS THAN AFTER TAX INCOME SHARE but the top quintile its th other way around


the death tax is only 1% of the federal revenue and is merely a surcharge on the rich-the people who pay almost 40% of the income tax burden

I think that we should be focused more on WEALTH than income. And of course the 400 wealthiest individuals in the country control as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans. And that's just the top 400.

 

[TurtleDude]

GP? What is that an acronym for?

Which wouldn't have been necessary if incomes hadn't stopped growing in the 80s.

Geo Patric

 

[TurtleDude]

I think that we should be focused more on WEALTH than income. And of course the 400 wealthiest individuals in the country control as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans. And that's just the top 400.

well other than the death tax there is not a federal wealth tax but an income tax. why do you all fixate on the top 400 when you all propose treating those making between a couple hundred K to a few million a year exactly the same as uber billionaires?

wealth should not be taxed. Lets suppose someone is left a precious family heirloom. Say you are the great great grandson of Monet or Homer and a portrait one painted of your great great grandmother remains in your family and every time it is passed on your family has to pay a couple hundredK in death taxes. So you have a 2 million dollar painting and you are making 85K as an associate in some mid sized law firm that is typical of someone going to a very good but not wall street or bust law school. Should you be taxed every year on 85K or on 2 million?

 

[AdamT]

why do you rant about the "super wealthy" when all the tax hike schemes treat those making a few hundred k to a few million the same as billionaires?

You are right. There should be at least two brackets above the current top bracket.

 

[winston53660]

well other than the death tax there is not a federal wealth tax but an income tax. why do you all fixate on the top 400 when you all propose treating those making between a couple hundred K to a few million a year exactly the same as uber billionaires?

wealth should not be taxed. Lets suppose someone is left a precious family heirloom. Say you are the great great grandson of Monet or Homer and a portrait one painted of your great great grandmother remains in your family and every time it is passed on your family has to pay a couple hundredK in death taxes. So you have a 2 million dollar painting and you are making 85K as an associate in some mid sized law firm that is typical of someone going to a very good but not wall street or bust law school. Should you be taxed every year on 85K or on 2 million?

At 85k you probably can not afford the proper upkeep for such a painting.

 

[Geo Patric]

I have said on numerous occasions...Im not opposed to taxes.

understood... but you employ the rhetoric of anti-government propagandists.

I am opposed to taking more from the wealthy and continue to keep the crippled and dependent pets crippled and dependent.

but not opposed to ugly and unfounded characterizations, it seems.

geo.

 

[AdamT]

well other than the death tax there is not a federal wealth tax but an income tax. why do you all fixate on the top 400 when you all propose treating those making between a couple hundred K to a few million a year exactly the same as uber billionaires?

wealth should not be taxed. Lets suppose someone is left a precious family heirloom. Say you are the great great grandson of Monet or Homer and a portrait one painted of your great great grandmother remains in your family and every time it is passed on your family has to pay a couple hundredK in death taxes. So you have a 2 million dollar painting and you are making 85K as an associate in some mid sized law firm that is typical of someone going to a very good but not wall street or bust law school. Should you be taxed every year on 85K or on 2 million?

You cannot ignore wealth as it is a very good indicator of what an individual can afford to pay. The fact is that the people who control all the money are the people who have to pay the most for government. That's just how it is.

There was a recent poll that asked people how they would come up with $1,000 if they really needed it. Only 35% of the respondents had that much money in a savings account. These are the people you want to squeeze? The one's who can't scrape up $1,000? I don't think so. The bottom 80% of the country controls only about 8% of the wealth in the country. Actually, that was in 2005. I'm sure it's significantly less than that now.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are right. There should be at least two brackets above the current top bracket.

there should be two brackets period

exemptions for those really at the bottom and everyone else paying the same.

then the many cannot unite to vote up merely the rates on the few

 

[TurtleDude]

You cannot ignore wealth as it is a very good indicator of what an individual can afford to pay. The fact is that the people who control all the money are the people who have to pay the most for government. That's just how it is.

There was a recent poll that asked people how they would come up with $1,000 if they really needed it. Only 35% of the respondents had that much money in a savings account. These are the people you want to squeeze? The one's who can't scrape up $1,000? I don't think so.

I reject your claims as being BS. lots of people with houses (well maybe not as many now as there were four years ago) that appreciated in value did not have increases in income or the ability to pay

I don't want to squeeze anyone I want government to be about as third the size it is now. BUT I want those who continue to VOTE FOR MORE AND MORE SPENDING TO SUFFER WHEN SPENDING IS INCREASED so they will be less likely to VOTE FOR MORE AND MORE SPENDING

 

[TurtleDude]

At 85k you probably can not afford the proper upkeep for such a painting.

How would you know? The insurance is the main cost