Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Ernie S.]

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.

I'll tell my 85 year old Mom in law to kick in more...

How much does she earn?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't vote

 

[Moonglow]

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.

I'll tell my 85 year old Mom in law to kick in more...

How much does she earn?

At least enough to enjoy a thread bare existence....Her pension was lost in the crash of 2008...The one she worked 40 years for and they forced her to retire from..

 

[Moonglow]

If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't vote

Sales tax should allow all to vote then...

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Great. So you want to raise taxes on the poorer and cut taxes on the richer.

Just how do you cut taxes on the 47% that pay none? Or do you want to set it up so that 60% pay no federal income tax? That would more or less make the wealthy the slaves of the poor.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I'll tell my 85 year old Mom in law to kick in more...

How much does she earn?

At least enough to enjoy a thread bare existence....Her pension was lost in the crash of 2008...The one she worked 40 years for and they forced her to retire from..

I feel sorry for her, but just how did her pension get swallowed up?

 

[healthmyths]

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.

I'll tell my 85 year old Mom in law to kick in more...

How much does she earn?

At least enough to enjoy a thread bare existence....Her pension was lost in the crash of 2008...The one she worked 40 years for and they forced her to retire from..

So why don't you help her out?
Remember Obama your Messiah's "Brother's Keeper" program??
Oh wait.. YOU are emulating Obama... Here is his brother and so much for his keeping his own brother!
The hut's rent is $12/year and Obama's brother didn't want his brother's help so he went and borrowed $1,000 from D'Souza an Indian who has made millions
telling people what a poor president Obama is... and rather then consider helping his brother.. Obama let D'Souza pay the bill!

Is that how you are? Bitching about your Mom but you do NOTHING to help?? That' my impression of you moonFLAKE!

 

[Agit8r]

High Income Earners paying 71 percent of the Federal Budget

That isn't even close to correct. The top one percent ($380K+ annually) accounts for 35% of INCOME TAX revenues. The next 49% (The top 50% [$35K+] minus the amount contributed by the top 1%) comes to 62% of total INCOME TAX contributions.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

In addition, over TWO FIFTHS of revenue comes from payroll taxes.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

 

[NYcarbineer]

Great. So you want to raise taxes on the poorer and cut taxes on the richer.

The article said no such thing.

Look up the word 'you' in the dictionary.

I have no need. Show Me where the article is advocating for cutting taxes to the rich.

Listen fuckwit. I'm asking the Poster what he supports.

Which poster? The OP cited an article rebutting the notion of 'fair share' as defined by those who use the term as a means of controlling debate.

The author simply points out specific instances of alleged 'fairness' and the metrics in how they are used. No where did the OP or the author of the article advocate for the cuttting or raising of taxes.

My reply was to anther poster and was simply an exercise in mathemtaics, outlineing the fact that if (look up the word if you need to) everyone paid 20k in taxes, then the budget shortfall would go away and we'd achieve balance. At no time did I advocate that we should do this.

Any other deflections you wish to introduce?

I enthusiastically endorse the idea that Republicans should run on a platform of raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't like the current tax structure,

keep in mind, we are operating under the Republican tax structure.

 

[Political Junky]

If you don't like the current tax structure,

keep in mind, we are operating under the Republican tax structure.

Oops, they're not gonna like that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

No...

 

[Ernie S.]

High Income Earners paying 71 percent of the Federal Budget

That isn't even close to correct. The top one percent ($380K+ annually) accounts for 35% of INCOME TAX revenues. The next 49% (The top 50% [$35K+] minus the amount contributed by the top 1%) comes to 62% of total INCOME TAX contributions.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

In addition, over TWO FIFTHS of revenue comes from payroll taxes.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

Do you know that payroll taxes pay in advance for social security and Medicare? That low wage earners will recoup their payroll taxes at a higher rate than high earners?


Shit I'm talking to Agit8r. Of course you don't know about payroll taxes. To assume you did, one would have to believe you have more than one functioning brain cell.

 

[Ernie S.]

The article said no such thing.

Look up the word 'you' in the dictionary.

I have no need. Show Me where the article is advocating for cutting taxes to the rich.

Listen fuckwit. I'm asking the Poster what he supports.

Which poster? The OP cited an article rebutting the notion of 'fair share' as defined by those who use the term as a means of controlling debate.

The author simply points out specific instances of alleged 'fairness' and the metrics in how they are used. No where did the OP or the author of the article advocate for the cuttting or raising of taxes.

My reply was to anther poster and was simply an exercise in mathemtaics, outlineing the fact that if (look up the word if you need to) everyone paid 20k in taxes, then the budget shortfall would go away and we'd achieve balance. At no time did I advocate that we should do this.

Any other deflections you wish to introduce?

I enthusiastically endorse the idea that Republicans should run on a platform of raising taxes on the poor and lowering taxes on the rich.

Probably not a great idea. How about we start out eliminating tax refunds for people who pay no Income tax?

 

[Spare_change]

The question for conservatives on this thread should be what they think they can gain for the greater good by shifting the tax burden sharply downward. They complain about the unfair rates of taxation on the top and the bottom paying nothing. I see that complaint and wonder how much they think they can get out of the working poor just to make life easier for the wealthy.

Your question is based on a false premise ... you ASSUME that the cost of government should remain the same, and that someone proposed that the middle class should pick up a larger share of the obscene riches given to the federal government.

The minute we put that falsehood to bed, your argument becomes empty.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

There is no such thing as wealth distribution.
Such a concept would presuppose the notion that there is an "ultimate decider" as to from whom and subsequently to whom wealth goes.
The fact is wealth is created. It does not exist in some sort of vacuum.. There is no "pie". There is no "share"..
The wiki article ( LOL) appears to conclude that somehow the wealth of one was "taken" by another.
Last time I checked, that was theft.
Please spare me the "Wall Street" rant.....Doesn't wash. Because if such crimes were committed and with this current administration's hostility toward wealth there would be a virtual Conga line of investors and bankers on their way to Club Fed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It has been my observation that anyone who makes more money than you is considered rich and anyone who pays less in taxes than you is not paying their fair share.

Such is the case on Planet Liberal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Holy shit....
I have a bridge to sell.

 

[Ernie S.]

Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

No...

Let's say I make 10 million/year. I'll pay in the neighborhood of 2 million in income tax.
You, with your 50K/year will pay about 4K.
What am I getting that you are not for my $1,996.000?
The $8,190/ year I pay in payroll tax dwarfs your $3,500, but when we both start to collect SS you will get about 1,300/month and I will get under 2,000.

So, I guess the question that needs to be asked is:

Do the rich receive their fare share?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

How much more than 50% plus do you want? How about ALL of it...Take their entire pay check...
Yeah, that will do it.....
Jesus Christ.