I am really interested in hearing ace's response to this.

 

Don't hold your breath.

My old buddy Warren is at it again. .

 

When I started this thread I meant to post that you would be chiming in on your love for ol' Warren.

Why do you continue to confuse wealth with income? Do you pay income tax on the value of your house? Do you want to?

 

Your own statistics indicate that the top 1% are over taxed in comparison to the 99%. They pay 38% yet take home only 24%?

 

As many of your so often point out, there is a finite amount of money/wealth in circulation or available at any given time, otherwise there would be no problem with the government simply printing more money and paying off its debt. As more wealth is accumulated money is EXTRACTED (a new dirty word) from the economy and sat on there is then less available to be distributed or even re-distributed. Not only that some wealth is income producing and is NOT TAXED like other income - i.e. Capital Gains. Ergo, controlling wealth has an impact on income.

 

In other words they take home 24% of the TAXABLE INCOME but how much non-taxed income do they have in comparison to the 99%. I would venture to say that 99% of the 99% have no capital gains income.

 

Mixing wealth and income in discussion is not like mixing apples and oranges it is more like grapes and raisins. One of them just has had all of the juice squeezed out of it.

Do you know the low income in each of these brackets? For example, in the 1% category, what is the income for the lowest income earner in the 1%?

 

http://www.brimg.net/images/20111024-agi-floor-percentiles.png

 

AGI to get in top 1% = 343,927

AGI to get in top 5% = 154,643

AGI to get in top 10% = 112,124

AGI to get in top 25% = 66,193

AGI to get in top 50% = 32,396

 

From the same site:

 

But even with the across-the-board income drops, EPI researchers found that in 2009 the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. households had net worth that was 225 times greater than the typical median household's net worth.

As many of your so often point out, there is a finite amount of money/wealth in circulation or available at any given time, otherwise there would be no problem with the government simply printing more money and paying off its debt. As more wealth is accumulated money is EXTRACTED (a new dirty word) from the economy and sat on there is then less available to be distributed or even re-distributed. Not only that some wealth is income producing and is NOT TAXED like other income - i.e. Capital Gains. Ergo, controlling wealth has an impact on income.

 

In other words they take home 24% of the TAXABLE INCOME but how much non-taxed income do they have in comparison to the 99%. I would venture to say that 99% of the 99% have no capital gains income.

 

Mixing wealth and income in discussion is not like mixing apples and oranges it is more like grapes and raisins. One of them just has had all of the juice squeezed out of it.

 

Nice non answer. Again, are you willing to pay income tax on your house and possessions? Or is that something you just think other people should do?

By the way, 44% of US households owned stock in some form in 2010.

As many of your so often point out, there is a finite amount of money/wealth in circulation or available at any given time, otherwise there would be no problem with the government simply printing more money and paying off its debt. As more wealth is accumulated money is EXTRACTED (a new dirty word) from the economy and sat on there is then less available to be distributed or even re-distributed. Not only that some wealth is income producing and is NOT TAXED like other income - i.e. Capital Gains. Ergo, controlling wealth has an impact on income.

 

In other words they take home 24% of the TAXABLE INCOME but how much non-taxed income do they have in comparison to the 99%. I would venture to say that 99% of the 99% have no capital gains income.

 

Mixing wealth and income in discussion is not like mixing apples and oranges it is more like grapes and raisins. One of them just has had all of the juice squeezed out of it.

I'm not clear about your point on capital gains since it is taxed. It's early so maybe I'm not reading what you are saying right.

I'm not clear about your point on capital gains since it is taxed. It's early so maybe I'm not reading what you are saying right.

 

It is not taxed like other income. It is taxed at a much lower rate.

It is not taxed like other income. It is taxed at a much lower rate.

 

Not always, only long term investments and since a majority of the US population benefits, what's your point? Many people argue that there should be NO capital gains tax since in many cases the investments were purchased with funds that had already been taxed at ordinary income tax rates. If you and I have $2,000 left after paying all our ordinary income taxes and I buy stock while you take a family vacation, why should I have to pay taxes if/when my $2,000 turns into $4,000? That's what many people question.

 

You still have not responded to your mixing wealth figures in with income tax figures.

Just curious. What percentage of total government revenues are made up of the U.S. Income Tax? Would love to see a breakdown.

 

This is total government receipts - including Social Security. Not in percentages. But individual income tax is top blue line. It varies with stock market surges and dips since the capital gains drives its volatility.

 

This a graph of actual CBO provided data. The outlook is from CBOs official outlook numbers.

 

 

It is not taxed like other income. It is taxed at a much lower rate.

 

True. Perhaps off track of the discussion, but why is that? Is it because those folks in Congress want to take care of the "wealthy" or perhaps because Congress believes that a lower capital gains tax stimulates investment of capital in businesses?

 

I'm involved with a project in N. Ky that has raised some decent money to invest in start up businesses (an Angel Fund if you will). Under Ky law, the investors will get a pretty big tax credit to be used in reducing their overall state income tax liability. Is that state law a handout to the wealthy that are putting their money in these start ups? In the eyes of some, probably. But I can assure you that the state income tax credit was a huge factor in convincing some of these investors to put their money at risk. Without the tax credit, the risk becomes much greater and the likelihood they would have invested goes down considerably. If some of these start ups succeeds and creates nice paying jobs for N. Ky., I (and the people filling those jobs) won't care at all that the wealthy got the tax credit. Is the incentive of a lower capital gain tax rate any different? Why?

 

Should we not have any laws designed to stimulate investment in businesses if those laws benefit the investors?

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by leatherneck

It is not taxed like other income. It is taxed at a much lower rate.

 

Long term - yes. Short term - no.

 

Short term is taxed as ordinary income. So day traders pay taxes on their capital income like everyone else.

 

Long term is taxed at 'different' rate than ordinary income. That rate may be lower or higher than a person's or couples normal tax rate since the vast majority of people pay an effective tax rate of less than 15%.

 

There may be an argument that 'the rich' get a break on capital gains. But remember there is also AMT - Alternate Minimum Tax. It kicks in for anyone making more that $150K a year. AMT was designed to stop 'the rich' from getting breaks. So it trumps a lot of this tax rate talk for those making over $150K.

When I started this thread I meant to post that you would be chiming in on your love for ol' Warren.

 

:D:D

 

Actually in many ways, I respect Warren. Heck, I'm sympathetic to his (and others') cause and belief that the middle class in this country is getting destroyed, the chasm between the poor and the wealthy is becoming wider and wider, and that such is not good for this country's future. I'm disappointed in big corporate America that pays its senior executives compensation that is almost sinful, while at the same time laying off people or reducing their wages.

 

Perhaps it's the libertarian streak in me however that just doesn't like his approach of the govt forcibly taking even more money from the wealthy because the wealthy can afford it, any more than I like the United Way campaigns ran at some businesses where the employees are forced through pressure to "voluntarily" give.

 

I'd respect Warren a lot more, a whole lot more, if he would have been willing to accept lower profits in his businesses in order to keep more people employed and if his businesses paid higher wages to their employees. If Warren is really worried about the middle class and the deficit, rather than him complaining that he doesn't pay enough taxes, he should have his businesses hire more employees and pay his employees higher wages even if it means lower profits. Giving the money to the federal govt is a very inefficient way of doing positive things. If he thinks those Republicans in Congress are so stupid, why does he want the federal govt to have more money for those Republicans to have some level of control over? His thinking is so illogical for such a smart investor.

Do you know the low income in each of these brackets? For example, in the 1% category, what is the income for the lowest income earner in the 1%?

 

Here is where I got the info:

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Randy, FWIW, ace has that response on speed dial.

 

:lol: