Why is it shocking that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax?

[kaz]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

I would not be surprised to find that the top 1% controls MORE than 40% of the wealth

Could be. And what conclusion would you draw from that? We need to distribute opportunity, not money. And the way to do that is through free markets and choice. And with that personal freedom comes accepting the consequence of choice. We need to stop with the Left's distribute money, focus blame. We won't grow our economy or create jobs by disincenting success.

 

[rikules]

What's the problem? Can't you see the forest? Or are the trees in the way?

Suppose a US household family of four has an annual income on $1 million USD. Let's say that household pays half of it in income taxes, leaving that household with $1/2 million. Sorry, I don't feel bad for the wealthy family of four. Now, let's say some other family of four has a taxable income of only $50,000 USD. Now, that family really has to tightly budget, and I hope that they do not have to pay any income taxes. Let's see what we have here: Fam-1 has $500,000 to live on and Fam-2 has $50,000. Now, consider what life style that Fam-1 can have, what they can do, what they can enjoy, what vacations they can have, how big a house that they could mortage, what kind of car(s) they can drive, what kind of restaurants they can frequent, what kind of health insurance they can get, what kind of clothes they can afford. Actually, if you think that that Fam-2 can get along just fine and have all their basic needs met (you'd be wrong), geez, that means that Fam-1 could support 9 other families.

Are you getting any kind of sense of proportion here? You know, Fam-2 could pay another 20% more in tax or in other words, an additional $200,000 in income taxes and still have $300,000 to live on. Do you know what kind of life style that can buy a family of four for one year?

Any sense of proportion yet?

Yes, my sense of proportion is you are one of those let's punish the successful and give their hard earned money to the not successful. you must be a redistribution of wealth guy.. I thought you were in Libya.

hard earned?

ha ha ha


hard earned?


ha ha hah aha ha hahahaha


hard earned?


ha hahahahahahahahahahahahhah

the top 1% have NOT WORKED HARD at earning any of their vast wealth


they just control/write the legal documents (business and political) that allow them to make OTHER PEOPLE work very hard while THEY reap the MOST BENFIT$

 

[edthecynic]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

This is hugely disingenuous and here is why:

Personal taxes are levied at a Federal level in three distinct ways. Income tax, FICA and capital gains.

Income tax burden is born mostly by the wealthiest because they have the most income and we adopted a progressive tax. But income taxes are less than half of all personal taxes collected by the Federal government.

Capital gains taxes are also disproportionately levied on the wealthy because they are often the only people who have capital gains, this rate of tax is fairly low. It is in fact a tax shelter for the rich to escape the fury of the upper tax brackets for income.

FICA taxes are the largest personal tax revenue stream for the Federal government and these taxes are born disproportionately by the poor.

Ask a real question about the tax burden instead of one that is biased out of the gate.

The top 1% DO NOT pay 40% of the Federal individual taxes. That is a lie.

That's Right. The top 1% pay 27.6% of ALL federal taxes according to the CBO.

2/3 of taxpayers pay more in regressive payroll taxes than they do in progressive income taxes which is why CON$ dishonestly use only income taxes rather than ALL federal taxes. You never hear the CON$ whine about the poor paying too much in payroll taxes, only the rich paying too much in income taxes.

 

[kaz]

2/3 of taxpayers pay more in regressive payroll taxes than they do in progressive income taxes which is why CON$ dishonestly use only income taxes rather than ALL federal taxes. You never hear the CON$ whine about the poor paying too much in payroll taxes, only the rich paying too much in income taxes.

Interesting, you you admit that social security is a tax and not a retirement savings system. So that makes social security checks welfare...

 

[rikules]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

I would not be surprised to find that the top 1% controls MORE than 40% of the wealth

Could be. And what conclusion would you draw from that? We need to distribute opportunity, not money. And the way to do that is through free markets and choice. And with that personal freedom comes accepting the consequence of choice. We need to stop with the Left's distribute money, focus blame. We won't grow our economy or create jobs by disincenting success.

unfettered capitalism has led us to this fiscal mess we are in

completely equal redistribution of the wealth (extreme socialism) is NOT the answer

I have no problem with some people earning/meriting greater rewards than others

I do think that creating a (extreme capitalistic) monetary distribution of wealth such that a small percentage have MOST of the money while a large subset of the population lives in poverty is also not such a good idea

an ethical/moral capitalism that allows for great reward for those who earn/merit it while also making sure that everyone else has at least enough to live decently and eat healthily would be, to me, the best way


what we have now is;
don trump builds an empire using legal documents and lawyers (but no hard work).
Being the BIG BOSS he looks at the years intake and says; ok...me being big boss....I get MOST of it and you peons can divy up the peanuts left over....

I don't mind donald trump being rich

I have a problem with so many Americans (who do work hard) being poor

 

[kaz]

I would not be surprised to find that the top 1% controls MORE than 40% of the wealth

Could be. And what conclusion would you draw from that? We need to distribute opportunity, not money. And the way to do that is through free markets and choice. And with that personal freedom comes accepting the consequence of choice. We need to stop with the Left's distribute money, focus blame. We won't grow our economy or create jobs by disincenting success.

unfettered capitalism has led us to this fiscal mess we are in

completely equal redistribution of the wealth (extreme socialism) is NOT the answer

I have no problem with some people earning/meriting greater rewards than others

I do think that creating a (extreme capitalistic) monetary distribution of wealth such that a small percentage have MOST of the money while a large subset of the population lives in poverty is also not such a good idea

an ethical/moral capitalism that allows for great reward for those who earn/merit it while also making sure that everyone else has at least enough to live decently and eat healthily would be, to me, the best way


what we have now is;
don trump builds an empire using legal documents and lawyers (but no hard work).
Being the BIG BOSS he looks at the years intake and says; ok...me being big boss....I get MOST of it and you peons can divy up the peanuts left over....

I don't mind donald trump being rich

I have a problem with so many Americans (who do work hard) being poor

Where you go wrong is your solution. You run around in circles like your hair is on fire screaming about capitalist power. Capitalists power is kept in check by competition. If they don't serve customers and treat their employees fairly they lose them and their company to their competition. And your solution is to concentrate power in the hands of a single, unresponsive government with no competition. Capitalism isn't perfect, but your solution to the problem is just fucked. Your solution to your fear is a dragon with far more power then what you fear. That makes no sense, sorry.

 

[WillowTree]

What's the problem? Can't you see the forest? Or are the trees in the way?

Suppose a US household family of four has an annual income on $1 million USD. Let's say that household pays half of it in income taxes, leaving that household with $1/2 million. Sorry, I don't feel bad for the wealthy family of four. Now, let's say some other family of four has a taxable income of only $50,000 USD. Now, that family really has to tightly budget, and I hope that they do not have to pay any income taxes. Let's see what we have here: Fam-1 has $500,000 to live on and Fam-2 has $50,000. Now, consider what life style that Fam-1 can have, what they can do, what they can enjoy, what vacations they can have, how big a house that they could mortage, what kind of car(s) they can drive, what kind of restaurants they can frequent, what kind of health insurance they can get, what kind of clothes they can afford. Actually, if you think that that Fam-2 can get along just fine and have all their basic needs met (you'd be wrong), geez, that means that Fam-1 could support 9 other families.

Are you getting any kind of sense of proportion here? You know, Fam-2 could pay another 20% more in tax or in other words, an additional $200,000 in income taxes and still have $300,000 to live on. Do you know what kind of life style that can buy a family of four for one year?

Any sense of proportion yet?

Yes, my sense of proportion is you are one of those let's punish the successful and give their hard earned money to the not successful. you must be a redistribution of wealth guy.. I thought you were in Libya.

hard earned?

ha ha ha


hard earned?


ha ha hah aha ha hahahaha


hard earned?


ha hahahahahahahahahahahahhah

the top 1% have NOT WORKED HARD at earning any of their vast wealth


they just control/write the legal documents (business and political) that allow them to make OTHER PEOPLE work very hard while THEY reap the MOST BENFIT$

Link? Ha ha ha!

 

[edthecynic]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

I would not be surprised to find that the top 1% controls MORE than 40% of the wealth

Could be. And what conclusion would you draw from that? We need to distribute opportunity, not money. And the way to do that is through free markets and choice. And with that personal freedom comes accepting the consequence of choice. We need to stop with the Left's distribute money, focus blame. We won't grow our economy or create jobs by disincenting success.

Not "could be," but definitely is. The truly wealthy understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. As a result of that understanding there are no "free markets" only monopolies.

Two ways of controlling a monopoly without "owning" it are through "charities" and banks. The wealthy have created "charities" that they control and then "donate" stock to the "charities." They still vote the stock as head of the "charity" that owns the stock.

Banks are even more power instruments for controlling a monopoly because you add the use of other people's money as a multiplier. A bank might have a number of pension funds deposited with them, for example. The bank then invests their money in stocks. The fund does not vote the stock they own, the bank does.

If you remember, when Rockefeller was forced to divest his oil monopoly that he ran through Standard Oil of NJ, he then switched to banking. On paper he only owned 25% of Standard Oil, and some stockholders tried to oust him from the bord. Though he OWNED only 25% he CONTROLLED and voted 60% of the proxies.

The wealthy always control more than they own!

 

[mnbasketball]

The problem is the disposable income that the majority of Americans have after paying all the fees, taxes.
The govt has said that a certain amount of income should not be taxed at the fed level because it's the below the poverty level for a person to survive at.

So after using what it takes to survive and be a productive member of society and hold down a job, raise a family and have a place to called home, you need to have a min. income. If the right could change this they would Those at the top spend less than 35% of their total income in taxes and living cost, leaving them with 65% to invest and make money or do as they wish with.
Middle class has maybe 25% left to plan for college, vacations, entertainment and ed for them and their kids. The top has 70%.


The top 1% went from owning 10% in 1980 to owning 20% in 2005, the top 15% own 85%. The bottom 40% own 0.03% of the wealth. We know they are just lazy and don't care, but the fact remains the bottom 85% own 15%.

That's 200 million people own 15%, while 2 million people own 20%.

The middle class pays 5 times the rate of their income to payroll taxes, gas taxes, real estate taxes and other small taxes and fees as the top 5 % do..


The rich take advantage of having a ready workforce but don't want to pay any of the cost of it. They seem to think that making money off every asset of theirs is OK and they deserve a break for using money to create income.

 

[kaz]

I would not be surprised to find that the top 1% controls MORE than 40% of the wealth

Could be. And what conclusion would you draw from that? We need to distribute opportunity, not money. And the way to do that is through free markets and choice. And with that personal freedom comes accepting the consequence of choice. We need to stop with the Left's distribute money, focus blame. We won't grow our economy or create jobs by disincenting success.

Not "could be," but definitely is. The truly wealthy understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. As a result of that understanding there are no "free markets" only monopolies.

Two ways of controlling a monopoly without "owning" it are through "charities" and banks. The wealthy have created "charities" that they control and then "donate" stock to the "charities." They still vote the stock as head of the "charity" that owns the stock.

Banks are even more power instruments for controlling a monopoly because you add the use of other people's money as a multiplier. A bank might have a number of pension funds deposited with them, for example. The bank then invests their money in stocks. The fund does not vote the stock they own, the bank does.

If you remember, when Rockefeller was forced to divest his oil monopoly that he ran through Standard Oil of NJ, he then switched to banking. On paper he only owned 25% of Standard Oil, and some stockholders tried to oust him from the bord. Though he OWNED only 25% he CONTROLLED and voted 60% of the proxies.

The wealthy always control more than they own!

Better to have politicians controlling more then they own. I see your point, that is a far better solution. You are a cynic, my friend. Government not the solution to every problem? You're cynical about that...

 

[edthecynic]

Could be. And what conclusion would you draw from that? We need to distribute opportunity, not money. And the way to do that is through free markets and choice. And with that personal freedom comes accepting the consequence of choice. We need to stop with the Left's distribute money, focus blame. We won't grow our economy or create jobs by disincenting success.

Not "could be," but definitely is. The truly wealthy understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. As a result of that understanding there are no "free markets" only monopolies.

Two ways of controlling a monopoly without "owning" it are through "charities" and banks. The wealthy have created "charities" that they control and then "donate" stock to the "charities." They still vote the stock as head of the "charity" that owns the stock.

Banks are even more power instruments for controlling a monopoly because you add the use of other people's money as a multiplier. A bank might have a number of pension funds deposited with them, for example. The bank then invests their money in stocks. The fund does not vote the stock they own, the bank does.

If you remember, when Rockefeller was forced to divest his oil monopoly that he ran through Standard Oil of NJ, he then switched to banking. On paper he only owned 25% of Standard Oil, and some stockholders tried to oust him from the bord. Though he OWNED only 25% he CONTROLLED and voted 60% of the proxies.

The wealthy always control more than they own!

Better to have politicians controlling more then they own. I see your point, that is a far better solution. You are a cynic, my friend. Government not the solution to every problem? You're cynical about that...

And where exactly did I make that point??????

Fallacy: Straw Man ​

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

 

[kaz]

Not "could be," but definitely is. The truly wealthy understand the subtle difference between ownership and control. As a result of that understanding there are no "free markets" only monopolies.

Two ways of controlling a monopoly without "owning" it are through "charities" and banks. The wealthy have created "charities" that they control and then "donate" stock to the "charities." They still vote the stock as head of the "charity" that owns the stock.

Banks are even more power instruments for controlling a monopoly because you add the use of other people's money as a multiplier. A bank might have a number of pension funds deposited with them, for example. The bank then invests their money in stocks. The fund does not vote the stock they own, the bank does.

If you remember, when Rockefeller was forced to divest his oil monopoly that he ran through Standard Oil of NJ, he then switched to banking. On paper he only owned 25% of Standard Oil, and some stockholders tried to oust him from the bord. Though he OWNED only 25% he CONTROLLED and voted 60% of the proxies.

The wealthy always control more than they own!

Better to have politicians controlling more then they own. I see your point, that is a far better solution. You are a cynic, my friend. Government not the solution to every problem? You're cynical about that...

And where exactly did I make that point??????

Fallacy: Straw Man ​

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

So are you stating categorically you actually oppose government involvement in the market place to "fix" the problem you've identified with monopolies?

 

[MitchMan]

Willow Tree is like all the other right wingers that have come and gone. When someone posits reasons why the economy is skewed toward the inequitable lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top, their only response is to myopically fall back to a defensive position and simply retort "you are one of those let's punish the successful and give their hard earned money to the not successful". Yet again, fulfilling my consistently accurate contention mentioned today in my first post that the righ wing falls back to the only defense they have which is to accuse their opponents of hating the rich.

By the way, how you can consider $300,000 a year for a family of four as punishment is in itself astounding. Don't you right wingers ever have any real arguments of any substance?

mnbasketball you are right on the money!

With regard to you cons who keep accusing the left of wanting to redistribute the wealth away from the wealthy to the poor, the actual distribution of wealth happens early on in the economic process. Just as an example, every time a surgeon gets $6,000 for a three hour heart operation, that's a distribution of the patient's wealth. Every time you pay $150 for a professional basketball game's tickets, that's a distribution of your wealth, every time you pay a CPA $350 to itemize your simple 1040, that's inequitable distribution of your wealth, every time you pay an attorney $400+ an hour for his time, that's a distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $120+ to go to a rock concert, that is an inequitable distribution of your wealth. Every time you pay $90+ for a prescription medication that is sold in Europe or Canada for $20 USD, that's a distribution of your wealth. And, every time you got a $100,000 home loan that was packaged in a mortgage backed security that was sold to an investor for $120,000, that was a distribution of your wealth. Every time a journeyman attorney who gets paid $35/hr but is billed out to the client at $300+, that's a distribution of both the client's wealth and the journeyman attorney's wealth, and everytime most working Americans get underpaid compensation while the business is reaping mega wealth, that is a distribution of the employees' wealth, and everytime you have to pay your health ins premium where over 15% goes to non-reserve administration, that is a distribution of the insured's wealth.

There are many, many more examples of the distribution of wealth that the common Republican doesn’t get. Actually, it happens to a greater extent in the aggregate in the many small things that we pay for such as cable TV, cell phone service, and internet service or when you pay $3.50 for a box of crackers at Vons instead of $2.50 at Trader Joe's, and $4/gal of gas, or $200 for an upgrade to your operating system...and the list goes on and on and on.

Something has to be done to stop this inequitable distribution of the above-described working class's wealth and the remedy has to be systemic.

 

[Chris]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

Link?

 

[edthecynic]

Better to have politicians controlling more then they own. I see your point, that is a far better solution. You are a cynic, my friend. Government not the solution to every problem? You're cynical about that...

And where exactly did I make that point??????

Fallacy: Straw Man ​

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

So are you stating categorically you actually oppose government involvement in the market place to "fix" the problem you've identified with monopolies?

I've said nothing about the government, I merely shot a gaping hole in your "free market" argument reducing you to nothing but straw men.

 

[edthecynic]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

Link?

In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had a 42.7% share.
(See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)
Financial Wealth Top 1 percentNext 19 percentBottom 80 percent 198342.9%48.4%8.7% 198946.9%46.5%6.6% 199245.6%46.7%7.7% 199547.2%45.9%7.0% 199847.3%43.6%9.1% 200139.7%51.5%8.7% 200442.2%50.3%7.5% 200742.7%50.3%7.0%

 

[Londoner]

The amazing part is the way the owners of capital have shifted populism from the corporate fat cat to the incompetent bureaucrat.

Some history.

Starting with Teddy Roosevelt and the progressives there was a consensus that an over-concentration of wealth was bad for the country because it lead to an over-concentration of political power. That is, we didn't want a small group of corporations to have the financial leverage to buy government and media, because it would invariably lead to concentrated control over elections, laws, opinions, and markets by a very small population of shareholders. There was a belief that a strong middle class was good for the country because power would be dispersed or shared between capital and labor. The compact between capital and labor lasted throughout the postwar years - when America saw its greatest economic growth.

Capital was not happy with the compromise. It sought more political power, and greater returns for its small group of shareholders. It wanted to create government-protected monopolies over all major sectors of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to health insurance and energy. It didn't want a thriving middle class with upward mobility; it wanted what could be found in the 3rd world: ultra cheap labor. Reagan created the political and social conditions for cheap labor in America.

Capital found a voice in the person of Ronald Reagan (and, partially, Bill Clinton), whose policies undermined the political power of the middle class. Reagan shifted populism from corporate greed to drugs and sin (-his partnership with the Moral Majority was essential to this shift). Consequently, while we were worried about Janet Jackson's breast and nickel bags, the country was looted by Enron, Bear, Lehman, AIG, and Goldman.

 

[Zander]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

I don't understand the logic. Is a person who makes 20 million a year and pays 40% of the income tax more of an American then the person who makes $19,500 a year and doesn't pay any income tax, or at the least, very very little? I don't think so. We are all Americans and as a result, we should pay our fair share - equally. Regardless of income or station in life, we all scream for equality in this country but it seems that some people are required to be more "equal" than others by the tax burden. Everybody in America has the potential to make the type of income they would like to make. You shouldn't be forced to pay a penalty for success. I think 10% of total income per individual is a fair tax for everybody - regardless of income. No loopholes or special exemptions. A flat 10%. Then we would all be "equal" Americans.

It's only equal if the "right" people are punished, er... I mean paying (wink) (nod).

 

[shintao]

Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

I don't understand the logic. Is a person who makes 20 million a year and pays 40% of the income tax more of an American then the person who makes $19,500 a year and doesn't pay any income tax, or at the least, very very little? I don't think so. We are all Americans and as a result, we should pay our fair share - equally. Regardless of income or station in life, we all scream for equality in this country but it seems that some people are required to be more "equal" than others by the tax burden. Everybody in America has the potential to make the type of income they would like to make. You shouldn't be forced to pay a penalty for success. I think 10% of total income per individual is a fair tax for everybody - regardless of income. No loopholes or special exemptions. A flat 10%. Then we would all be "equal" Americans.

It's only equal if the "right" people are punished, er... I mean paying (wink) (nod).

Everybody should pay an equal amount of taxes, not a percentage of taxes, or not 1/2 paying while the other 1/2 skates. And no one deserves a special tax benefit, just pay the tax and move on.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't understand the logic. Is a person who makes 20 million a year and pays 40% of the income tax more of an American then the person who makes $19,500 a year and doesn't pay any income tax, or at the least, very very little? I don't think so. We are all Americans and as a result, we should pay our fair share - equally. Regardless of income or station in life, we all scream for equality in this country but it seems that some people are required to be more "equal" than others by the tax burden. Everybody in America has the potential to make the type of income they would like to make. You shouldn't be forced to pay a penalty for success. I think 10% of total income per individual is a fair tax for everybody - regardless of income. No loopholes or special exemptions. A flat 10%. Then we would all be "equal" Americans.

It's only equal if the "right" people are punished, er... I mean paying (wink) (nod).

Everybody should pay an equal amount of taxes, not a percentage of taxes, or not 1/2 paying while the other 1/2 skates. And no one deserves a special tax benefit, just pay the tax and move on.

Socialized taxes and privatized profits.

I vote for a flat tax %, no exceptions or deductions.