As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

[Socialist]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

 

[Mr. H.]

And if they are taxed more, then what? The government is supposed to just hand it over to the working class?

Or should the government use it to incentivise business and industry so that they in turn can hire the "not working class"?

Oh- but we can't have that, because it's called "corporate welfare" and "subsidies".

 

[Socialist]

And if they are taxed more, then what? The government is supposed to just hand it over to the working class?

Or should the government use it to incentivise business and industry so that they in turn can hire the "not working class"?

Oh- but we can't have that, because it's called "corporate welfare" and "subsidies".

Mr H, the government needs to reinvest into strong social programs, single payer healthcare, social security, food stamps, education, housing support for the poor, investments into infrastructure and medicial research.. We've seen what incentivizing as brought us the past 40 years, the low tax rate myth is hilarious. Productivity is high, wages are stagnant, and the rich keep saying they need lower taxes, despite all evidence showing lower taxes don't do shit to give back to families or working people. Corporate welfare is real, and a hilarious joke.

 

[benp24]

And if they are taxed more, then what? The government is supposed to just hand it over to the working class?

Or should the government use it to incentivise business and industry so that they in turn can hire the "not working class"?

Oh- but we can't have that, because it's called "corporate welfare" and "subsidies".

Just as "Socialist" said we need to reinvest in our people, through education and filling basic needs. Why are you so against welfare but for corporate welfare. Who's gonna buy their products when no one has any money to spend?

 

[OKTexas]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a ***** waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

 

[benp24]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a ***** waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

You're just a typical conservative with no argument, just bash people who think differently than yourself. Try having an intelligent conversation for once.

 

[AntiParty]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

"For Real"

Your post is significant and factual. But you have to understand that the small brains rely on a strong Title. It's why America has voted based on Title alone. "Patriot Act". I'm a patriot!~~

The Corporate Tax rate is dropped due to loop holes in taxation. And Every Corporation is fighting for a new loop hole. They owe more taxes than individuals, but if they can buy a politician, they can get a return much more significant than taxation itself.

 

[Judicial review]

This is the whole goal of socialism. Says the socialist. I love teasing total hypocrisy. Too easy.

 

[AntiParty]

This is the whole goal of socialism. Says the socialist. I love teasing total hypocrisy. Too easy.

You don't seem to have ever spent time to research what the term "Socialism". Like most Americans. Including my former self.

We can't fix our crony Capitalism until we understand other policies.

 

[AntiParty]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a ***** waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

^
This person must feel smart using all insults and no political knowledge.

We are here to discuss politics. Not insult people. Well, most of us aren't here to insult people to make themselves feel better, can't speak for everyone

 

[AntiParty]

The only difference between Socialism and Capitalism is Politicians/Government run the Corporations instead of Politicians paid for by Corporations. Doesn't seem so different now does it.

They still run the Corporations and Government.

 

[theHawk]

And yet everytime someone suggests a flat tax rate and elemination of loopholes, progressives lose their minds.

The last thing progressives want to see is the end of class warfare. Without it, they'd have nothing to rant about and no way to stay in power.

 

[Judicial review]

And yet everytime someone suggests a flat tax rate and elemination of loopholes, progressives lose their minds.

The last thing progressives want to see is the end of class warfare. Without it, they'd have nothing to rant about and no way to stay in power.

The 1 thing Progressives/socialists cannot EVER have happen is a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT to the USA Constitution. That is the death of Socialism.

 

[The Rabbi]

Every time taxes are cut for the upper percentage of earners, revenue to the Treasury goes up. If you really want to soak the rich lower tax rates across the board.

 

[The Rabbi]

And yet everytime someone suggests a flat tax rate and elemination of loopholes, progressives lose their minds.

The last thing progressives want to see is the end of class warfare. Without it, they'd have nothing to rant about and no way to stay in power.

They simply cannot accept the notion that a dollar earned is a dollar earned and should be taxed equally. Progressives dont believe in equality. This is the problem.

 

[Mr. H.]

And if they are taxed more, then what? The government is supposed to just hand it over to the working class?

Or should the government use it to incentivise business and industry so that they in turn can hire the "not working class"?

Oh- but we can't have that, because it's called "corporate welfare" and "subsidies".

Just as "Socialist" said we need to reinvest in our people, through education and filling basic needs. Why are you so against welfare but for corporate welfare. Who's gonna buy their products when no one has any money to spend?

Welfare is direct benefits to people.
"Corporate welfare" as it is mis-named, is the government taking less away from corporations that is rightfully theirs. Such as revenue and capital.

 

[Socialist]

And yet everytime someone suggests a flat tax rate and elemination of loopholes, progressives lose their minds.

The last thing progressives want to see is the end of class warfare. Without it, they'd have nothing to rant about and no way to stay in power.

A flat tax is a disaster, don't kid yourself.

 

[Socialist]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a ***** waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

"Consumed with envy" It never ceases to amaze me how your so pathetic.

 

[williepete]

"As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes."

Another of many incentives to become rich.

 

[Socialist]

"As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes."

Another of many incentives to become rich.

It's only a matter of time till this is the rhetoric the right wing uses to defend the super rich. The majority of taxable income is owned by the rich as the ladder goes up, wages are stagnant, upward mobility is next to impossible unless you're privileged, productivity is at all time highs and all of the income is going to the top..