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

[martybegan]

FICA is a federal tax on income. AKA a federal income tax. No quote/unquote tags necessary.

Actually...in all fairness....the quotes really are necessary.
Unlike typical income tax.....FICA is a tax that you get back in dollars....not services.....
SO whereas it is a tax, it is really a "forced savings"......and there is a difference and thus why it has its own separate box on thye tax form.

You don't get back your FICA. It's a transfer payment, just as any other social program is a transfer payment. It's taxing 1 person in order to fund another. and like most federal social programs, the transfer occurs via a tax on income.

It is NOT like a transfer payment, as with others you do not get a tangible benefit back. For SS you are paying in and getting paid back at a later date, period. A true transfer payment is like welfare, when you have never used welfare.

 

[8537]

So if you use "Federal Income Tax" which is your 1040 form, does the 50% pay no taxes line hold?

FICA is a federal tax on income. AKA a federal income tax. No quote/unquote tags necessary.

It is not THE Federal Income Tax, which is the largest source of revenue for the Federal Government. You also ignored my question. On this tax, how is the amount paid based on income bracket broken down?

Is there a large portion of the population that does not pay any of this Tax?

It is a federal tax on income. Any person who has a job pays it.

The amount paid by income bracket isn't relevant, but the fact is that the people paying the highest percentage of federal income FICA taxes are those making at or below the cap. Someone making 10,000 pays 7.65%. Someone making 105K pays 7.65%.

Someone making 1.05M pays .765%

 

[8537]

Wrong...Every employee and fool who files SE pays it.

So then every corporation that pays corporate taxes pays their own taxes, in terms of actual tax incidence?

 

[Jarhead]

FICA is a federal tax on income. AKA a federal income tax. No quote/unquote tags necessary.

Actually...in all fairness....the quotes really are necessary.
Unlike typical income tax.....FICA is a tax that you get back in dollars....not services.....
SO whereas it is a tax, it is really a "forced savings"......and there is a difference and thus why it has its own separate box on thye tax form.

You don't get back your FICA. It's a transfer payment, just as any other social program is a transfer payment. It's taxing 1 person in order to fund another. and like most federal social programs, the transfer occurs via a tax on income.

I disagree. It is not a trasnsfer payment.
You get it back in dollars and it is not at all based on your financial status at the time you are eligible for it.
It is based on what you put in.
It is a forced savings....but one that has a return that is not worth crap if you ask me.

 

[8537]

Actually...in all fairness....the quotes really are necessary.
Unlike typical income tax.....FICA is a tax that you get back in dollars....not services.....
SO whereas it is a tax, it is really a "forced savings"......and there is a difference and thus why it has its own separate box on thye tax form.

You don't get back your FICA. It's a transfer payment, just as any other social program is a transfer payment. It's taxing 1 person in order to fund another. and like most federal social programs, the transfer occurs via a tax on income.

It is NOT like a transfer payment, as with others you do not get a tangible benefit back. For SS you are paying in and getting paid back at a later date, period.

No, you're not. You may or may not fall on the other side of that transfer payment at a later date, but you have no guaranteed right to that future payment or future income stream.

 

[8537]

Actually...in all fairness....the quotes really are necessary.
Unlike typical income tax.....FICA is a tax that you get back in dollars....not services.....
SO whereas it is a tax, it is really a "forced savings"......and there is a difference and thus why it has its own separate box on thye tax form.

You don't get back your FICA. It's a transfer payment, just as any other social program is a transfer payment. It's taxing 1 person in order to fund another. and like most federal social programs, the transfer occurs via a tax on income.

I disagree. It is not a trasnsfer payment.
You get it back in dollars and it is not at all based on your financial status at the time you are eligible for it.

But you don't get it back! That's the point. You have no claim on any future revenue stream from future employees. None. You may or may not end up on the other end of a future transfer payment. It's not a savings account with a contractual liability.

It's a critical distinction, imho.

 

[Jarhead]

You don't get back your FICA. It's a transfer payment, just as any other social program is a transfer payment. It's taxing 1 person in order to fund another. and like most federal social programs, the transfer occurs via a tax on income.

It is NOT like a transfer payment, as with others you do not get a tangible benefit back. For SS you are paying in and getting paid back at a later date, period.

No, you're not. You may or may not fall on the other side of that transfer payment at a later date, but you have no guaranteed right to that future payment or future income stream.

Actually, in theory, you do.
That was the reason for the "lock box"...
How the government got around that, I really dont know.

 

[asterism]

The top 5% have about 70% of the income as well, not to mention more than 70% of the wealth.

Another falsehood, the top 20% only have 50% of the net worth so it's impossible for the top 5% to have even more than that.

The top 5% have 27% of the net worth and 29% of the financial wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Your link shows that the top 20% have 85.1% of total net worth and 93% of financial wealth.

I stand corrected, my mistake.



Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

This part is still true though:

The top 5% earned 21.7% of the income in 2009.

Historical Income Tables - Income Inequality - U.S Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/H02AR_2009.xls

 

[Skull Pilot]

You don't get back your FICA. It's a transfer payment, just as any other social program is a transfer payment. It's taxing 1 person in order to fund another. and like most federal social programs, the transfer occurs via a tax on income.

It is NOT like a transfer payment, as with others you do not get a tangible benefit back. For SS you are paying in and getting paid back at a later date, period.

No, you're not. You may or may not fall on the other side of that transfer payment at a later date, but you have no guaranteed right to that future payment or future income stream.

Which is the very reason it should be abolished.

 

[rdean]

In the 50s and 60s, CEOs of medium to large companies made 30 to 40 times the average worker. Now, they make 300 to 600 times the average worker. The companies don't employ more. Instead of growing their customer base, they squeeze the companies dry. This is capitalism?

Cigna is merely a "middle man" health care company. How many policies do you have to skim to make a single $120,000,000.00 payout to the CEO?

This bad business Republicans call "capitalism" and "good business". They say, "Let them keep their money, they worked hard for it". Did they? Did they "work" or did they "scam"?

Those in the Republicans base dream of pulling off such a scam. They don't dream of "inventions" or "new technology". They dream of screwing the American middle class for a few easy bucks. Most, if not all, Republicans see themselves as "millionaires" without funds. But still "millionaires". They just want their money protected so when they do get it, they get to keep it.

The 300x is true. The 600x is not true and over 500x was only true during the tech bubble.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Hmmm, if you take $120,000,000.00 and divide it by 600, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that work out to 200,000?

CIGNA took in $19.1 billion dollars in revenue last year, with a $292 million dollar income. That doesn't include the salaries given to people like CEO Ed Hanway. He made a cool $12 million last year, and over the past five years he took in $120 million.

CIGNA Denies Cancer Patient Care, CEO Makes $120 Million In Five Years

Divide 200,000 by 5 and you get $40,000.00. A pretty average salary.

Just to go through it again.

120 million - paycheck

divided by 600, the number I used

equals 200,000

Divide 200,000 by 5 - the number of years

and that leaves $40,000.00 - which is a pretty average salary. Ask anyone working at an insurance company who is not a CEO.

Check my figures. Prove I'm wrong. I wish I were.

And this isn't the "tech bubble".

 

[Jarhead]

You don't get back your FICA. It's a transfer payment, just as any other social program is a transfer payment. It's taxing 1 person in order to fund another. and like most federal social programs, the transfer occurs via a tax on income.

I disagree. It is not a trasnsfer payment.
You get it back in dollars and it is not at all based on your financial status at the time you are eligible for it.

But you don't get it back! That's the point. You have no claim on any future revenue stream from future employees. None. You may or may not end up on the other end of a future transfer payment. It's not a savings account with a contractual liability.

It's a critical distinction, imho.

You are citing a flaw in the system.....but not the way the system was desiogned to work.
Wait and see....the day people can not get their SS back in dollars will be the day the federal government is sued by the people for billions.
They will be in breach of the law....and it very well may trickle down to the descendants of many politicians.....

 

[8537]

I disagree. It is not a trasnsfer payment.
You get it back in dollars and it is not at all based on your financial status at the time you are eligible for it.

But you don't get it back! That's the point. You have no claim on any future revenue stream from future employees. None. You may or may not end up on the other end of a future transfer payment. It's not a savings account with a contractual liability.

It's a critical distinction, imho.

You are citing a flaw in the system.....but not the way the system was desiogned to work.
Wait and see....the day people can not get their SS back in dollars will be the day the federal government is sued by the people for billions.
They will be in breach of the law....and it very well may trickle down to the descendants of many politicians.....

But that's the point -they won't be in breach of the law. The government is under no legal obligation whatsoever to return SS payments. That's just not how the system was arranged.

While it would be political suicide, the Congress could pass a law tomorrow ending all future SS payments. That isn't going to happen, but it's certainly true that congress will need to do something in the next few years akin to that - for example, passing a law that says "we're not sending you a check until your 70".

 

[Jarhead]

But you don't get it back! That's the point. You have no claim on any future revenue stream from future employees. None. You may or may not end up on the other end of a future transfer payment. It's not a savings account with a contractual liability.

It's a critical distinction, imho.

You are citing a flaw in the system.....but not the way the system was desiogned to work.
Wait and see....the day people can not get their SS back in dollars will be the day the federal government is sued by the people for billions.
They will be in breach of the law....and it very well may trickle down to the descendants of many politicians.....

But that's the point -they won't be in breach of the law. The government is under no legal obligation whatsoever to return SS payments. That's just not how the system was arranged.

While it would be political suicide, the Congress could pass a law tomorrow ending all future SS payments. That isn't going to happen, but it's certainly true that congress will need to do something in the next few years akin to that - for example, passing a law that says "we're not sending you a check until your 70".

I will say this...and I am 53...

They should pass the law now....saying anyone who is 57 and above will get SS starting at 65...and anyone younger than 57 will start getting it at 70.

It very well may work...and I would not hold it against congress as they would actually be doing something productive for a change.

 

[8537]

You are citing a flaw in the system.....but not the way the system was desiogned to work.
Wait and see....the day people can not get their SS back in dollars will be the day the federal government is sued by the people for billions.
They will be in breach of the law....and it very well may trickle down to the descendants of many politicians.....

But that's the point -they won't be in breach of the law. The government is under no legal obligation whatsoever to return SS payments. That's just not how the system was arranged.

While it would be political suicide, the Congress could pass a law tomorrow ending all future SS payments. That isn't going to happen, but it's certainly true that congress will need to do something in the next few years akin to that - for example, passing a law that says "we're not sending you a check until your 70".

I will say this...and I am 53...

They should pass the law now....saying anyone who is 57 and above will get SS starting at 65...and anyone younger than 57 will start getting it at 70.

It very well may work...and I would not hold it against congress as they would actually be doing something productive for a change.

Agreed!

 

[Cuyo]

The purpose of such semantics to fool the worker.

Why do you support financial shell games and lying to the worker?

Alright, easy tiger. Don't get all conspiracy whacked on my so early in the morning.

You could correctly state that the employer pays all of it. You could also correctly state that since it's in lieu of additional wages, the employee pays all of it by extension. Or you can correctly state that it's half and half.

What's the difference how you say it? It's all the same - That's the point.

But almost nobody says that....They continue with the deceptive "employer pays half" meme.

If you could correctly point out that the worker pays half, why continue with the deception?

I'll tell you why...The employer gets to deduct "his half".

The worker pays it all and the employer gets a nice fat deduction...True story.

All wages and benefits are deductions as well, as are all taxes paid on behalf of the worker...

I don't find stating that it's half and half to be deceptive. I'm a little confused as to why the outrage.

 

[asterism]

In the 50s and 60s, CEOs of medium to large companies made 30 to 40 times the average worker. Now, they make 300 to 600 times the average worker. The companies don't employ more. Instead of growing their customer base, they squeeze the companies dry. This is capitalism?

Cigna is merely a "middle man" health care company. How many policies do you have to skim to make a single $120,000,000.00 payout to the CEO?

This bad business Republicans call "capitalism" and "good business". They say, "Let them keep their money, they worked hard for it". Did they? Did they "work" or did they "scam"?

Those in the Republicans base dream of pulling off such a scam. They don't dream of "inventions" or "new technology". They dream of screwing the American middle class for a few easy bucks. Most, if not all, Republicans see themselves as "millionaires" without funds. But still "millionaires". They just want their money protected so when they do get it, they get to keep it.

The 300x is true. The 600x is not true and over 500x was only true during the tech bubble.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Hmmm, if you take $120,000,000.00 and divide it by 600, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that work out to 200,000?

CIGNA took in $19.1 billion dollars in revenue last year, with a $292 million dollar income. That doesn't include the salaries given to people like CEO Ed Hanway. He made a cool $12 million last year, and over the past five years he took in $120 million.

CIGNA Denies Cancer Patient Care, CEO Makes $120 Million In Five Years

Divide 200,000 by 5 and you get $40,000.00. A pretty average salary.

Just to go through it again.

120 million - paycheck

divided by 600, the number I used

equals 200,000

Divide 200,000 by 5 - the number of years

and that leaves $40,000.00 - which is a pretty average salary. Ask anyone working at an insurance company who is not a CEO.

Check my figures. Prove I'm wrong. I wish I were.

And this isn't the "tech bubble".

Oh, you're talking anecdotally. Individual distributions between CEOs and the average workers existed at that level in the 1960s and 1970s also.

CEO Compensation 1970-2000 » Graphic Sociology

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

 

[Jarhead]

Alright, easy tiger. Don't get all conspiracy whacked on my so early in the morning.

You could correctly state that the employer pays all of it. You could also correctly state that since it's in lieu of additional wages, the employee pays all of it by extension. Or you can correctly state that it's half and half.

What's the difference how you say it? It's all the same - That's the point.

But almost nobody says that....They continue with the deceptive "employer pays half" meme.

If you could correctly point out that the worker pays half, why continue with the deception?

I'll tell you why...The employer gets to deduct "his half".

The worker pays it all and the employer gets a nice fat deduction...True story.

All wages and benefits are deductions as well, as are all taxes paid on behalf of the worker...

I don't find stating that it's half and half to be deceptive. I'm a little confused as to why the outrage.

It is an operating cost...
It is not taxable income.
Thus why it is a deduction.

 

[asterism]

Alright, easy tiger. Don't get all conspiracy whacked on my so early in the morning.

You could correctly state that the employer pays all of it. You could also correctly state that since it's in lieu of additional wages, the employee pays all of it by extension. Or you can correctly state that it's half and half.

What's the difference how you say it? It's all the same - That's the point.

But almost nobody says that....They continue with the deceptive "employer pays half" meme.

If you could correctly point out that the worker pays half, why continue with the deception?

I'll tell you why...The employer gets to deduct "his half".

The worker pays it all and the employer gets a nice fat deduction...True story.

All wages and benefits are deductions as well, as are all taxes paid on behalf of the worker...

I don't find stating that it's half and half to be deceptive. I'm a little confused as to why the outrage.

The difference is that the employer pays the tax whether a profit exists or not but only benefits from a deduction if there is a profit and only if the profit fits correctly into the tax code that has been manipulated to disregard many losses.

 

[martybegan]

FICA is a federal tax on income. AKA a federal income tax. No quote/unquote tags necessary.

It is not THE Federal Income Tax, which is the largest source of revenue for the Federal Government. You also ignored my question. On this tax, how is the amount paid based on income bracket broken down?

Is there a large portion of the population that does not pay any of this Tax?

It is a federal tax on income. Any person who has a job pays it.

The amount paid by income bracket isn't relevant, but the fact is that the people paying the highest percentage of federal income FICA taxes are those making at or below the cap. Someone making 10,000 pays 7.65%. Someone making 105K pays 7.65%.

Someone making 1.05M pays .765%

and they get the same benefit as any other person who contributes near the cap. The whole point was you get (about) what you pay for, not to soak rich people to pay for your own pet projects, which is what taxes have turned into.

 

[asterism]

FICA is a federal tax on income. AKA a federal income tax. No quote/unquote tags necessary.

It is not THE Federal Income Tax, which is the largest source of revenue for the Federal Government. You also ignored my question. On this tax, how is the amount paid based on income bracket broken down?

Is there a large portion of the population that does not pay any of this Tax?

It is a federal tax on income. Any person who has a job pays it.

The amount paid by income bracket isn't relevant, but the fact is that the people paying the highest percentage of federal income FICA taxes are those making at or below the cap. Someone making 10,000 pays 7.65%. Someone making 105K pays 7.65%.

Someone making 1.05M pays .765%

However a small business owner pays 7.65% of what his employees earn even when he makes little or no money. That is a true regressive income tax. My business FICA tax rate was over 300% in 2001. That means I paid 3 times my business income in just that set of taxes.

What's the tax rate of $75,000 in taxes on a loss of $200,000 (my 2007 results)?