Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Agit8r]

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

Did you know 80% of statistics are made up on the spot? You know, like that statistic I just made up. And the statistic you made up as well.

The top 1% earn 20% of income and pay 40% of taxes. The top 5% earn under 30% of income and pay 60% of taxes. You need to learn to google IRS data before making shit up

I sourced my data a few posts later. Where are your sources?

 

[Agit8r]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

 

[bripat9643]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

 

[Agit8r]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

AND YET, if I drive a car and kill someone by accident, I am criminally negligent. The same should apply to the CEO who cuts corners. Except that we have a two-tiered legal system--one set of rules for the pieces of worthless shit who steal our retirement funds, and poison our air and water, and one for those whose lives are not equally protected.

And private security has nothing to do with how laws are ENFORCED. When the rich are stolen from, the offender is tracked down readily. If an ordinary person's property is stolen, there just aren't enough resources to bother much with it.

 

[Ernie S.]

We earn it all, businesses create the economy. Government takes all it's money from us, so we pay your freight. Your income taxes are earned by us. You contribute nothing but showing up at work. Maybe. What word you prefer to describe you over parasite? Leech? Barnacle? Sponge? Bloodsucker? I'm good with any of those, let me know which one you prefer for you and I'll use that

Use Capitalist, CEO of an LLC, and Consultant, who charges by the hour. It might be a small company but it's all mine little friend.

In other words, your company consists of you and nobody else.

And he's half there at best

One of the advatages of being me, I choose my own way.

I'd say that's a disadvantage in your case.

Unless he was shooting for "complete asshole".

 

[Ernie S.]

Obtuse: someone who says she/he paid taxes to drive on roads (i.e.; paid for or bought a service), then calls taxes theft.
Paying to have shoes repaired is theft? Paying so that necessary services are accomplished is theft?

Or, is living in society and not participating in paying for social advantages anti-social?

No. Paying to support people that should be paying their own way is theft.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

^^^
Unsupportable claim.

 

[jasonnfree]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

Look at our history. The police go to bat for the very wealthy. Most recently, the occupy wall street movement. In the old days, cops always siding with the ownership against the union strikers. It's becoming harder to protest now. Get thrown in jail, a young guy now has an arrest record. The cops will always side with the ownership class.

 

[Ernie S.]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

Look at our history. The police go to bat for the very wealthy. Most recently, the occupy wall street movement. In the old days, cops always siding with the ownership against the union strikers. It's becoming harder to protest now. Get thrown in jail, a young guy now has an arrest record. The cops will always side with the ownership class.

The purpose of police is to arrest criminals. OWS protesters who raped, shit on police cars, and violated orders to disperse were violating the law.
Union workers blocking entrance to private businesses were violating the law.

Cops will side with the law abiding.

 

[Ame®icano]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

AND YET, if I drive a car and kill someone by accident, I am criminally negligent. The same should apply to the CEO who cuts corners. Except that we have a two-tiered legal system--one set of rules for the pieces of worthless shit who steal our retirement funds, and poison our air and water, and one for those whose lives are not equally protected.

And private security has nothing to do with how laws are ENFORCED. When the rich are stolen from, the offender is tracked down readily. If an ordinary person's property is stolen, there just aren't enough resources to bother much with it.

Mary Jo Kopechne would agree with you.

 

[Agit8r]

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

Look at our history. The police go to bat for the very wealthy. Most recently, the occupy wall street movement. In the old days, cops always siding with the ownership against the union strikers. It's becoming harder to protest now. Get thrown in jail, a young guy now has an arrest record. The cops will always side with the ownership class.

The purpose of police is to arrest criminals. OWS protesters who raped, shit on police cars, and violated orders to disperse were violating the law.
Union workers blocking entrance to private businesses were violating the law.

Cops will side with the law abiding.

Oh, please. Cops don't even obey the laws themselves. We always see them driving 60 in a 35 zone, on their cell phone, with no lights or sirens. All the fucking time!

 

[Ernie S.]

More deflection. I expect nothing more.

 

[there4eyeM]

Obtuse: someone who says she/he paid taxes to drive on roads (i.e.; paid for or bought a service), then calls taxes theft.
Paying to have shoes repaired is theft? Paying so that necessary services are accomplished is theft?

Or, is living in society and not participating in paying for social advantages anti-social?

No. Paying to support people that should be paying their own way is theft.

If it is pointed out that paying for anything is not theft, immediately this post will be taken as being in favor of people who should be 'paying their own way', but take 'public' money. That is not the case.

If Joe takes money from Bob and pays for something, the payment isn't theft.

I suppose this is close to what S. is thinking about; it is theft for X to take my money, without my consent, in order to give it to Y, who refuses to provide for her/him self.

What this poster believes is that those taking from any part of the system they have not at least paid into/participated in should make some kind of contribution to the general good.
At the same time, lack of consent to how it is now is not clear.
Anything that spends government money has to originate in the House. That's the Constitution (the part R.R., South & Co. violated). The entire House can be ejected every two years (and should be someday). If voters were unhappy they could use this simple revolution-in-a-ballot.
We live in a country where we are governed by consent. We have consented, we are consenting. The only way around that is revolution now or go have a nice day somewhere else.

 

[kaz]

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

Did you know 80% of statistics are made up on the spot? You know, like that statistic I just made up. And the statistic you made up as well.

The top 1% earn 20% of income and pay 40% of taxes. The top 5% earn under 30% of income and pay 60% of taxes. You need to learn to google IRS data before making shit up

I sourced my data a few posts later. Where are your sources?

My statistics are IRS, I'm not Googling it for you, they are easy to verify.

If you want me to comment on your post, give me a post #, I'm not going to just search for it

 

[jasonnfree]

Obtuse: someone who says she/he paid taxes to drive on roads (i.e.; paid for or bought a service), then calls taxes theft.
Paying to have shoes repaired is theft? Paying so that necessary services are accomplished is theft?

Or, is living in society and not participating in paying for social advantages anti-social?

No. Paying to support people that should be paying their own way is theft.

So taxation is theft you say?

Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

Look at our history. The police go to bat for the very wealthy. Most recently, the occupy wall street movement. In the old days, cops always siding with the ownership against the union strikers. It's becoming harder to protest now. Get thrown in jail, a young guy now has an arrest record. The cops will always side with the ownership class.

The purpose of police is to arrest criminals. OWS protesters who raped, shit on police cars, and violated orders to disperse were violating the law.
Union workers blocking entrance to private businesses were violating the law.

Cops will side with the law abiding.

Ever go to an occupy to see for yourself? The OWS people had their act together for the most part. The homeless and other riff raff were a problem of course. This is what we get from the richest country in the world spending trillions on wars but getting stingy with problems like people sleeping under bridges and scrounging in trash cans. Thanks Republicans. Anyway, where are they supposed to protest the takeover of this country by big money, the desert? The cops first and foremost work for the rulers of a society, so don't expect them to always be fair and honest, but it looks like some of you prefer the coming oligarchy in this country.

 

[Flopper]

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

So we shift the tax burden to the poor and give them an incentive to become rich.

We tax the wealthy at a higher rate because the wealthy can afford to pay higher taxes; that is they have more discretionary income after they pay for necessities. So the actually burden is not as great on the billionaire as on the low income worker.

The argument, that if we don't tax the wealthy at such a high rate, they will use their tax savings to invest in job creating investments or invest in treasury bonds, , or precious metals, or tax free municipal bonds, or collectibles, or overseas investments or just stuff it in bank accounts.

No - we cut our tax load, and pass it on to the ones who are paying the taxes. Get rid of unnecessary and duplicative programs. Take the shackles off our economy ...

Your rationale - we charge them because they can afford it - sounds like a self-serving rationale to justify what you know to be morally and ethically wrong.

How many years have we heard about eliminating unnecessary and duplicate programs in government. Government spending has been increasing fairly steadily for 65 years. It may slow down a bit but it's not going to reverse because Republicans and Democrats, the rich and the poor want what big government offers.

A progressive tax system is fair or unfair depending on your point of view. It is fair because lower income families would have to give up necessities of life such as, food, clothes, or shelter to pay higher taxes because unlike the wealthy they have little or no discretionary income. It is also unfair that those who have been successful, should be penalized for their success.

Of course, the only really good taxes are one's someone else has to pay.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Conservatives love to control the message so they ask do the rich pay a fair amount of taxes. How about asking if they are paying the right amount of taxes. Are they paying enough so that the country in which they were lucky enough to get rich can operate? Heres what I'm getting at. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Bush and Reagan and the GOP at large have giving the rich tax breaks for 40 years. They've never been richer.

But here in michigan the GOP government and Rick Snyder say we all got to pay $500 plus each every year moving forward to fix the roads because we dont have the money

The rich haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Conservatives love to control the message so they ask do the rich pay a fair amount of taxes. How about asking if they are paying the right amount of taxes. Are they paying enough so that the country in which they were lucky enough to get rich can operate? Heres what I'm getting at. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Bush and Reagan and the GOP at large have giving the rich tax breaks for 40 years. They've never been richer.

But here in michigan the GOP government and Rick Snyder say we all got to pay $500 plus each every year moving forward to fix the roads because we dont have the money

The rich haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

The rich haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

The rich pay a bigger chunk of the total now than in 1980.

 

[sealybobo]

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

Conservatives love to control the message so they ask do the rich pay a fair amount of taxes. How about asking if they are paying the right amount of taxes. Are they paying enough so that the country in which they were lucky enough to get rich can operate? Heres what I'm getting at. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Bush and Reagan and the GOP at large have giving the rich tax breaks for 40 years. They've never been richer.

But here in michigan the GOP government and Rick Snyder say we all got to pay $500 plus each every year moving forward to fix the roads because we dont have the money

The rich haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

The rich haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

The rich pay a bigger chunk of the total now than in 1980.

That's because they have most of the money you fool! You think 30 years of tax cuts and raises to them now they should ask us all to each pay $500 more a year on what we make?

Hey, what am I saying. The american people spoke loud and clear when they didn't vote in the last midterm. They dont care if the GOP fucks them in the ass. Of course this tax increase will get shot down tonight but the GOP will get it from us one way or the other or just put it on the debt.

 

[OnePercenter]

Don't the 47% pay more in all other taxes than the 10%?

Doubtful.
Still confused about the difference between revenue and income?
Between sales and profit?

A person that makes $35M/yr pays more federal taxes than 300k+ average Americans. Are you say that that person pay more in sale tax, property tax, employee taxes than 300k+?

That person also pays less percentage of total income in federal taxes than the 300k+. Thank You Republicans!!!!