Taxing Millionaires and Billionaires

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Apr 8, 2011
6,025
1,298
48
San Antonio, TX
There is an interesting piece in the WSJ today entitled "Millionaires Go Missing", sorry no link, it's proprietary. The thrust of it is that this month the IRS released more detailed tax data for 2009, where the decline in numbers and revenue of the taxpaying rich is indicated.

In 2007, some 390,000 taxpayers reported over 1 million in earnings and paid $309 billion in taxes. In 2009, there were only 237,000 such taxpayers, a decline of 39%, and they paid only $178 billion, which is a drop of 42%. So, first question: all you lib/dems oughta be jumping for joy right, WOO HOO, less income inequality! Do you how stupid this line of reasoning is?

Further, those with 10 million or more in earning fell from 18,394 to 8,274, and their tax payments dropped by 51%. The loss of revenue during these 2 years from the Ms and Bs is about $130 billion, which is one reason why US tax revenue has sunk to nearly 15% of GDP. So how come so many fewer rich guys? Maybe some said screw it, I'm off to Aruba or Costa Rica or somewhere. Maybe some stuffed their money into gold, real estate, foreign markets, mattresses, who knows. That's what happens when you create a business unfriendly climate, part of which includes taxes on business and investments. It's also what happens when you have a recession without an accompanying recovery, but that's another argument.

Now for the fun part - Those who make a million or more in 2009 accounted for 0.2% of all tax returns, but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with AGI above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of all filers but paid 50.1% of $866 billion in total personal income taxes. So, the top 3% paid more taxes than the bottom 97%. Before the recession the $200,000 group paid 54.5% of all income taxes. And you're going to tell me these guys aren't already paying their fair share? It is beyond imagining how any rational person can look at these numbers and ask for more taxes.

The real answer for increased revenues is to persue tax reform and LOWER tax rates. Check out this snippet from the link below:


Despite the evidence, Calmes [refers to another writer's column in the NYT] mentions that there are few precedents for paying down debt through spending cuts alone. But this is due to political, rather than economic reasons. In the current debate, tax increases are viewed as a “cost of doing business” with the Administration on deficit reduction, but this has nothing to do with the economics. When looking at the long-run budget situation, revenues are expected to climb well above their historical average of about 18.5% of GDP within the next ten years. In fact, as CBO notes in its 2011 Long Run Budget Outlook, current law already builds in more massive tax increases on American households than has been contemplated by any previous Congress in history. Although revenues have historically “average[ed] 18.0 percent [of GDP], with no evident trend over time,” under current law:

Revenues would rise from about 15 percent of GDP in 2011 to nearly 19 percent in 2013, about 21 percent in 2021, and about 23 percent in 2035, for a total increase of more than 8 percentage points over that period. By 2035, the tax system would be quite different from what it is today. Households at all points on the income scale would pay a higher share of their income in taxes than similar households pay today, and a much larger share of households—nearly half—would be subject to the AMT.

The new phenomenon driving the deficit is entirely on the spending side, with current spending one-quarter larger as a share of the economy as has been the U.S. historical experience. Future deficit growth is driven almost entirely by entitlement spending. If one assumes that revenues are slightly above their long run average (18.4%) over the next 25 years and no changes are made to entitlement programs, the public debt grows from 70% of GDP currently to 187% in 2035. The money available on the revenue side is trivial compared to the entitlement explosion, even if one wishes to take tax receipts to never before seen levels.

Road Map to a Growth Economy | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century
 
Last edited:
Now for the fun part - Those who make a million or more in 2009 accounted for 0.2% of all tax returns, but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with AGI above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of all filers but paid 50.1% of $866 billion in total personal income taxes. So, the top 3% paid more taxes than the bottom 97%. Before the recession the $200,000 group paid 54.5% of all income taxes. And you're going to tell me these guys aren't already paying their fair share? It is beyond imagining how any rational person can look at these numbers and ask for more taxes.

The real answer for increased revenues is to persue tax reform and LOWER tax rates. Check out this snippet from the link below:http://www.economics21.org/commentary/road-map-growth-economy
Notice how the number of tax returns was compared to the amount paid rather than the amount of wealth and income! You can be sure that the top 3% earned a hell of a lot more than 3% of the income and capital gains!!!!!!!!!!!
 
America & the Capitalism we enjoy allows us all the American Dream – the Freedom to succeed & start our own businesses. Capitalism has allowed the United States to be the most successful and Free nation in the world. In America – If you work hard & get an A+, you deserve an A+. However, Socialism’s goal is for everyone to be “equal”, and thus uses Government to perform “economic justice” on its people. Economic Justice is really the “redistribution of wealth” to penalize the successful and reward the unsuccessful. Socialism is Class-warfare, executed by a powerful Government which controls & confiscates the personal property and liberty of its people.

Socialism’s Flaw: You can never make poor people successful by giving them other people’s hard-earned money! On the contrary, a Socialist Government instills hostility between its people through class warfare. Socialism only incentivizes laziness; wherein, people become increasingly more dependent on the Government because of its abusive power to remove Freedoms from the people, confiscating their personal property and liberty.

America was founded on the principle of Freedom from Government (our United States Constitution & Bill of Rights). Our Founders fought & died for us: to keep Government limited. Regardless of its sales pitch of “giving to the poor”, Socialism results in a Government which invades & controls more and more of people’s lives. Power and control are transferred; instead of People ruling Government – a Socialist Government rules the People. Socialism is based on Freedom of Government; wherein, the Government determines ‘who gets what’ by controlling, confiscating, & redistributing the people’s personal properties and liberties.


away with socialism and liberals all together
 
Now for the fun part - Those who make a million or more in 2009 accounted for 0.2% of all tax returns, but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with AGI above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of all filers but paid 50.1% of $866 billion in total personal income taxes. So, the top 3% paid more taxes than the bottom 97%. Before the recession the $200,000 group paid 54.5% of all income taxes. And you're going to tell me these guys aren't already paying their fair share? It is beyond imagining how any rational person can look at these numbers and ask for more taxes.

The real answer for increased revenues is to persue tax reform and LOWER tax rates. Check out this snippet from the link below:http://www.economics21.org/commentary/road-map-growth-economy
Notice how the number of tax returns was compared to the amount paid rather than the amount of wealth and income! You can be sure that the top 3% earned a hell of a lot more than 3% of the income and capital gains!!!!!!!!!!!


Ya think?
 
Now for the fun part - Those who make a million or more in 2009 accounted for 0.2% of all tax returns, but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with AGI above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of all filers but paid 50.1% of $866 billion in total personal income taxes. So, the top 3% paid more taxes than the bottom 97%. Before the recession the $200,000 group paid 54.5% of all income taxes. And you're going to tell me these guys aren't already paying their fair share? It is beyond imagining how any rational person can look at these numbers and ask for more taxes.

The real answer for increased revenues is to persue tax reform and LOWER tax rates. Check out this snippet from the link below:http://www.economics21.org/commentary/road-map-growth-economy
Notice how the number of tax returns was compared to the amount paid rather than the amount of wealth and income! You can be sure that the top 3% earned a hell of a lot more than 3% of the income and capital gains!!!!!!!!!!!


Ya think?

Of those 0.2% of tax payers who earned over $1M, what percentage of total income did they earn?
 
Notice how the number of tax returns was compared to the amount paid rather than the amount of wealth and income! You can be sure that the top 3% earned a hell of a lot more than 3% of the income and capital gains!!!!!!!!!!!


Ya think?

Of those 0.2% of tax payers who earned over $1M, what percentage of total income did they earn?
Not just income, but also capital gains. The millionaires for the most part do not work for wages. Their wealth is mostly capital gains. CON$ never give that info because they are making pretty close to the % they are paying in taxes.
 
Notice how the number of tax returns was compared to the amount paid rather than the amount of wealth and income! You can be sure that the top 3% earned a hell of a lot more than 3% of the income and capital gains!!!!!!!!!!!


Ya think?

Of those 0.2% of tax payers who earned over $1M, what percentage of total income did they earn?


Don't know, why don't you look it up and report back to us. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us what possible difference it makes.

Guys like you kill me, you really do. I just told you there are about 237,000 of these people and they pay over 20% of the personal income taxes in 2009, and it's just not enough for you is it? Then I told you their taxes are already slated to go up under current law without doing a fuckin' thing, and you're still not satisfied. And you think they're greedy. Amazing.
 
Last edited:
" In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, unless the top 20% of earners are paying roughly 50% of all income taxes, then no, they are not paying their fair share.
 
Don't know, why don't you look it up and report back to us. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us what possible difference it makes.

If you switch to a flat tax of 25% for all incomes, even in that situation, the wealthiest will pay a larger percentage of taxes because they make a larger percentage of income.

Even if you don't care, it matters.
 
Well I'm for a flat tax too, with no deductions, breaks, loopholes, nothing. I also think we should have a consumption tax to get some extra revenue from those who don't pay any taxes AND no more refunds to those who didn't pay anything into the system in the 1st place. But I think you changed the subject.
 
" In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, unless the top 20% of earners are paying roughly 50% of all income taxes, then no, they are not paying their fair share.


Dude - the top 3% are already paying over 50% of income taxes in 2009. I said so in the OP, based on IRS data.
 
Last edited:
" In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, unless the top 20% of earners are paying roughly 50% of all income taxes, then no, they are not paying their fair share.


Dude - the top 3% are already paying over 50% of income taxes in 2009. I said so in the OP, based on IRS data.

My bad for confusing you. I referred to income taxes when it should have been all taxes.
 
some people get it and some do not, for the ones who do not I say this:

The word "douche" means to wash or soak in French. Douching is washing or cleaning out the vagina (birth canal) with water or other mixtures of fluids. Most douches are prepackaged mixes of water and vinegar, baking soda, or iodine. You can buy these products at drug and grocery stores. The mixtures usually come in a bottle and can be squirted into the vagina through a tube or nozzle.
Research shows that liberals who douche regularly have more health problems than liberals who don't. Doctors are still unsure whether douching causes these problems. Douching may simply be more common in groups of liberals who tend to have these issues.
Most doctors say it's best to let your vagina clean itself. The vagina cleans itself naturally by making mucous. The mucous washes away blood, semen, and vaginal discharge. You should know that even healthy, clean vaginas may have a mild odor.
Keep the outside of your vagina clean and healthy by washing regularly with warm water and mild soap when you bathe. You should also avoid scented tampons, pads, powders, and sprays. These products may increase your chances of getting a vaginal president again.
 
Ya think?

Of those 0.2% of tax payers who earned over $1M, what percentage of total income did they earn?


Don't know, why don't you look it up and report back to us. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us what possible difference it makes.

Guys like you kill me, you really do. I just told you there are about 237,000 of these people and they pay over 20% of the personal income taxes in 2009, and it's just not enough for you is it? Then I told you their taxes are already slated to go up under current law without doing a fuckin' thing, and you're still not satisfied. And you think they're greedy. Amazing.
The bliss of CON$ervative ignorance!!!!
Even after being shown how they were misled by deliberately deceptive and meaningless stats, CON$ have no desire to seek out the meaningful stats and don't even understand why they are meaningful and why the stats they parroted are not meaningful.

The % of the population has NOTHING to do with whether their tax burden is fair, the % of both income and capital gains is what determines whether their tax burden is fair. If they accumulate 80% of the capital gains and income and pay only 50% of the tax burden rather than 80% then they are not paying their fair share.
Get it???????
 
" In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968."

Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, unless the top 20% of earners are paying roughly 50% of all income taxes, then no, they are not paying their fair share.


Dude - the top 3% are already paying over 50% of income taxes in 2009. I said so in the OP, based on IRS data.

My bad for confusing you. I referred to income taxes when it should have been all taxes.


I am easily confused, no problem. And still confused in this case, are you suggesting that the top 3% should pay at least half of the social security, medicare, and other taxes than the other 97%? Wow, that's a pretty hefty load to put on 237,000 folks, to pay more than the other 8 million filers. Not to mention the other millions of people who didn't file at all.

And here's the part that I don't get - lib/dems think that you can do that with absolutely no deletorious effects to the country or the economy. You're already going to hammer 'em with more taxes in the coming years, and you don't think there will be some behavioral changes? You don't think such policies affect the chances for positive economic growth and job creation? I repeat, I'm just amazed.
 
Last edited:
Don't know, why don't you look it up and report back to us. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us what possible difference it makes.

If you switch to a flat tax of 25% for all incomes, even in that situation, the wealthiest will pay a larger percentage of taxes because they make a larger percentage of income.

Even if you don't care, it matters.

A flat tax should be down near 15-20% tops IMO
 
Don't know, why don't you look it up and report back to us. And while you're at it, why don't you tell us what possible difference it makes.

If you switch to a flat tax of 25% for all incomes, even in that situation, the wealthiest will pay a larger percentage of taxes because they make a larger percentage of income.

Even if you don't care, it matters.

A flat tax should be down near 15-20% tops IMO

Fine. Make it 20%. It still wouldn't change the problem the original poster is crying over.

Example: Say you and I both make $100K and both pay 20% in taxes. That's $20K each in taxes for a total of $40K. We both pay 50% of the total tax and we both make 50% of the total income. Nice and fair.

Now, I get a promotion and start making $200K. Well now, I pay $40K in taxes and you pay $20K in taxes. Total taxes are $60K of which I pay 67%! According to conservatives, and the OP, I am now WAY over taxed and deserve a much needed tax break. Right? That's fair, right?
 
If you switch to a flat tax of 25% for all incomes, even in that situation, the wealthiest will pay a larger percentage of taxes because they make a larger percentage of income.

Even if you don't care, it matters.

A flat tax should be down near 15-20% tops IMO

Fine. Make it 20%. It still wouldn't change the problem the original poster is crying over.

Example: Say you and I both make $100K and both pay 20% in taxes. That's $20K each in taxes for a total of $40K. We both pay 50% of the total tax and we both make 50% of the total income. Nice and fair.

Now, I get a promotion and start making $200K. Well now, I pay $40K in taxes and you pay $20K in taxes. Total taxes are $60K of which I pay 67%! According to conservatives, and the OP, I am now WAY over taxed and deserve a much needed tax break. Right? That's fair, right?


Yeah, that's fair. But we don't have a flat tax today, it's progressive. The guys making $200k are expected to pay a higher rate due to the increase in earnings, and you lib/dems want to increase it even more. So at $200k you're going to pay $70k, not $60k, and the lib/dems want to raise it even higher to $80k!

So at $100k I get to keep $80k, but you at $200k keep only $120k. You got a raise of $100k but your take home was only an extra $40k, how fair is that?
 
Last edited:
A flat tax should be down near 15-20% tops IMO

Fine. Make it 20%. It still wouldn't change the problem the original poster is crying over.

Example: Say you and I both make $100K and both pay 20% in taxes. That's $20K each in taxes for a total of $40K. We both pay 50% of the total tax and we both make 50% of the total income. Nice and fair.

Now, I get a promotion and start making $200K. Well now, I pay $40K in taxes and you pay $20K in taxes. Total taxes are $60K of which I pay 67%! According to conservatives, and the OP, I am now WAY over taxed and deserve a much needed tax break. Right? That's fair, right?


Yeah, that's fair. But we don't have a flat tax today, it's progressive. The guys making $200k are expected to pay a higher rate due to the increase in earnings, and you lib/dems want to increase it even more. So at $200k you're going to pay $70k, not $60k, and the lib/dems want to raise it even higher to $80k!

So at $100k I get to keep $80k, but you at $200k keep only $120k. You got a raise of $100k but your take home was only an extra $40k, how fair is that?
Except the progressive tax is nowhere as "progressive" as you make it out to be.
The top 20%, averaging 200+k, pay an overall 14.1% income tax rate.
The top 10%, averaging 300+k, pay an overall 16.0% income tax rate.
The top 5%, averaging 500+k, pay an overall 17.6% income tax rate.
The top 1%, averaging 1.5+m, pay an overall 19.4% income tax rate.
 

Forum List

Back
Top