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

[obvious Child]

So my friend on another forum wrote this which got me thinking (and fact checking his work).

"Taxes are, for all intents and purposes, a fee you pay to keep the current system in place and turning over. The output of the current system is wealth. If you have 10% of your people controlling 92% of the wealth, there is a great deal of motivation for them to keep the current system in place. It is obviously working well for them. If, on the other hand, you are in the other 90%, you do not have nearly as much incentive to keep the current system intact. If you are in the other 90% and you are having to foot 30% of the tax bill while only receiving 8% of the wealth, you have basically NO incentive beyond misplaced patriotism, brain washing, and sheep instinct to keep the current system intact."

So it turns out, at least in 2001, that the top 10% in the US own 80% of the total wealth. Not surprising. But they paid only 50% of total Federal liabilities.

The other 80% paid 34.4% of total tax liabilities yet has 20% of the total wealth. In fact the only group that isn't getting totally shafted or shafting everyone else is that 10% between the lower 80% and upper 10% as they own roughly the amount of wealth equal to their share of total federal liabilities. Clearly, that group isn't working hard enough to get Congress to enact tax code to give them a disproportion tax to wealth scheme.

Congressional Budget Office - Data on the Distribution of Federal Taxes and Household Income
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Good job upper 10% on getting the tax code to favor you above everyone else.

 

[Solidus]

Seeing as our tax code is based on income, shouldn't the apples to apples comparison be between share of income instead of wealth?

I'd also point out the lack of evidence that the top 10% has any real influence over the tax code. As long as it makes you feel better to vent your irrational hatred of rich people, all is good.

J

 

[ARealConservative]

Seeing as our tax code is based on income, shouldn't the apples to apples comparison be between share of income instead of wealth?

I'd also point out the lack of evidence that the top 10% has any real influence over the tax code. As long as it makes you feel better to vent your irrational hatred of rich people, all is good.

J

that's what I was thinking. the top 10% would hold around 90% of the wealth if they weren't already paying the lions share of the bills.

 

[Dav]

So my friend on another forum wrote this which got me thinking (and fact checking his work).

"Taxes are, for all intents and purposes, a fee you pay to keep the current system in place and turning over. The output of the current system is wealth. If you have 10% of your people controlling 92% of the wealth, there is a great deal of motivation for them to keep the current system in place. It is obviously working well for them. If, on the other hand, you are in the other 90%, you do not have nearly as much incentive to keep the current system intact. If you are in the other 90% and you are having to foot 30% of the tax bill while only receiving 8% of the wealth, you have basically NO incentive beyond misplaced patriotism, brain washing, and sheep instinct to keep the current system intact."

So it turns out, at least in 2001, that the top 10% in the US own 80% of the total wealth. Not surprising. But they paid only 50% of total Federal liabilities.

The other 80% paid 34.4% of total tax liabilities yet has 20% of the total wealth. In fact the only group that isn't getting totally shafted or shafting everyone else is that 10% between the lower 80% and upper 10% as they own roughly the amount of wealth equal to their share of total federal liabilities. Clearly, that group isn't working hard enough to get Congress to enact tax code to give them a disproportion tax to wealth scheme.

Congressional Budget Office - Data on the Distribution of Federal Taxes and Household Income
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Good job upper 10% on getting the tax code to favor you above everyone else.

This is simply not true.
Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[11]

 

[nerv14]

even though it isn't fair that the rich pay less taxes on their income because its capital gains, it kind of makes sense.

If many poor people uses there income to buy food, then that doesn't help the economy as much as a rich person investing there money in stocks.

I would have no problem with how this turns out if we had a sales tax instead of an income tax.


anyway, I couldnt' find this info, but if someone could compare the percent of income gained by the rich, then that would mean something but yeah, people aren't taxed for there wealth and they shouldn't be.

 

[jallman]

Anyone who has time to sit around and whine about class disparity has time to take a class or look for better opportunities. Just sayin'.

 

[Mach]

What are you suggesting though?

That taxes be paid on savings? That sounds crazy, do you really want to float that? I don't know any proponents of that.

The fact that the wealthy pay that much of the tax burden seems pretty on par looking at other countries and our ideals right? It could be a lot worse is all I'm thinking.

I've heard a lot about proponents of a consumption tax, but off the cuff that seems to favor the wealthy far more than an income tax. Is it really that bad?

 

[obvious Child]

This is simply not true.

Read better. Notice I said total federal liabilities. Not income tax.

 

[obvious Child]

Seeing as our tax code is based on income, shouldn't the apples to apples comparison be between share of income instead of wealth?

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.

I'd also point out the lack of evidence that the top 10% has any real influence over the tax code.

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.

As long as it makes you feel better to vent your irrational hatred of rich people, all is good.

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

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.

 

[obvious Child]

What are you suggesting though?

That the tax code isn't as anti-rich as many people like to pretend and that if the poor were actually informed, they not the rich should be calling for tax reform. Luckily, they don't know squat and let's keep it that way.

 

[obvious Child]

Anyone who has time to sit around and whine about class disparity has time to take a class or look for better opportunities. Just sayin'.

Be that as it may, it is interesting how the backers of the rich pretend that the tax code is out to get them yet they pay significently less of total federal tax liabilities than the other classes. Remember that the output of the economy is wealth. And given how much wealth the rich have to how much they pay, the system is clearly working for them. I'm not saying we should change this, merely that those under the fantasy that the code is anti-rich need to get a clue.

 

[jallman]

Be that as it may, it is interesting how the backers of the rich pretend that the tax code is out to get them yet they pay significently less of total federal tax liabilities than the other classes. Remember that the output of the economy is wealth. And given how much wealth the rich have to how much they pay, the system is clearly working for them. I'm not saying we should change this, merely that those under the fantasy that the code is anti-rich need to get a clue.

I wasn't aiming that comment at you, specifically.

 

[Dav]

Read better. Notice I said total federal liabilities. Not income tax.

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:

The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).

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

 

[Voidwar]

If you are in the other 90% and you are having to foot 30% of the tax bill

Does this part sound fair to you ?

Seems like someone out there is paying the 90%'s way.

 

[obvious Child]

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%.

Depends what year you're looking at. I got all of the data for 2001. It's almost certain to be different, but not material from year to year.

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

Of course. However, income tax is not the only tax levied. As the CBO website I posted shows (it's in an excel sheet), the top 10% pay far less of total federal liabilities compared to their share of total wealth while the bottom get screwed.

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

Except that it does. The rich pay somewhere around 80~90% of total federal personal income tax. But that 10% drops precipitously from the 80~90% to a 50% when computing total federal liabilities. By the sheer drop that number is quite important.

 

[obvious Child]

Does this part sound fair to you ?

Seems like someone out there is paying the 90%'s way.

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. As my friend stated, with that kind of setup, there's little more then patriotic sheep brainwashing for the other 80% to keep this tax structure in place. The rich of course are saying hell yes as their share of wealth output is far in excess of their payment into the system. Again, I'm not saying we should change this, merely that the argument the tax code is out to get the rich is insane.

 

[Wessexman]

So my friend on another forum wrote this which got me thinking (and fact checking his work).

"Taxes are, for all intents and purposes, a fee you pay to keep the current system in place and turning over. The output of the current system is wealth. If you have 10% of your people controlling 92% of the wealth, there is a great deal of motivation for them to keep the current system in place. It is obviously working well for them. If, on the other hand, you are in the other 90%, you do not have nearly as much incentive to keep the current system intact. If you are in the other 90% and you are having to foot 30% of the tax bill while only receiving 8% of the wealth, you have basically NO incentive beyond misplaced patriotism, brain washing, and sheep instinct to keep the current system intact."

So it turns out, at least in 2001, that the top 10% in the US own 80% of the total wealth. Not surprising. But they paid only 50% of total Federal liabilities.

The other 80% paid 34.4% of total tax liabilities yet has 20% of the total wealth. In fact the only group that isn't getting totally shafted or shafting everyone else is that 10% between the lower 80% and upper 10% as they own roughly the amount of wealth equal to their share of total federal liabilities. Clearly, that group isn't working hard enough to get Congress to enact tax code to give them a disproportion tax to wealth scheme.

Congressional Budget Office - Data on the Distribution of Federal Taxes and Household Income
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Good job upper 10% on getting the tax code to favor you above everyone else.

This also does not take into account the ability of the rich to move the burden of their taxes to the rest of society or the monopoly sector to move its burden to the competitive sector.

The point that one should take away though is that the system is there to support the rich and the monopoly sector and by wanting them to pay even more taxes all you are doing at best is keeping that system alive so you can make it the slightest bit more even.

You'd do better to drastically dismantle said system. Lower taxes and remove quite a few kinds, lower corporate welfare, put more user-fees on any remaining gov't services(particularly those not part of completely necessary social welfare.) and pass a Georgist land value taxation system.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Be that as it may, it is interesting how the backers of the rich pretend that the tax code is out to get them yet they pay significently less of total federal tax liabilities than the other classes. Remember that the output of the economy is wealth. And given how much wealth the rich have to how much they pay, the system is clearly working for them. I'm not saying we should change this, merely that those under the fantasy that the code is anti-rich need to get a clue.

Let's get this straight:

You're saying

A) 10% of the people are paying 50% of the taxes, and
B) They're not getting screwed?

Are they receiving 50% of the government outlays?

Ya really want to fix the system and watch the economy take off? End all taxation on business and all capital gains taxation and all inheritance taxation.

 

[scourge99]

Be that as it may, it is interesting how the backers of the rich pretend that the tax code is out to get them yet they pay significently less of total federal tax liabilities than the other classes. Remember that the output of the economy is wealth. And given how much wealth the rich have to how much they pay, the system is clearly working for them. I'm not saying we should change this, merely that those under the fantasy that the code is anti-rich need to get a clue.

People should be taxed based on their wealth instead of their income? Because the wealthy pay substantially less income taxes as compared to the their total wealth then its unfair?

Big ****ing deal if they have a lot of money in the bank or a lot of assets, its ALREADY been taxed. What the rich cry about is that more than 50% of their income gets taken by the feds and you think that simply because they have more saved then its unfair for them to cry? Non-sequitor. They aren't crying that they don't have money. They are pissed because more of their work gets stolen with taxes than the average Joe. They have damn good reason to be upset.

Its should be illegal to discriminate based on wealth/income/finances/whatever. Period.

 

[obvious Child]

Let's get this straight:

You're saying

A) 10% of the people are paying 50% of the taxes, and
B) They're not getting screwed?

Are they receiving 50% of the government outlays?

Ya really want to fix the system and watch the economy take off? End all taxation on business and all capital gains taxation and all inheritance taxation.

Can you people read?

Seriously.

The output of the economy is wealth. And those who control 80% of the wealth pay 50% of liabilities. That's a pretty sweet deal.

 

[obvious Child]

People should be taxed based on their wealth instead of their income?

Nope. The point is that the tax code does favor the rich.

I swear people can't read the actual post.

 

[scourge99]

Nope. The point is that the tax code does favor the rich.

I swear people can't read the actual post.

So how would it "not favor" the rich. Lets precisely define the convoluted notion of "favor" you espouse.

Example:
Jack: Savings = 100k; Income = 10k
Jill: Savings = 10k; Income = 10k

In your world it would be "favoring" Jack if he didn't pay MORE in taxes because he has more money than Jill. That is, even though the money Jack has saved has ALREADY been taxed, the tax code nonetheless "favors" him because if you save money then the tax code "favors" you over someone who doesn't have as much money saved as you. Is that your interpretation?

How does it "favor" Jack at all? He has already paid taxes on the money in savings. There is no "unfair partiality; preferential treatment" I.E. favor of Jack or Jill simply because of differing savings amounts.

 

[Synch]

People respond to incentives. If the state started taxing unusued property everything would become liquid, and the market would be much more volatile.

 

[obvious Child]

So how would it "not favor" the rich. Lets precisely define the convoluted notion of "favor" you espouse.

Example:
Jack: Savings = 100k; Income = 10k
Jill: Savings = 10k; Income = 10k

In your world it would be "favoring" Jack if he didn't pay MORE in taxes because he has more money than Jill. That is, even though the money Jack has saved has ALREADY been taxed, the tax code nonetheless "favors" him because if you save money then the tax code "favors" you over someone who doesn't have as much money saved as you. Is that your interpretation?

*sigh*

You are again deliberately pretending that the output of the economy is not wealth. Instead you choose to focus primarily on income while again ignoring everything else. Furthermore, as shown by the first post (which I question how many people actually read and understood), the group in question doesn't pay the majority of total federal liabilities. I really wonder how you all think that the only taxes levied are income taxes.

And at the income levels you cited, both are within the lower 80%. Not the upper 20% and upper 10% that this thread is actually talking about.

Please discuss what is actually written rather than going off on another tangent in the hopes that it is relevant.

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.

Please reread the first post before replying.

 

[Jessica]

Seeing as our tax code is based on income, shouldn't the apples to apples comparison be between share of income instead of wealth?

I'd also point out the lack of evidence that the top 10% has any real influence over the tax code. As long as it makes you feel better to vent your irrational hatred of rich people, all is good.

J

It isn't our tax code, but the IRS tax code. I do not claim ownership to something so vile and corrupt as all that.

The top 10%? No. It was NINE people who created the federal reserve bank, and then worked to get the 16th and 17th amendments passed that same year. The IRS was formed to be able to collect those taxes. So, it isn't the top 10%. Now, the elite class is less than 10% as well.

Remember there are two groups of people : Those that pay taxes, and those that live off the taxes.

It is the top few percent behind the federal reserve that collect every penny of our tax, as they own our national debt.