Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
And they still pay more taxes at a higher rate than everyone else.
[QUOTE="Toro, post: 14538302, member: 2926"
That data includes all the deductions the rich receive.[/quote[
No, it doesn't; it shows adjusted income, most of their incomes are capital gains and/or dividends, not salaries, and like Mitt Romney, it's most likely to be in off-shore accounts and not required to be reported in the same years it's made.
And they still pay more taxes at a higher rate than everyone else.
No, they don't pay higher taxes; the rates are meaningless. They pay higher rates on reported personal income, after adjustments, special tax breaks, and all the rest. the majority goes into tax shelters and many have their own 'hedge fund', those have a top bracket of 15%, on reported income. they only bother to show income so as to justify purchases and living expenses and have to report that as 'income'. In Mitt Romney's case, he merely has to 'loan' himself his own money to buy say, a house, and even gets to deduct the interest he pays himself through his paper front in the Bahamas or where ever he has it off-shored. this is also legal for hedge fund owners and PE shareholders to do.
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.
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.
Taxable income includes deductions. Cash income is before deductions.
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.
Those aren't the rates in the graphs. Those are the total taxes paid relative to total income.
And the rich pay more in taxes than anyone.
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.
Taxable income includes deductions. Cash income is before deductions.
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.
Taxable income includes deductions. Cash income is before deductions.
Which is why I brought it up. Folks are not being taxed on cash income, although lower income people probably are as they lack the deductions.
...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.
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.
- 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
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.
As goes the matter of tax reform, it'd be a huge step toward simplifying the tax code and everyone's efforts to file their taxes were the exceptions removed.
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.
The people who haven't recovered are the uneducated blue collar workers.
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.
The people who haven't recovered are the uneducated blue collar workers.
Ageism has hurt many White Collar professionals.
Damned if I don't get smarter reading your posts. And it's FREE. Tyvm.
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.
The people who haven't recovered are the uneducated blue collar workers.
Ageism has hurt many White Collar professionals.
Damn right. Think about that before raising the retirement age. At least give people Medicare at age 60
As goes the matter of tax reform, it'd be a huge step toward simplifying the tax code and everyone's efforts to file their taxes were the exceptions removed.
Maybe our current tax code situation is actually our Congresses jobs program for accountants, tax lawyers, off shore bank executives, financial planners and lobbyists.
They gotta eat too.
