April 25, 201214 yr Author Once again. I reiterate. The top 20% in this country carry 86.3% of the total tax burden. That leaves 13.7% for the other 80%. How much more would you have them carry? Those numbers are totally skewed and actually support my argument. Much of that 20% you are citing is the top part of the middle class whose tax rates have increased. The top 20% reaches all the way down to those earning $90,000 or more. That group from $90-200k absolutely should not get a tax increase of any kind. They have carried the burden long enough. They are carrying the burden because their rates have gone up. If you break out the top 1-2% of that 20% number, that group is who I am targeting. The bottom income of the top 1.5% is right around $250,000. Thanks for the support! I am with you. Take that top 1-2% out of your top 20% and we are making the same argument.
April 25, 201214 yr Some information to consider: Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities One point to consider is that taxes under Obama have increased with the expiration of the Making Work Pay credit.
April 25, 201214 yr Author Some information to consider: Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities One point to consider is that taxes under Obama have increased with the expiration of the Making Work Pay credit. If I read that info correctly, this is referring to the middle fifth of income earners with a household of 4. In other words, the top 40% of income earners are not part of this statistic. That top 40% (excluding the top1-2% ) is the group of people I think have been shafted the most by our tax changes over the past 50 years.
April 25, 201214 yr ^ Do you think it is ok for the upper 1-2% to get huge cuts and the middle class to have an increase? And yes, this is more of an issue because of ongoing deficit spending for the past 10+ years and the huge deficit. We can not get out of the hole by budget cuts alone. Some re-working of the tax code is needed. The middle class has carried this burden for the past 50 years and it should not be on their shoulders. It is time for the upper 1-2% to stop riding on the middle class' shoulders and pay up. I am not sure how the rates got to 90%. But there is not much incentive to take any risk at all at that rate. The system that works encourages reward for taking risk. If the reward is not there then there will be no risk taking. Without individual risk taking there is no job growth for anyone. The environment becomes stagnant. And stagnation hurts everyone. Risk taking benefits everyone. I worked for a startup for 4 years. The startup never made a dime for the owners during that time but they valued the people and took care of them during that time as we tried to launch the business. The owners were actually two large corporations but they basically lost money during that time period and eventually the business eroded till it was gone. It probably never returned a profit. If it did it certainly was less than the original start-up plan. But during that time the start-up employed a few hundred people. So these 'rich' owners took a risk. It did not work out. But for years the venture provided well paying jobs for a lot of people. Had it worked out they would have reaped rewards. I do not believe the world will come to an end if the tax rates go back to pre-2002. At the same time letting them do so will like not fix one issue with Federal budget. It was a token give back leveraging the fortunes of the good run during Clinton economically. But 70, 90% tax rates are gone and should be. At those rates the issue described by the book Atlas Shrugged likely kicks in. The 'rich' will just stop taking risks and the economy and American dream will stagnate.
April 25, 201214 yr Once again. I reiterate. The top 20% in this country carry 86.3% of the total tax burden. That leaves 13.7% for the other 80%. How much more would you have them carry? Equal to the amount of wealth they control. What is that number?
April 25, 201214 yr Equal to the amount of wealth they control. What is that number? Why wealth instead of income? They've already been taxed once building that wealth.
April 25, 201214 yr Equal to the amount of wealth they control. What is that number? We do not tax wealth (capital) we tax income. Taxing wealth (capital) is counter productive in a capitalist system. Except when someone dies...for some reason the government legally robs from graves.
April 26, 201214 yr I didn't say to tax the wealth, I said they should contribute to the tax system and their rate should be equal to the amount of wealth they control. The more the wealth is pulled out of the economy the less their is, unless you assume a bottomless bucket of wealth. Generally speaking in our current system wealth is not created any more like Carnegie did it, it is shifted.
April 26, 201214 yr Those numbers are totally skewed and actually support my argument. Much of that 20% you are citing is the top part of the middle class whose tax rates have increased. The top 20% reaches all the way down to those earning $90,000 or more. That group from $90-200k absolutely should not get a tax increase of any kind. They have carried the burden long enough. They are carrying the burden because their rates have gone up. If you break out the top 1-2% of that 20% number, that group is who I am targeting. The bottom income of the top 1.5% is right around $250,000. Thanks for the support! I am with you. Take that top 1-2% out of your top 20% and we are making the same argument. Nice try. No it doesn't. The Percentage of Federal Taxes Paid vs. Income | eHow.com Total Tax Burden According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, the average payer who actually paid taxes paid an average of 12.24 percent of his income in 2008. Share of the Bottom 50 Percent In 2008, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, ranked by income, paid an average tax rate of 2.59 percent. The median taxpayer reported an income of $33,048 on his tax return that year -- meaning that half of all filers reported income above that point and half reported income below it. All told, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid 2.7 percent of the total income tax revenue received in 2008. Conversely, the top 50 percent of taxpayers paid 97 percent of the tax burden in 2008. The Top 10 Percent In 2008, 10 percent of the taxpayers paid 69.94 percent of the federal taxes, and paid an average of 18.71 percent of their income in taxes. To qualify for this group, you would have had to have earned at least $113,799 for the year. The Top 5 Percent Five percent of the taxpayers paid 58 percent of the tax bill in 2008, with an average tax rate of 20.7 percent, according to the IRS. This group earned at least $159,619 for the year. The Top 1 Percent One percent of the population paid 38.02 percent of the tax burden in 2008, and reported an average tax rate of 23.27 percent.
April 26, 201214 yr Author Nice try. No it doesn't. The Percentage of Federal Taxes Paid vs. Income | eHow.com What point are you trying to make?
April 26, 201214 yr I didn't say to tax the wealth, I said they should contribute to the tax system and their rate should be equal to the amount of wealth they control. The more the wealth is pulled out of the economy the less their is, unless you assume a bottomless bucket of wealth. Generally speaking in our current system wealth is not created any more like Carnegie did it, it is shifted. So 'wealth' controlled by individuals or corporations is 'pulled out of the system'? Where does it go? Buried in coffee cans the back yard or shipped to Mars? No. Accumulated wealth can be used for expenses for day to day operations for companies or living and living well if they chose for individuals. The remainder becomes 'capital' to generate more wealth, that is then converted to more capital that generates more wealth and so on. This Wealth - capital - wealth - capital cycle is what does creating an expanding pie. The question is not if wealth is 'bottomless'. The question is it a fixed entity - i.e. zero sum. The answer is - in a capital system where capital is leveraged it is not. The pie can expand. Unfortunately it can also contract. Ask any homeowner who was trying leverage their house as a financial capital asset for money making.
April 26, 201214 yr I didn't say to tax the wealth, I said they should contribute to the tax system and their rate should be equal to the amount of wealth they control. The more the wealth is pulled out of the economy the less their is, unless you assume a bottomless bucket of wealth. Generally speaking in our current system wealth is not created any more like Carnegie did it, it is shifted. 1) Still makes no sense to use wealth as a measuring stick for an income tax rate when they've paid income tax on the income used to build that wealth. 2) Wealth often is not pulled out of the system, it drives the system by providing investment. What about then?
April 26, 201214 yr What point are you trying to make? That 70% of the tax burden is paid by 10% of the people, another 17% is paid bt the next 10%. You're acting like the middle class is contained in the upper 20% of the tax payers.
April 26, 201214 yr Author That 70% of the tax burden is paid by 10% of the people, another 17% is paid bt the next 10%. You're acting like the middle class is contained in the upper 20% of the tax payers. That is where I think you and are making the same point. I agree the tax burden is heavy on that top 50%. If you look at my first post again, you will see numbers for the top 60% of income earners. My contention is that within that top 20%, there is one group that has received huge tax cuts over the past 50 years while the rest of the top 60% has seen tax increases. Why should the top 1-2% get tax cuts when the rest of the top 60% has seen increases?
April 26, 201214 yr Jon Lovitz has some 'colorful' comments on this subject. So colorful I will not link to it. But you can find it via google.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.