CDZ An interesting analysis of our economic problems, but....

[JimBowie1958]

I do not understand why this is necessarily a Marxist perspective.

It doesnt require a Marxist to realize that our Wall Street banks are too big, a threat to our economy and thus national security as well. It doesnt take a Marxist to realize that a world in which the rich prosper at record rates of growth while the Middle Class is sacked and pillaged by the government for an ever growing tax base and the poor are locked into frustration and futility is an inherently dangerous and unstable economic system.

 

[there4eyeM]

Common sense would not lead one either to the excesses of the left or the right. Obviously, the financial system has become grossly dissociated from anything close to human reality. Derivatives are hallucinatory economics to put it mildly. The blind faith in this legalized, insured and protected gambling scheme threatens the normal working family without consent or even direct participation.
It is not true wealth, just figures on paper or in computers. Wealth contributes to social life; fictive profits and growth lead to exploitation.
What happened in the 'crisis' around 2007 - 2008? Was there famine? War? Disease? Lack of health care? Nothing human was destroyed, and there was enough of all essentials for everyone. The 'crisis' was in the game the major financial players had mishandled. Yet, the common citizens paid for it. Not to change the game, however, just to perpetuate it. The same people remain in the same positions to do the same thing again.
Agreed, Marxism has nothing to do with it. Capitalism is not evil. Many who call themselves 'capitalist' and exploit our system to the danger of all are equivalent to 'evil', however. Capitalism is not a faith, religion, or even an organized system; it is just a term for how things can work. It isn't necessarily the only way, and many modifications and adaptations of it are possible. Marxism is a philosophy and economic plan, and it doesn't necessarily lead to desirable results, but that does not mean we cannot learn from what it proposes. We should not exclude any thinking from helping us arrive at a human, workable society. But a system that exists just for constant profit and 'growth' that is impossible to sustain is inhuman.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Common sense would not lead one either to the excesses of the left or the right. Obviously, the financial system has become grossly dissociated from anything close to human reality. Derivatives are hallucinatory economics to put it mildly. The blind faith in this legalized, insured and protected gambling scheme threatens the normal working family without consent or even direct participation.

The derivatives market is HUGE, notional value over $700 trillion today, last I read. The Credit Default Swap contracts should be restricted to only the principles involved.

It is not true wealth, just figures on paper or in computers. Wealth contributes to social life; fictive profits and growth lead to exploitation.

Well, it is real wealth in terms of the impact it has on credit and liquidity for markets around the world. A bubble that collapses in the derivatives market is just as real as any other bubble collapsing; it destroys vast amounts of investable wealth.

What happened in the 'crisis' around 2007 - 2008? Was there famine? War? Disease? Lack of health care? Nothing human was destroyed, and there was enough of all essentials for everyone. The 'crisis' was in the game the major financial players had mishandled. Yet, the common citizens paid for it. Not to change the game, however, just to perpetuate it. The same people remain in the same positions to do the same thing again.

What happened was that massive numbers of people lost huge amounts of confidence in several sets of financial equities/instruments and since huge sums were spent based on the previous confidence level these things had, the loss of confidence cause them to be unsellable and thus lose huge amounts of value. That is worse than several hurricanes in terms of destroying wealth.

Agreed, Marxism has nothing to do with it. Capitalism is not evil. Many who call themselves 'capitalist' and exploit our system to the danger of all are equivalent to 'evil', however. Capitalism is not a faith, religion, or even an organized system; it is just a term for how things can work. It isn't necessarily the only way, and many modifications and adaptations of it are possible. Marxism is a philosophy and economic plan, and it doesn't necessarily lead to desirable results, but that does not mean we cannot learn from what it proposes. We should not exclude any thinking from helping us arrive at a human, workable society. But a system that exists just for constant profit and 'growth' that is impossible to sustain is inhuman.

I totally agree with that.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perhaps my definition of 'wealth' seems too strict for you. Money, by itself, and certainly not mere ciphers on a page somewhere, are not necessarily 'wealth'. Things that contribute to collective, usable life (goods, services, education, real estate) are wealth in the sense used above. I think there is too much confusion in the terms. But, I seek no argument over it. My agreement with the o.p. is more important than a single term.

 

[The Great Goose]

I do not understand why this is necessarily a Marxist perspective.

It doesnt require a Marxist to realize that our Wall Street banks are too big, a threat to our economy and thus national security as well. It doesnt take a Marxist to realize that a world in which the rich prosper at record rates of growth while the Middle Class is sacked and pillaged by the government for an ever growing tax base and the poor are locked into frustration and futility is an inherently dangerous and unstable economic system.

use your spending money, every week, to hire a sex worker.

it's only an hour of pleasure, but it will waste your life so much less.

 

[320 Years of History]

...a world in which the rich prosper at record rates of growth while the Middle Class is sacked and pillaged by the government for an ever growing tax base...

Whoa....The middle class are not "sacked and pillaged" to grow the tax base.

• Wealthy people pay the majority of the taxes collected.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Click on the images to access their source narratives.)

I'm not taking exception with your being irked over the resource disparity we observe in the U.S. today. Rather, I don't cotton to your misrepresenting the reality. The middle class simply do not pay the lion's share of income taxes; thus it does not comprise the majority of the tax base. Moreover, as the charts above show, the share of income tax revenue collected and that derives from the middle class is decreasing while the share coming from the wealthy is increasing. Make whatever argument you want, but at least base it on something that's actually so.

Other:
As for your remark about Marx and Marxism, what I think you may overlooking is that Marx was was a social economist first and a "technical" (some might say "classical") economist second. Accordingly, one must look at Marx's ideas, particularly his later ones such as those in Grundrisse, in terms of what they mean for people as a whole rather than for what they mean to the agents of production.

Marx was less concerned about pure economic efficiency that capitalism provides and how to obtain it, but rather than he was concerned about the impact of structuring and basing society, nations and public policy so as to achieve the efficiency that capitalism can yield. Marx doesn't deny capitalism's efficiency; it was quite clear to him that capitalism is far and away the most economically efficient of the economic systems. He thought, however, that society, and more importantly to him, the people in it, is better off living in a less efficient economic system if that is what it takes to minimize or eliminate the enmity in society between capitalists and labor.

Put another way, Marx saw capitalism, when implemented on a societal level (whatever be the size of the society in question) essentially as that society's cutting off it's nose to spite its face. Yes, it's great to make all that money and have it available to spend on society's "bars, temples, and massage parlors," but if doing so leaves huge swaths of the society in despair and comparative destitution, what's the point for there's no denying that a billionaire doesn't actually need billions of dollars to actually be happy. So if a less efficient economic system -- be that constrained capitalism, or be it capitalism constrained to the point we call it socialism, or no capitalism at all, which we call a command economy -- can provide satisfaction for more people in society, Marx thought that preferable to one in which a small share of the society are greatly over satisfied, a large share are somewhat satisfied and have no "in their lifetime" prospect of becoming over sated, and a large share who are just barely sated or not sated at all.

Contrasting Marx with Keynes, Marshall and the other "technical" economists, one finds that pretty much all of them assume that individuals living in a capitalist economy will do what makes sense to do under capitalism: become capitalists. Why do they make that assumption? Because it doesn't take great genius to see that being a capitalist is the way to get one's "piece of the pie." One may not become a billionaire capitalist, but one can nonetheless get enough "pie" to enjoy a pleasant lifestyle.

Now coming to where we find ourselves today, not just the U.S., but the world, we find ourselves in precisely the situation that Marx predicted and that your OP's video illustrates. Some may take that we do as an indication that Marx was right and that the classical economists were wrong. Attempting to head down that path would be a mistake because they are both right.

One might ask how can it be that they are both right. Well, the answer is that Marx is right because the societal impacts he predicted are manifest. Yours and others' lamentations about our economy are clear proof of that much. The classical economists are right because they didn't attempt to address the societal impact of capitalism. (That's why I referred to them as "technical" economists.)

Above I've tried to provide an explanation of why the ideas in the video are considered Marxist. In short they are because their focus is on the society not the on maximizing and obtaining economic efficiency. If you'd like to get a better understanding of the details of Marx's ideas, I'd suggest starting with Grundrisse.

• There's an annotated copy of it here. I haven't read it, so I don't know what the annotator's thoughts are, but it doesn't matter what they are for no matter what be their themes, they'll nonetheless provide fodder for one to consider. I suggest reading Grundrisse and then reading the annotations.
• An analysis of Grundrisse -- Marx and Beyond Marx -- Lessons on the Grundrisse

What is the significance of Grundrisse? It's the first draft of Kapital, however, in it, Marx offers numerous reflections on matters that Marx did not develop elsewhere in his oeuvre and is therefore extremely important for an overall interpretation of his thought.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Whoa....The middle class are not "sacked and pillaged" to grow the tax base....

The data you provide is on income taxes, not payroll taxes that include Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. These are 34% of the total federal intake and is paid for mostly by the middle class since these taxes are capped so the rich dont have to pay more than wealthy middle class people do.

With these payroll taxes incorporated into the total, yes, the American middle class is still pillaged in comparison to the Rich who pay taxes out of their excess.

Trust me, the middle class has no excess any more.

The rest is pretty interesting, but I have to go somewhere. I promise to get back to the rest of your excellent post tomorrow.

 

[Picaro]

I do not understand why this is necessarily a Marxist perspective.

It doesnt require a Marxist to realize that our Wall Street banks are too big, a threat to our economy and thus national security as well. It doesnt take a Marxist to realize that a world in which the rich prosper at record rates of growth while the Middle Class is sacked and pillaged by the government for an ever growing tax base and the poor are locked into frustration and futility is an inherently dangerous and unstable economic system.

I don't do Youtubes and mp4's, so I don't know what's in the link, but Marx only wrote Vol. I of Das Kapital. It does have some useful and valid critiques of the disadvantages of certain forms of capitalism, and his theories spawned several valuable contributions to the development of economics and the study of history. the problems with Marxism comes from their 'solutions' to these problems, and their belief in the historical inevitability of these 'solutions', which aren't accurate nor desirable; they have a belief in the myth of what one scholar called 'continuitarianism': that history is always seamlessly moving forward and no regression ever occurs and there are no 'breaks' in that movement. 'Libertarianism' suffers from the same obvious flaws and delusions, which is why some refer to it as the 'Marxism of the Right', and it's probably no coincidence that both theories end up at the same materialistic 'paradise' at the end. Materialist theories of human behavior all end up badly, no matter the source or the elaborateness of massive amounts of rhetoric expended on the circular reasoning behind them.

In any case, Marx abandoned his theories when those of Joseph(?) Menger and other economists began publishing theirs and never wrote any more on it.

 

[Picaro]

In any case, Marx abandoned his theories when those of Joseph(?) Menger and other economists began publishing theirs and never wrote any more on it.

I didn't think 'Joseph was right. It was Carl Menger ,who founded the 'Austrian School':

Carl Menger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He wasn't completely right either, but most economists aren't, as they deal too much in abstractions and behavior that doesn't exist in real life and it's largely just an academic exercise in sophistry.

In 1878 Rudolf's father, Emperor Franz Josef, appointed Menger to the chair of political economy at Vienna. The title of Hofrat was conferred on him, and he was appointed to the Austrian Herrenhaus in 1900.

Ensconced in his professorship he set about refining and defending the positions he took and methods he utilized in Principles, the result of which was the 1883 publication of Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics (Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der politischen Oekonomie insbesondere). The book caused a firestorm of debate, during which members of the Historical school of economics began to derisively call Menger and his students the "Austrian School" to emphasize their departure from mainstream economic thought in Germany – the term was specifically used in an unfavorable review by Gustav von Schmoller.

In 1884 Menger responded with the pamphlet The Errors of Historicism in German Economics and launched the infamous Methodenstreit, or methodological debate, between the Historical School and the Austrian School. During this time Menger began to attract like-minded disciples who would go on to make their own mark on the field of economics, most notably Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Friedrich von Wieser.

In the late 1880s Menger was appointed to head a commission to reform the Austrian monetary system. Over the course of the next decade he authored a plethora of articles which would revolutionize monetary theory, including "The Theory of Capital" (1888) and "Money" (1892).[3] Largely due to his pessimism about the state of German scholarship, Menger resigned his professorship in 1903 to concentrate on study.

As for modern nationally known economists, Paul Krugman has the best record of predictions, much to the annoyance of many. My personal favorites are Keynes and Robert Fogel. Fogel is more of an economic historian, but he has done a lot of work in cliometrics that has been important.

Robert Fogel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hes' even more annoying to the materialists and 'libertarians', in that he too recognizes the fallacies of the purely materialist approach to economics.

The Fourth Great Awakening
In 2000 Fogel published The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism in which he argued that America has been moving cyclically toward greater equality, largely because of the influence of religion, especially evangelicalism. Building on his work on the demise of slavery, he proposed that since evangelicalism was largely responsible for ending the institution he found to be economically profitable, that religion would continue to fuel America's moral development. Fogel diagrammed four "Great Awakenings", called (by others) "The Fogel Paradigm." "Fogel’s paradigm is drawn from what he believes are cycles of ethical challenges America has undergone provoked by technological innovations that create moral crises that, in turn, are resolved by evangelical awakenings."[8]

I think he is very over-optimistic about this, but at least he isn't afraid to admit cultures, morals, and principles are more important to an economy and national well being that these days most would vehemently deny, as it doesn't glorify mindless self-indulgence and greed.

And again, his predictions are dependent on a continuatarian view of history, and it's doubtful they will come true.

 

[320 Years of History]

The data you provide is on income taxes, not payroll taxes that include Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. These are 34% of the total federal intake and is paid for mostly by the middle class since these taxes are capped so the rich don't have to pay more than wealthy middle class people do.

With these payroll taxes incorporated into the total, yes, the American middle class is still pillaged in comparison to the Rich who pay taxes out of their excess.

Red:

• The Medicare portion of FICA is not capped. Only the SSI portion of FICA is capped. Consider the following in light of the Federal payroll tax information at the link:
  • Person A is employed and makes $118,500 in wages. This person will pay:
    • FICA-SSI: $118,500 x .062 = $7347
    • FICA-Medicare: $118,500 x .0145 = $1718
  • Person B is employed and makes $300,000 in wages. This person will pay:
    • FICA-SSI: $118,500 x .062 = $7347
    • FICA-Medicare: $118500 x .0145 = $1718
      Plus: ($300,000-$118,500) x .009 = $1634
      Total: $3,352
  • Person C is employed and makes $800,000. This person will pay:
    • FICA-SSI: $118,500 x .062 = $7347
    • FICA-Medicare: $118500 x .0145 = $1718
      Plus: (($800,000-$118,500) x .009 = $7200
      Total: $8,918

As you can see,

• Everyone earning up to the ceiling of FICA pays that payroll tax at the same rate.
• People earning more than the ceiling pay a lower rate on their FICA-Medicare wages earned that exceed the ceiling
• Medicare taxes paid on earnings greater than the SSI ceiling always results in high wage earners paying more payroll tax than folks who earn up to the SSI ceiling.

Medium high and high wage earners easily to the sum total of payroll taxes collected than do low to moderate wage earners just as high wage earners pay more of the sum total of income taxes collected than do low to moderate wage earners.

"Federal Intake" and FICA (payroll tax):

Okay, sure, FICA comprises 34% of the money paid to the Federal Government. Those monies are very different from income taxes. They pay for Social Security (SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) fund costs. In other words, it's not money the government can spend discretionarily.​

The Benefit Payout from Payroll Taxes (SSI and Medicare):

It's also worth noting that high wage earners never collect in SSI benefits as much as they contributed to the SSI system. Additionally, a high wage earner would need to experience a hell of a lot of illness and longevity to see returned to them benefits remotely close to their proportional share of Medicare contributions. So not only do high wage earners contribute the maximum and the most into the payroll tax system, proportionately, they take the least from it.​

Other:

One can argue that high wage earners need to pay even more, if only to provide for their less well off countrymen because the SSI funds are expected to be fully depleted by 2034. Well, if you want to argue that, fine. To actually implement such a plan/tax hike, one would need to effect a cultural change whereby high wage earners show themselves willing to be less "greedy" when it comes to paying federal taxes. Or one must convince rich folks to privately fund essentially the same things. That kind of private funding happens now and is clearly insufficient to meet the needs of all who need the supplemental assistance. There today would be no involuntarily hungry or homeless people were it sufficient.

It may be possible to convince enough high wage earners to do that, but it also may not be. High wage earners, for the most part, are from formerly moderate wage earning backgrounds. Quite simply, most folks who've only recently "made it" are just as interested in not "giving" their hard earned money away as are folks who are still trying to "make it." As a result, one generally needs to wait for a couple or more generations for the principles of noblesse oblige to "kick in." (See also: Noblesse Oblige | Learning to Give)

Good luck with that. It's my observation among my own (economic/financial) peers that most comfortable folks resent paying money to the government just as much as do non-comfortable folks, regardless of what that money gets spent on. Plus, at the end of the day, for myself at least, it really doesn't matter to whom I provide social assistance resources (money and non-money resources), it's still resources I cannot spend on my own behalf.

Given the matter of ensuring sufficiency for the entire population, it really doesn't matter to me whether I'm paying the money to FICA or paying it to some private charity. The fact is that the total that I and everyone else pays isn't enough to meet the needs that exist, which means we'd all need to pay even more. Well, who has the ability to actually pay more? It's certainly not low to moderate wage earners.​

Red Section Conclusion:
By all means, make whatever proposals you want about how taxes are levied and spent, but you need to use some line of justification other than one deriving from what's equitable and fair based on who pays how much in taxes to the Federal Government. That line of persuasion will almost certainly fall on deaf ears for regardless of what non-wealthy folks think about how much "the rich" pay in taxes, the fact remains that "the rich" know damn well that whether it's income or payroll taxes, or both, high wage earners pay the most amount of money into the system, and they pay the largest share of the money collected as income and as payroll tax. Since "the rich" also control political power and decision making, as they should seeing as they pay the most in taxes, the "fairness" line of argument your OP implies is a non-starter.

Sidebar:

As usual, I am going to connect the facts above with Donald Trump. Ask yourself what the man wants to do with tax rates. He wants to lower them and convert them to being flat rate taxes, which is essentially what the FICA-Medicare tax is. For high wage earners, that's great; there's never been a high wage/income earner that didn't understand that they are comparatively better off with a flat rate tax. Let's be real, why do you think U.S. tax rates have become closer and closer to being "flat?" It's certainly not because that's what's most fair. It's because it's what produces the least impact on the disposable income of wealthy folks.

Rich folks won't often admit that they know flat rate taxes are less fair (regressive) to non-high income individuals than are progressive tax rates, but all very comfortable folks know that to be the case. Most importantly, however, if one thinks that the plight of the moderate and lower income taxpayers sucks (in terms of equity), what on Earth would lead one to think it'll become better when the impact of the tax is even less for well off folks?

It's worth noting that for all the carrying on about very rich folks paying no taxes, that's really only something that happens with corporations. The overwhelming majority of rich folks who ostensibly have a 39.5% marginal income tax rate do actually pay taxes, but roughly, based on the anecdotal information I have, most pay an actual marginal income tax rate around 25%. Indeed, that being so, it's no surprise to that Donald Trump advocates for about a 20% flat rate.

Pure speculation on my part:
I would not be the least bit surprised to find that Trump's actual marginal income tax rate is something around 20%. That it might be that just seems consistent with Trump's modus operandi.​

End of sidebar.


Blue:
Moreover, as FICA is a payroll tax and not an income tax, your assertion about high wage earners paying it from their excess is also incorrect. It's incorrect because everyone's "excess" is the money they take home after tax withholdings. Considering only federal taxes:

• Gross wages - (FICA + Income Tax Withholding) = Take home pay (excess)

From their take home pay, everyone pays for all the stuff they want to have: housing, food, entertainment, personal retirement contributions, insurance, vacations, transportation, etc. Additionally, some individuals must also from their excess pay estimated taxes.

 

[320 Years of History]

I have to go somewhere. I promise to get back to the rest of your excellent post tomorrow.

Off Topic:
You have a recent post that I mentioned I needed to read closely and didn't have the time when I posted a short blurb in response to part of it, but now I've forgotten which post it was. Do you recall which it is? I still want to look into it and consider it.

 

[Toro]

Whoa....The middle class are not "sacked and pillaged" to grow the tax base....

The data you provide is on income taxes, not payroll taxes that include Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. These are 34% of the total federal intake and is paid for mostly by the middle class since these taxes are capped so the rich dont have to pay more than wealthy middle class people do.

With these payroll taxes incorporated into the total, yes, the American middle class is still pillaged in comparison to the Rich who pay taxes out of their excess.

Trust me, the middle class has no excess any more.

The rest is pretty interesting, but I have to go somewhere. I promise to get back to the rest of your excellent post tomorrow.

Most total taxes are paid for by the rich, even after accounting for state and local taxes.

 

[Picaro]

Most total taxes are paid for by the rich, even after accounting for state and local taxes.

Considering the top 10% receive over 80% of income, and also are able to take advantage of numerous deductions that nobody in the bottom 50% is even remotely going to benefit from, this isn't a real point. Add to that the financial sector not re-investing much back into the real economy, despite the propaganda claims of Republicans and other assorted right wingers, you have a train wreck in an economy that has been relying on consumer spending instead of real production. Throw in mindless immigration polices that have ballooned the population to over 330 million from 220 million, and you now have a bankrupt safety net and education system that is increasingly unable to sustain the political stability crucial to a stable environment for conducting business and economic growth. I don't see any ideological solution to this.

As for sniveling about the 'middle class', they cut their own throats and don't deserve any particular sympathy; just who does the 'middle class' think is the next demographic in line for looting and being sheared like sheep after they enthusiastically embrace bad policies that loot and crap on those blue collar proles, exactly?

The top 1% spend very little compared to those undeserving proles in the consumer economy; their contributions are practically nil. they don't buy much outside their little enclaves, and what little taxes they do pay aren't close to the same percentage of their income your average worker pays on his. It's apples and oranges; they don't operate in the same economy at all.

Inflation is low in large part because the money flow is largely one way and doesn't get recirculated back around again.

 

[320 Years of History]

Whoa....The middle class are not "sacked and pillaged" to grow the tax base....

The data you provide is on income taxes, not payroll taxes that include Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. These are 34% of the total federal intake and is paid for mostly by the middle class since these taxes are capped so the rich dont have to pay more than wealthy middle class people do.

With these payroll taxes incorporated into the total, yes, the American middle class is still pillaged in comparison to the Rich who pay taxes out of their excess.

Trust me, the middle class has no excess any more.

The rest is pretty interesting, but I have to go somewhere. I promise to get back to the rest of your excellent post tomorrow.

Most total taxes are paid for by the rich, even after accounting for state and local taxes.

Interesting to the see successive years shown together. I wonder if the trend shown in the two sets of figures -- that the share of taxes as a % of income paid by the "grey groups" has dropped slightly -- has continued to 2015 or has remained the same. Not that I'm suggesting the changes are material; just curious.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have to go somewhere. I promise to get back to the rest of your excellent post tomorrow.

Off Topic:
You have a recent post that I mentioned I needed to read closely and didn't have the time when I posted a short blurb in response to part of it, but now I've forgotten which post it was. Do you recall which it is? I still want to look into it and consider it.

Are you kidding? I have the worlds worst memory.

I wish I could tell you which one it was, but I guess I'll just have to count it as a win, lol.

Seriously, I cant remember and enjoy reading your responses. You make me think in new ways most of the time and I appreciate that.

 

[Fishlore]

Marxism is not a political program. It is a school of history focused on economics and organized on a Hegelian dialectic theory about the pattern of historical evolution. Marxism is alive and well as a phlosophical movement; its role in politics and goverment regulation is second or third hand.

 

[Picaro]

Marxism is not a political program. It is a school of history focused on economics and organized on a Hegelian dialectic theory about the pattern of historical evolution. Marxism is alive and well as a phlosophical movement; its role in politics and goverment regulation is second or third hand.

On paper it is, but in practice they advocated overthrowing governments in order to 'speed history up', and of course make themselves dictators and give each other Big Important Government Jobs. Marx deliberately positioned himself as the 'anti-Hegel' in academia, as a way of standing out in all the hair splitting semantic games pseudo-intellectuals are fond of, especially in that era.

 

[Toro]

Considering the top 10% receive over 80% of income, and also are able to take advantage of numerous deductions that nobody in the bottom 50% is even remotely going to benefit from, this isn't a real point.

That data includes all the deductions the rich receive.

And they still pay more taxes at a higher rate than everyone else.

 

[Toro]

Whoa....The middle class are not "sacked and pillaged" to grow the tax base....

The data you provide is on income taxes, not payroll taxes that include Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. These are 34% of the total federal intake and is paid for mostly by the middle class since these taxes are capped so the rich dont have to pay more than wealthy middle class people do.

With these payroll taxes incorporated into the total, yes, the American middle class is still pillaged in comparison to the Rich who pay taxes out of their excess.

Trust me, the middle class has no excess any more.

The rest is pretty interesting, but I have to go somewhere. I promise to get back to the rest of your excellent post tomorrow.

Most total taxes are paid for by the rich, even after accounting for state and local taxes.

Interesting to the see successive years shown together. I wonder if the trend shown in the two sets of figures -- that the share of taxes as a % of income paid by the "grey groups" has dropped slightly -- has continued to 2015 or has remained the same. Not that I'm suggesting the changes are material; just curious.

Good question.

My guess is that it may have gone up slightly.

A more interesting comparison would be to 1980, when it has probably come down.

 

[saveliberty]

Considering the top 10% receive over 80% of income, and also are able to take advantage of numerous deductions that nobody in the bottom 50% is even remotely going to benefit from, this isn't a real point.

That data includes all the deductions the rich receive.

And they still pay more taxes at a higher rate than everyone else.

It would be clearer if it said taxable income versus cash income. If it means the same thing, then the 1% is paying $397,590 per taxpayer in that bracket.