Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Taxes in 2016 (1 Viewer)

[Bullseye]

And the less they pay their employees the more money they can sock away for themselves.

Uh, it's a business not a welfare office. As the economy grows wages follow. Just saw a stat from BLS saying more people were quitting jobs because there are more jobs with better wages available.

That is the problem. It is strangling our GDP and our middle class that makes them so rich.

GDP seems to be doing pretty well lately. What makes any business rich is sales, period. As long as you offer goods and service people want at affordable prices you will prosper.

It is unsustainable. We cannot have one class of people with skyrocketing income while the rest stagnate. It is a path to disaster.

Nonsense.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This entire debate is probably going to center around this graphic from the OP's story (well, best I could find as the OP link has some issues.)

View attachment 67242182

What is wrong with this graphic?

The link I found on this story...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...xpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016

I don't see a problem with it.

Each bracket is inclusive of the others. The top one percent pays ballpark 37% of the taxes, and the top 0.1% pays about 18%. This means that the >0.1% to 1% pays about 19% of the taxes. (37 - 18)

 

[iguanaman]

Moot point it's not.

Really?

 

[Bullseye]

What is wrong with our middle class becoming more powerful?

Nothing. I think you missed my point.

 

[Bullseye]

I understand the talking point -- that only the rich pay taxes. Well, it's not truthful. While the working poor pay no taxes -- as by design thanks to Ronald Reagan, the middle-class, do in fact, pay a lot of taxes.

Reagan? Really? A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.[/quote]And yeah, I realize people pay other taxes but this discussion is about INCOME TAXES.

President Obama was able to cut taxes on the middle class without cutting taxes on the rich.

And gave us massive debt in the process. And those "cuts"? A one-time check, a small tax credit, and a temporary reduction in FICA? BFD. Lot of good it did.

 

[iguanaman]

Uh, it's a business not a welfare office. As the economy grows wages follow. Just saw a stat from BLS saying more people were quitting jobs because there are more jobs with better wages available.


GDP seems to be doing pretty well lately. What makes any business rich is sales, period. As long as you offer goods and service people want at affordable prices you will prosper.

Nonsense.

1929 called and they want their meme back. That is the last time income inequality was this high.

Real wages have not grown since the 1970's so I guess you think we have not had any economic growth since then?

 

[MTAtech]

That's essentially right and the reason income inequality is lower in European democracies, where it is harder for the super-rich get to interfere with the people's desire to support redistribution of income.

LOL, that's a plus for us. Redistribution of income is idiotic and outrageous.

Redistribution of income is idiotic and outrageous unless you actually want the middle class and the country to benefit. I've already addressed this viewpoint in this post. Redistribution has unmistakenly aided most Americans. But what you are doing is sticking to ideology -- an ideology that objects to taxing society’s winners to pay for a social safety net for needy Americans.

 

[Bullseye]

1929 called and they want their meme back. That is the last time income inequality was this high.

Right, just like back then? :roll:

Real wages have not grown since the 1970's so I guess you think we have not had any economic growth since then?

You'd guess wrong - not an unusual occurrence.

 

[iguanaman]

Right, just like back then? :roll:
You'd guess wrong - not an unusual occurrence.

LOL It is not a "guess" it is reality.

Wage stagnation for the vast majority was not created by abstract economic trends. Rather, wages were suppressed by policy choices made on behalf of those with the most income, wealth, and power. In the past few decades, the American economy generated lots of income and wealth that would have allowed substantial living standards gains for every family. The same is true looking forward: Overall income and wealth will continue to grow. The key economic policy question is whether we will adopt policies that enable everyone to participate in a shared prosperity, or whether the growth of income and wealth will continue to accrue excessively and disproportionately to the best-off 1 percent.

In a nation of increasing inequality, the most extreme wage disparities are between the heads of large American corporations and typical workers. This figure tracks the ratio of pay of CEOs at the 350 largest public U.S. firms to the pay of typical workers in those firms’ industries. In 1965, these CEOs made 20 times what typical workers made. As of 2013, they make just under 300 times typical workers’ pay. This higher pay for CEOs does not reflect any increased contribution to corporate output: Other data show that CEO pay grew three times faster than the pay of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners and twice as fast as corporate profits. Moreover, the rising pay of executives was the largest factor in the doubling of the top 0.1 percent and top 1.0 percent share of overall household income growth. CEO pay gains help explain the growing divergence between pay and productivity.

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

 

[distraff]

I think the charts above show the percentage paid vs income is far more lopsided than that.

Again, its only income tax. Also the charts conservatives often use underestimate income inequality by using income data that factors in the income impact of government programs while factoring out taxes, when it should completely factor out taxes and their effects when talking about tax impacts on pre-tax income.

 

[smallvoice]

I personally don't care who it is that wants to redistribute income. It's not their damned income and they have no right to think they can. Incidentally, that's what is wrong with all liberals, you included: they think they know better than I what I should do with my money.

That's essentially right and the reason income inequality is lower in European democracies, where it is harder for the super-rich get to interfere with the people's desire to support redistribution of income.

 

[Bullseye]

Again, its only income tax. Also the charts conservatives often use underestimate income inequality by using income data that factors in the income impact of government programs while factoring out taxes, when it should completely factor out taxes and their effects when talking about tax impacts on pre-tax income.

Income tax IS THE TOPIC. Sorry you don't like the standard charts most economists use.

 

[distraff]

Income tax IS THE TOPIC. Sorry you don't like the standard charts most economists use.

Whether or not all taxes target the rich unfairly is a lot more important than just one little tax. Individual taxes of course will be unfair to one group or another, but we need to see the impact of all taxes. That is my response to the claim that income taxes are unfair to the rich.

 

[Bullseye]

LOL It is not a "guess" it is reality.


https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Sorry, I don't buy into opinion articles from far left think tanks.

 

[Bullseye]

Whether or not all taxes target the rich unfairly is a lot more important than just one little tax. Individual taxes of course will be unfair to one group or another, but we need to see the impact of all taxes. That is my response to the claim that income taxes are unfair to the rich.

First off, grasp that I am in NO WAY saying income taxes are UNFAIR to the rich, I'm saying the progressive natural of our system works well; I'm arguing against that premise that somehow the system is slanted to favor the rich.


When all federal taxes are included the results don't vary much from a comparison of only income taxes; higher income percentiles still pay a much higher effective tax rate than lower ones.

 

[Mach]

I personally don't care who it is that wants to redistribute income. It's not their damned income and they have no right to think they can. Incidentally, that's what is wrong with all liberals, you included: they think they know better than I what I should do with my money.

Taxation has been a part of any/all developed, largely free nations. The idea that it's bad, or related in some distinct way to "liberals", is as ignorant as it gets. Educate yourself, because the overseas people
And yes, you have no idea how best to use that money to continue enabling our government to function.

 

[smallvoice]

Well, that's as stupid a thing that I have heard from a liberal. Apparently, you think I'm against taxation. What is wrong is the liberal idea that they can merely raise the taxes on the citizens who earned it, merely to redistribute the wealth. Maybe you missed where I said "I personally don't care who it is that wants to redistribute income. It's not their damned income and they have no right to think they can."

Taxation has been a part of any/all developed, largely free nations. The idea that it's bad, or related in some distinct way to "liberals", is as ignorant as it gets. Educate yourself, because the overseas people
And yes, you have no idea how best to use that money to continue enabling our government to function.

 

[distraff]

Deleted.

 

[iguanaman]

Sorry, I don't buy into opinion articles from far left think tanks.

You "buy" data from the US bureau of labor statistics? That's your problem then. You can't handle the truth.

 

[marke]

Then you obviously must follow all these rules too. You don't eat shellfish or animals that do not chew their cud do you? I could only fit 50, there are 76 in my link.

1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)

2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)

3. Eating fat (3:17)

4. Eating blood (3:17)

5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)

7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)

8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)

9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)

10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)

11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)

12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)

14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)

15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)

16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)

17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)

18. Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)

19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)

20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)

21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)

22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)

23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)

25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)

26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)

27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)

28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)

32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)

35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)

38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)

39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)

40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)

41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)

44. Stealing (19:11)

45. Lying (19:11)

46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)

47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)

48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)

49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)



Banned by the Bible | 76 things banned in Leviticus

No, I don't follow men's confused interpretations of Scripture. I follow God's revelation and God opposes sodomy.

 

[iguanaman]

First off, grasp that I am in NO WAY saying income taxes are UNFAIR to the rich, I'm saying the progressive natural of our system works well; I'm arguing against that premise that somehow the system is slanted to favor the rich.


When all federal taxes are included the results don't vary much from a comparison of only income taxes; higher income percentiles still pay a much higher effective tax rate than lower ones.

So your belief is that CEO's have gotten 300% smarter than the CEO's of the 1960's and so deserve 300% more? The system IS slanted to enable the few to amass huge fortunes while leaving the rest of us with stagnant or dropping wages. The data does not lie.

 

[iguanaman]

No, I don't follow men's confused interpretations of Scripture. I follow God's revelation and God opposes sodomy.

So God speaks to you personally....my mistake. :lol:

 

[Mach]

Well, that's as stupid a thing that I have heard from a liberal. Apparently, you think I'm against taxation. What is wrong is the liberal idea that they can merely raise the taxes on the citizens who earned it, merely to redistribute the wealth. Maybe you missed where I said "I personally don't care who it is that wants to redistribute income. It's not their damned income and they have no right to think they can."

Your attempt at clarification doesn't save your failed argument.

Both parties routinely support progressive taxation, as do all western styled democracies of significant size. The least progressive are often found in highly socialized parts of Europe that tax *everyone* very highly, but in contrast, they distribute incomes far more equally.

Your ideas about what you think you oppose, are too absurd to even seriously think you mean it.

 

[MTAtech]

I personally don't care who it is that wants to redistribute income. It's not their damned income and they have no right to think they can. Incidentally, that's what is wrong with all liberals, you included: they think they know better than I what I should do with my money.

First, since you think it's your money being redistributed, I must congratulate you for being a member of the top income group -- for that is the group which money is being taxes. If you made it into this elite group, you have a lot of income. Oh, you're not in this group? Then you are among the beneficiaries of redistributive programs.

Second, if you believe "it's not 'their' damned income and they have no right to think they can," your complaint isn't with liberals, it is with the writers of the Constitution and the 16th Amendment who gave Congress the right to lay and collect taxes on income. So, they [Congress] really DO have the right to tax your income, regardless of what you imagine.

Now that the fantasy that "they" don't have the right to tax you is put to the side, the idea of whether it is a good idea is all that is left. We redistribute, and we’ve been doing it on a substantial scale for generations. Medicare, for example, is in effect a strongly redistributive program: it’s supported by a payroll tax (and other revenue) in which the amount you pay in depends on your income, but it supplies a benefit that depends only on your medical costs. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

So no, liberals aren't radical for suggesting that our country should continue to do what we’re already doing for a very long time; the real radicals are the people on the right who want to declare much of what our government has been doing these past four generations illegitimate.

 

[trouble13]

I think for scientists and doctors we should be actively recruiting people to immigrate. If someone has a medical degree or an elite scientist the US should be contacting them and offer automatic citizenship for them and their family.

Actually, we disagree on social safety net. I was saying we need to limit immigration due to it in order to make sure we only allow in those with skills that ensure they would pay into the system rather than be a drain on it.

Reading your post something dawned on me.

The problem with the h1 and h2s is the same problem with illegals. They drive wages down by creating a labor surplus in the market.

If we have a labor shortage I see no problem with bringing in guest workers to fill that gap. The thing that needs to be safeguarded is that guest workers are not used to keep wages artifically low.

The problem in driving down wages is you drive away the most talented in the gene pool. Why become a genetics expert when you can make more and work less being the guy who writes tides new lady formula so they can market their product as new and improved.

It's an interesting enigma

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk