Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[NYcarbineer]

What percent of the country's total income do the top 1 percent get?

Ok I found it.

The top 1 percent according to the 2007 figures

1. Pay 40.4% of income taxes

2. Earned 22.8% of income.

So, if you believe that's unfair, I assume you believe we should shift about half of that tax burden to the middle class/working class/working poor etc.

Anyone support that?

What I support is a flat tax, with no loopholes and no refunds, no tax credits and no parasites. Every single person living in the US of KKKA needs to pay federal income tax,, or they need to get the hell outta our schools, off our roads, and stay the hell outta our hospitals.. Every single American should pay income tax.

Then you believe the working poor are under taxed. As well as the lower middle class, and the middle class.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Would anyone here turn down the opportunity to join that 1% at the top because of those darn tax rates?

 

[edthecynic]

I'm always amazed at the gullibility of people who fall for cooked stats like this.
If you click on the link the first thing you see is they use AGI which means ADJUSTED Gross Income, which means not all income is counted. Second you notice payroll taxes are not included and thirdly unrealized Capital Gains are also not counted as income. So as a result, the income of the "top 1%" is grossly underestimated and the tax burden of the bottom % is also underestimated.

For example there are 2.7 million adults who have more than $10 TRILLION in WEALTH that is completely untaxed. So when CON$ tout this propaganda about taxes they are talking only about wage earners and not the wealthy. They count on their suckers not understanding the difference between earned income and wealth.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[Sweet Willy]

I'm always amazed at the gullibility of people who fall for cooked stats like this.
If you click on the link the first thing you see is they use AGI which means ADJUSTED Gross Income, which means not all income is counted. Second you notice payroll taxes are not included and thirdly unrealized Capital Gains are also not counted as income. So as a result, the income of the "top 1%" is grossly underestimated and the tax burden of the bottom % is also underestimated.

For example there are 2.7 million adults who have more than $10 TRILLION in WEALTH that is completely untaxed. So when CON$ tout this propaganda about taxes they are talking only about wage earners and not the wealthy. They count on their suckers not understanding the difference between earned income and wealth.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

Which nis the reason why "wages" are distinct from "income" and "earnings". A living wage was never meant to be taxed. The idea of taxing a persons living wage is objectionable. Especially when considering the vast amounts of money that the wealthy can control, free of taxation.

 

[NO!bama08]

"I would say that they recieve far more than their fair share of the nations wealth. And if we cannot achieve a fairer distribution of the wealth in our current system, then we should use taxes to acheive that distribution. And if we get more people that believe that voting, that is exactly what we will do."

Please tell me you are kidding. You're saying it's ok to punish people for hard work and give to those who sit on their ass and wait for a check to come? I'm beginning to understand why we have this socialist bastard for our president.

 

[Sweet Willy]

"I would say that they recieve far more than their fair share of the nations wealth. And if we cannot achieve a fairer distribution of the wealth in our current system, then we should use taxes to acheive that distribution. And if we get more people that believe that voting, that is exactly what we will do."

Please tell me you are kidding. You're saying it's ok to punish people for hard work and give to those who sit on their ass and wait for a check to come? I'm beginning to understand why we have this socialist bastard for our president.

"Those who sit on their ass and wait for a check to come...."

Investment bankers?

 

[chanel]

Well now it looks like the socialists want to go after the wealth not just income. Did it ever occur to people that the assets were purchased with taxable earnings? Doesn't the law prohibit double taxation?

Check out the Laffer curve. There is a point of taxation where there is no incentive to work. We will be getting dangerously close to that. I'm sure there are nimrods that would love to see the rich pay 100 percent. That don't work. Ask the Russians.

 

[edthecynic]

Well now it looks like the socialists want to go after the wealth not just income. Did it ever occur to people that the assets were purchased with taxable earnings? Doesn't the law prohibit double taxation?

You are not completely accurate. A capital asset may have been purchased with after tax dollars, but any increase in the value of that asset after purchase is completely untaxed. So taxing that increase in value would not be double taxation.

Furthermore, the wealthy have set up phony charities, that they control, to dodge their taxes. They donate their wealth to themselves as heads of their phony charity and get a tax deduction for the value of the capital assets they donate to themselves. That is how they are able to reduce their ADJUSTED gross taxable income to zero.

If you remember, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed VP he made his tax return public. On a 7 figure income he had not one dollar in TAXABLE income.

June 14, 2007
RUSH: -- a lot of people, a lot of people wealthy people set up foundations and they do this to keep the government from getting the money.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Well now it looks like the socialists want to go after the wealth not just income. Did it ever occur to people that the assets were purchased with taxable earnings? Doesn't the law prohibit double taxation?

You are not completely accurate. A capital asset may have been purchased with after tax dollars, but any increase in the value of that asset after purchase is completely untaxed. So taxing that increase in value would not be double taxation.

Furthermore, the wealthy have set up phony charities, that they control, to dodge their taxes. They donate their wealth to themselves as heads of their phony charity and get a tax deduction for the value of the capital assets they donate to themselves. That is how they are able to reduce their ADJUSTED gross taxable income to zero.

If you remember, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed VP he made his tax return public. On a 7 figure income he had not one dollar in TAXABLE income.

June 14, 2007
RUSH: -- a lot of people, a lot of people wealthy people set up foundations and they do this to keep the government from getting the money.

Warren Buffet donates BILLIONS to the three charities set up by his kids. Tax deductible for him and tax free for them.

 

[jschuck12001]

I would say that they recieve far more than their fair share of the nations wealth. And if we cannot achieve a fairer distribution of the wealth in our current system, then we should use taxes to acheive that distribution. And if we get more people that believe that voting, that is exactly what we will do.

translation! we are lazy azzed people who would rather steal from others than earn our own.. parasites.

Willow, I havent been back to the site in a while but same old crap from you. Always accusing someone of being lazy and no doing their share. Please tell me what the hell do you do for a living. Talk about lazy, you have been part of this site since 2008 and you have over 13,000 posts, you must have your ass pasted to the chair to post that much, thats like Wilt Chamberlain nailing 10,000 women kind of numbers. This site is still a fricken haven for redneck hillbilly republicans. Now I remember why I have better things to do then read the same crap I read last year from the same people.

 

[PeterS]

Well now it looks like the socialists want to go after the wealth not just income.

You mean like when George W Bush and Jerry Jones both used eminent domain to seize private citizens property and pay well under fair market value for property they did purchase? Does it matter that these assets were purchased with dollars already taxed once?

Check out the Laffer curve. There is a point of taxation where there is no incentive to work.

So where is that point? Historically we have had top tax rate of 91%, 71%, 39.6%, and 35%.

At what point did GW Bush get of his ass and go to work? Did he ever?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm always amazed at the gullibility of people who fall for cooked stats like this.
If you click on the link the first thing you see is they use AGI which means ADJUSTED Gross Income, which means not all income is counted. Second you notice payroll taxes are not included and thirdly unrealized Capital Gains are also not counted as income. So as a result, the income of the "top 1%" is grossly underestimated and the tax burden of the bottom % is also underestimated.

you can't count unrealized gains as income unless you also want to count unrealized losses as a write off.

For example there are 2.7 million adults who have more than $10 TRILLION in WEALTH that is completely untaxed. So when CON$ tout this propaganda about taxes they are talking only about wage earners and not the wealthy. They count on their suckers not understanding the difference between earned income and wealth.

did you just pull that number out of your ass or do you have a link?

 

[edthecynic]

I'm always amazed at the gullibility of people who fall for cooked stats like this.
If you click on the link the first thing you see is they use AGI which means ADJUSTED Gross Income, which means not all income is counted. Second you notice payroll taxes are not included and thirdly unrealized Capital Gains are also not counted as income. So as a result, the income of the "top 1%" is grossly underestimated and the tax burden of the bottom % is also underestimated.

you can't count unrealized gains as income unless you also want to count unrealized losses as a write off.

Of course!

For example there are 2.7 million adults who have more than $10 TRILLION in WEALTH that is completely untaxed. So when CON$ tout this propaganda about taxes they are talking only about wage earners and not the wealthy. They count on their suckers not understanding the difference between earned income and wealth.

did you just pull that number out of your ass or do you have a link?

I always have a link!!!

SOI Tax Stats - 2004 Personal Wealth Tables
An estimated 2.7 million U.S. adults in 2004 had gross assets of $1.5 million or more. In total, these top wealth holders owned nearly $11.1 trillion in assets. After accounting for debts and mortgages of $850.1 billion, these individuals had a combined net worth of over $10.2 trillion.

 

[pflynn001]

Good.

 

[rightwinger]

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Interesting spin: We are talking about "Income Tax". If the top 1% is laying claim to most of the income, they will also lay claim to most of the tax on that income.
If they don't like that setup, they are welcome to disperse some of that income to the working class so that workers can pay more taxes

 

[Xenophon]

How about they move their wealth out of the country and not pay any at all, which is what always happens when nations overtax?

 

[midcan5]

I'm glad to see so many come out against the absurdity of income distribution that rewards only the rich.

Bravo.


Project Syndicate

"An unequal society cannot help but be an unjust society. The most important item that parents in any society try to buy is a head start for their children. And the wealthier they are, the bigger the head start. Societies that promise equality of opportunity thus cannot afford to allow inequality of outcomes to become too great."

 

[midcan5]

How about they move their wealth out of the country and not pay any at all, which is what always happens when nations overtax?

And you don't think they do that now? And foreign nations that subsidize their industries and then sell here do the same as profit goes overseas and not back into our economy.

Also it is the entire country that supports business and not the wealthy, they only take the reward. Actually a lot of the wealthy only inherited the reward.


"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

 

[rightwinger]

It is a condemnation of our distribution of wealth that the top 1% controls more wealth than the bottom 95%. Republicans whine about any attempt of wealth distribution to former levels (like Ron Reagan) and call it socialism.

 

[TT16]

The simple fact of the matter is, the economy can't survive with so much money concentrated into just 1% of the population. It prevents the amount of earning and SPENDING by the remainder of the population to keep the economy healthy. Look for more and more money to be taxed away from the super rich, being put back into society through goverment spending OR limits put on certain types of compensation OR both. In the 70s CEOs earned 40 times more than the average hourly employee, now they make 400-500 times more.