Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA
 
Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

How does that work with the Right's version of supply side economics where the wealthiest are bailed out and then it trickles down?

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.--Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
 
here we go again, they bitch about the rich and then turn around and votes for them to be their masters.
SNIP:
of 11
The 10 Wealthiest Members of Congress
92629411.jpg



If you stayed up nights wondering whether members of Congress would be able to weather the Great Recession of the late 2000s, this bit of news should finally put your mind at ease.

Overall, members of Congress saw their personal wealth grow by more than 16 percent during the worst economic downturn in the United States since the Great Depression, according to financial disclosures submitted by lawmakers.


See more: Even in Recession, Congress Pay Grew

The median personal wealth for members of Congress grew to $911,510 in 2009, up from $785,515 in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly half of the members of Congress are millionaires.

ALL of it here:
List of the 10 Wealthiest Members of Congress
Top 10 Richest Members of Congress Collectively Worth $1.05 Billion Dollars

look at all them DEMOCRATS. how can that be? You would think if they cared so much about the poor and middle class. they'd DONATE all their money to them, but instead they would rather hang onto theirs and use you working stiffs (TAXPAYERS) monies instead to bribe, give away for all their crappy pet projects, all the while LINING their own pockets from them.
gawd how the people still buy the Democrat party line of BS is still amazing to me after all my 60years of watching them play the dirty politics of Class warfare on people in their base of voters.

1. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
2.Rep. Michael McCaul R-Texas
3.Rep. John Delaney D-Md.
4.Sen. Jay Rockefeller D-W.Va.
5.Sen. Mark Warner D-Va.
6.Rep. Jared Polis D-Colo.
7.Sen. Richard Blumenthal D-Conn.

8.Rep. Scott Peters D-Calif.
9.Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif.
10.Rep. Suzan DelBene D-Wash.
RollCall.com - Wealth of Congress


and here comes that word, FAIR again and again and again and again and again.

Translation: I'm jealous of what others have and that I haven't worked hard enough to achieve on my own merits.
 
Last edited:
All twenty five of them are equal to the other 7 gazillion of us? Hell yeah! zeig heil Bill Gates, and our other Over LORDS.
 
here's the democrat party vision of FAIR and the ONLY way it can EVER be achieved

 
A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.
 
The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation. So, obviously the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation.

That's awful! What is the income range for middle class?
What percentage do they pay?
 
The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation. So, obviously the wealthy are not paying their fair share.


You are rich if you have one penny more than the nearest lefty...then you must be arrested and sent to a work camp for your greed, while that lefty lives off of the money confiscated from you.....
 
A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

and I believe Romney was right. That would be the 47% of the people who is on some form of the TAXPAYER gravy train they call it: government assistance.
 
A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

and I believe Romney was right. That would be the 47% of the people who is on some form of the TAXPAYER gravy train they call it: government assistance.


Look....I want to help those 47% who are in trouble...but it would be nice if they didn't hate the very people paying for their life style.............it is ungrateful and bad for their souls......
 
A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

and I believe Romney was right. That would be the 47% of the people who is on some form of the TAXPAYER gravy train they call it: government assistance.


Look....I want to help those 47% who are in trouble...but it would be nice if they didn't hate the very people paying for their life style.............it is ungrateful and bad for their souls......
I don't mind helping people. but there should be NO REASON that 47% of people should be getting government assistance. And on thing to keep in mind. Once that goes over 51% we are pretty much screwed and doomed. As they will be voting for the party that offers to continue help keep them on the gravy train.
 
A fair share is to divide the national budget by the number of citizens of voting age, and that is the amount each citizen owes. That's the only formula that calculates a fair share.

Therefore the people who are not paying at least that amount in federal taxes are the only ones that are not paying their fair share.

and I believe Romney was right. That would be the 47% of the people who is on some form of the TAXPAYER gravy train they call it: government assistance.


Look....I want to help those 47% who are in trouble...but it would be nice if they didn't hate the very people paying for their life style.............it is ungrateful and bad for their souls......
I don't mind helping people. but there should be NO REASON that 47% of people should be getting government assistance. And on thing to keep in mind. Once that goes over 51% we are pretty much screwed and doomed. As they will be voting for the party that offers to continue help keep them on the gravy train.


Just watch what happens to Greece...
 
The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation. So, obviously the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation.

That's awful! What is the income range for middle class?
What percentage do they pay?

The middle class pays income tax and payroll taxes. The leisure class often only pays capital gains tax.
 
The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation. So, obviously the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

The middle class pays the highest percentage of their income to taxation.

That's awful! What is the income range for middle class?
What percentage do they pay?

The middle class pays income tax and payroll taxes. The leisure class often only pays capital gains tax.


Wow....do you people never pay attention to how money moves.....do you think the rich simply pile it up in a warehouse.....that when they create jobs it means nothing........

Give up your hate.....work to get ahead, and if you don't like the taxes you yourself are paying...change your circumstances...just leave other people alone...

A nice flat tax with a 35-40,000 dollar deductible for all Americans...that would be fair.........then no more bitching....
 
Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA
The only reason the top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of taxes is because they only have 10% or the votes/
If 47% of voters pay zero percent, or in some cases, actually get refunds without paying any income tax at all, is because they have nearly 5 times the power at the polls.
Tax policy simply buys votes and rewards behavior that the government in power wants to promote.
 
Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

How does that work with the Right's version of supply side economics where the wealthiest are bailed out and then it trickles down?

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[20] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[21] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.--Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Solution: Get a better education and learn a marketable skill. The top 10% are already paying for your opportunity to join them in the upper brackets. It's up to you to find the motivation. It is not up to us to bring you to our income level.

Believe me. I wish everyone was as well off as the people the left demonizes. I'd have lots more customers and would sell lots more product.
 

Forum List

Back
Top