Top 10% pay 50% of taxes and own 80% of the total weath

[Jessica]

Something about your statistics are still off though, unless mine are, because if you read my quote it stated that the top 10% own 70% of the total wealth, not 80%.

If you go by actual income- which income tax is, of course, taxing- the rich pay even more than their share:


Given, this doesn't include other "federal liabilities", but I can't see it making that big a difference.

Funny, because ONE MAN (and his family) has over 500 trillion dollars, or over 50% of the entire world's monetary supply. Kudos if you can name him.

 

[Voidwar]

Not really when you realize that the output of the economy is wealth. That 80% is paying far more in total federal liabilities then they are receiving in wealth output.

You would like to think I would let you get away with the word "recieving".

Recieving from whom ?? They are not recieving wealth, they are generating it.

The rich of course are saying hell yes as their share of wealth output is far in excess of their payment into the system.

I don't know if you got this right on accident, or if you meant the converse.

Again, I'm not saying we should change this, merely that the argument the tax code is out to get the rich is insane.

The tax code certainly is out to get the rich, that is why they pay in a higher bracket.

As further proof, allow me to submit the estate / death tax.

 

[Solidus]

"The simple point is that again, the output of the economy is wealth. Those who have the most wealth pay a disproportionate share of the "fee" to the system that sustains and creates the wealth creation while shafting the rest of the population."

This is idiotic for two reasons:

1) Wealth is a stock not a flow. How is the wealth output distributed? Each year the economy ("the code") generates X amount of wealth, how does the economy "dole out" this wealth to everyone? ... wait for it ... INCOME! (When I say Income I mean Total Income from all sources the same way the CBO does.) How would you get from $0 wealth to $2B in wealth? Any (legal) means will generate income (of some form) which will be taxed (at some varying rate). What if you owned $3T in wealth but opted not to take any more distributions from the economy? Are you receiving unfair beneficial treatment from the tax code? Why? What if instead of $3T you owned $0 in wealth before declining distributions, still unfair?

2) You pretend the ONLY input to this "wealth generating system" is taxes paid. Aside from the "economies and markets can exist without ANY government intervention" (albeit of questionable stability) argument, it should be painfully obvious that there are many more contributors which you make no effort to account for. Many of which have far more direct bearing on "who owns the wealth" than taxes.

"Yes and no. While it is based on the general notion of "income" that income ranges in various forms and types. Our tax code is not based on earned income alone and often people forget that."

We had this debate already and you lost. "Rich people" pay a larger percentage of their Total Income than anyone else. Given that their Total Income is their share of that years economic wealth output, then the tax code clearly does NOT favor them.

"That remains to be seen. Especially given that the super majority of our legislators are exceptionally well off, the overuse of rich lobbyists and the intricacies of the tax code that favor unearned income over earned as well as deductions only the rich have any real use for."

Right now a majority of legislators favor higher taxes, indeed several of the most wealthy individuals openly advocate for higher taxes. So tell me more about these evil rich people manipulating the system in their favor at the expense of others? Any real evidence of this occurring?

"What makes you think I'm venting irrational hatred of rich people? "

Because you continually post threads portraying rich people as evil manipulators.

"I'm using this thread as mockery of people who think that the tax code is out to get the rich yet the rich pay a disproportionate share of total federal liabilities compared to their overall wealth which as Daewoo noted is the output of the code. To me, that's pretty hilarious how the tax code is more or less favoring the rich at the expense of everyone else. The notion that the tax code is inherently out to get the rich is ironic given the actual data not to mention the thousands of tax deductions essentially aimed squarely at the rich to reduce their tax liabilities."

Your mockery is deeply flawed as noted above. You stretch an apples to oranges comparison (income based taxes against total accumulated wealth) as a base, then pretend that income is not the distribution of wealth and further pretend that the "code" has only taxes paid as an input. Your commentary about deductions was dispensed with in the previous thread.

J

 

[Jessica]

You would like to think I would let you get away with the word "recieving".

Recieving from whom ?? They are not recieving wealth, they are generating it.



I don't know if you got this right on accident, or if you meant the converse.



The tax code certainly is out to get the rich, that is why they pay in a higher bracket.

As further proof, allow me to submit the estate / death tax.

This is all completely wrong.

There are two types of people:
Those that pay tax, and those that collect and live off of taxes.
You didn't think federal income tax went to any actual government programs or such did you? No, every nickel of our tax -- before it is even collected -- goes to pay off our national debt generated by "borrowing" our own money from the federal reserve, of which we have to pay back and with interest.

They receive wealth, they do not generate it. Unless you mean by corruption via the federal reserve and our illegal tax "law".

What you mean to say is how all this -- including your estate/death tax -- is a way to take money from the middle class and distribute it back to the rich and to the poor, who end up giving it back to the rich when they pay taxes or die.

 

[Jessica]

This is idiotic for two reasons:

1) Wealth is a stock not a flow. How is the wealth output distributed? Each year the economy ("the code") generates X amount of wealth, how does the economy "dole out" this wealth to everyone? ... wait for it ... INCOME! (When I say Income I mean Total Income from all sources the same way the CBO does.) How would you get from $0 wealth to $2B in wealth? Any (legal) means will generate income (of some form) which will be taxed (at some varying rate). What if you owned $3T in wealth but opted not to take any more distributions from the economy? Are you receiving unfair beneficial treatment from the tax code? Why? What if instead of $3T you owned $0 in wealth before declining distributions, still unfair?

2) You pretend the ONLY input to this "wealth generating system" is taxes paid. Aside from the "economies and markets can exist without ANY government intervention" (albeit of questionable stability) argument, it should be painfully obvious that there are many more contributors which you make no effort to account for. Many of which have far more direct bearing on "who owns the wealth" than taxes.


We had this debate already and you lost. "Rich people" pay a larger percentage of their Total Income than anyone else. Given that their Total Income is their share of that years economic wealth output, then the tax code clearly does NOT favor them.


Right now a majority of legislators favor higher taxes, indeed several of the most wealthy individuals openly advocate for higher taxes. So tell me more about these evil rich people manipulating the system in their favor at the expense of others? Any real evidence of this occurring?



Because you continually post threads portraying rich people as evil manipulators.



Your mockery is deeply flawed as noted above. You stretch an apples to oranges comparison (income based taxes against total accumulated wealth) as a base, then pretend that income is not the distribution of wealth and further pretend that the "code" has only taxes paid as an input. Your commentary about deductions was dispensed with in the previous thread.

J

By rich, do you mean the elite ruling class rich that do not pay tax, or do you mean rich as in upper middle class?

"You know, gentlemen, that I do not owe any personal income tax. But nevertheless, I send a small check, now and then, to the Internal Revenue Service out of the kindness of my heart." -- David Rockefeller

 

[zimmer]

What makes you think I'm venting irrational hatred of rich people?

Because it is your nature to do so.

.

 

[4liberty4enterprise]

Funny, because ONE MAN (and his family) has over 500 trillion dollars, or over 50% of the entire world's monetary supply. Kudos if you can name him.

Rothschild?

to tax anyone 50% of their income is garbage if I were walking down the street and somebody with an assault rifle said to me hey there are criminals about you will probably get mugged if somebody doesn't protect you but if you want me to protect you I want you to give me half of what is in your wallet so I can protect the other half

That would be no different then armed robbery right well the government does it

 

[Mach]

Jessica,

I think that's a valid point. Do mean wealthy or ultra-wealthy? Because I think the wealthy are typically working class, busy running businesses or working insane hours. ultra-wealthy is where the wheels start to fall off. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with it, but I like that you're differentiating it. More data would be good too

Rothschild?
That would be no different then armed robbery right well the government does it

Ah, no. You actually leech off taxpayer funded efforts basically while in the womb, through death, and maybe even after death. That hospital you were born at, subsidized via taxes, the air your mother breathed, the water she drank, the security, the roads, the educated populace, the domestic violence enforcement, etc, etc., etc. And many things that perhaps you didn't use, but where there if you were unlucky enough to need it.

Only until you start to work do you actually start paying into that system. How much is enough? I have no idea, but I do know that when I look at the lifestyle in other countries (India most recently), I enjoy paying taxes because I see tangible benefits from it, and never more so when I contrast it with another nation. I get more benefits from the system, and make more money in this market. In what world is that not a win-win?

To do it any other way would require some absurd ideas like:
Exile all newborns from the U.S.
Once they are of age to work, we can let them in if they sign up for it.
They can then enter and enjoy the fruits of this nations...and pay taxes.

You want that, or you want defacto taxes, where you can CHOOSE to not pay at any time (by leaving)?

 

[Solidus]

I think that's a valid point. Do mean wealthy or ultra-wealthy? Because I think the wealthy are typically working class, busy running businesses or working insane hours. ultra-wealthy is where the wheels start to fall off. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with it, but I like that you're differentiating it. More data would be good too

Given the data from the CBO linked in the OP breaks out the top 1%, where is it you think the wheels fall off? What other data do you think is necessary?

J

 

[Keorythe]

Jessica,

I think that's a valid point. Do mean wealthy or ultra-wealthy? Because I think the wealthy are typically working class, busy running businesses or working insane hours. ultra-wealthy is where the wheels start to fall off. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with it, but I like that you're differentiating it. More data would be good too

You're comparing big business with small. And once again you're equating PHYSICAL effort vs. productivity.

Small businesses the CEO's or owners work long hours on a regular basis. There is little slack and you might actually know all of your employees. Big business the CEO's may work long hours in certain situations but not often. Their decisions though cause a company to make or lose billions (see GM), determine how much physical wealth will be generated (manufacturing output), and what direction the company will take (open or close projects). Its for that reason that top talent is paid so high much like we do with top NFL draft picks. But just like NFL draft picks you might end up with a lame horse that looked really good when you first signed him.

From a military standpoint the wealth would be PL's (captains). The ultra wealthy would be joint chiefs (generals).

Oh and you guys should check out some of the european tax rates. :doh

 

[UtahBill]

Given the data from the CBO linked in the OP breaks out the top 1%, where is it you think the wheels fall off? What other data do you think is necessary?

J

IMO, the wheels fall off, and the revolution and chaos begins, when the top 2% become the leisure class that owns 98% of the wealth of the nation.
The working class, the 98% that owns 2% of the wealth, will rise up and behead the greedy. Then we can start over.
Worked in France...:2razz:

 

[nerv14]

IMO, the wheels fall off, and the revolution and chaos begins, when the top 2% become the leisure class that owns 98% of the wealth of the nation.
The working class, the 98% that owns 2% of the wealth, will rise up and behead the greedy. Then we can start over.
Worked in France...:2razz:

as long as the poor have a high standard of living that is ok. equality isn't what matters, its just the $ that they have.