U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 05:06 AM
Status: "No saccharine. No treacle." (set 7 days ago)
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
27,672 posts, read 59,871,672 times
Reputation: 30817

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
The Federal Income Tax Share paid by the Top 1% is at an All-Time High
Whatever the share... are the raw numbers adequate? Is that 'share' a fair one?
It seems not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 09:24 AM
 
3,167 posts, read 1,724,004 times
Reputation: 8283
If half of the income “earned” by the top 1% was instead distributed to the worker bees as fair compensation for their labor and contribution to profitability of the organizations milked by the 1%, the 1% would STILL be fabulously wealthy, the economy would boom from the discretionary income spending by the workers, and the “unfair burden” of income taxes paid by the 1% would be proportionally decreased.

Sounds win-win to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:33 AM
 
4,076 posts, read 1,732,108 times
Reputation: 2145
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
That kind of takes the wind out of the sails of some of the candidates for the Democratic Presidential Nomination whose platform consists of tax cuts for the middle-class.
What exactly are you suggesting here? The middle class pay MORE taxes? That won't fly. I don't feel sorry for the 1% paying the largest share of Federal taxes if the alternative is those below the 1% paying more so that the 1% can pay less.

The real problem here is the distribution of the wealth. I and many others in the middle class would gladly pay more if we were receiving more wealth. But until that happens lets just leave the tax system as is. The top 1% can get all the wealth and pay 43% of the taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:37 AM
 
4,076 posts, read 1,732,108 times
Reputation: 2145
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugrats2001 View Post
If half of the income “earned” by the top 1% was instead distributed to the worker bees as fair compensation for their labor and contribution to profitability of the organizations milked by the 1%, the 1% would STILL be fabulously wealthy, the economy would boom from the discretionary income spending by the workers, and the “unfair burden” of income taxes paid by the 1% would be proportionally decreased.

Sounds win-win to me.
Exactly.

For the time being the system is set up to let the top 1% earn the majority of the wealth. That's fine they just shouldn't complain that they are having to pay majority of the taxes then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:01 AM
 
2,934 posts, read 702,648 times
Reputation: 2356
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
I've long said that the argument from the left that the rich need to "pay their fair share" is nonsense.
Of course it is. It's just the Democrats trying to whip up class warfare to keep the voters voting for them. There are obviously more poor than rich so it's a winning strategy to convince lower income people who often pay little or no federal income taxes that the evil rich are taking advantage of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:03 AM
 
2,934 posts, read 702,648 times
Reputation: 2356
Quote:
Originally Posted by rugrats2001 View Post
If half of the income “earned” by the top 1% was instead distributed to the worker bees as fair compensation for their labor and contribution to profitability of the organizations milked by the 1%, the 1% would STILL be fabulously wealthy, the economy would boom from the discretionary income spending by the workers, and the “unfair burden” of income taxes paid by the 1% would be proportionally decreased.

Sounds win-win to me.
You would be surprised at how hard it can be to accumulate wealth when your tax rates run a total of 40-60% between state and federal income taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:22 AM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,401 posts, read 2,418,043 times
Reputation: 3219
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhubaba View Post
I was also wondering about how the income tax share of the top 1% changed over time, but didn't find anything going back that far to the 40's or 50's.

The best I found is the chart below showing the income tax share of the top 1% from 1980 to 2011. The top marginal income tax rate in 1980 was 70%, but the income tax share of the top 1% was less than 20%, less than half of what it is today.
I didn't work in the 50s, but I did pay work and taxes in the 60s. In fact, I expect everyone paid something then. I worked awhile for minimum wage then(at $1.25/hour) and still paid city, state and federal income taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:12 PM
 
5,808 posts, read 2,535,405 times
Reputation: 2117
As wealth is concentrated into fewer hands expect this to go higher.
The problem is they are not really paying the tax since they pass the cost to consumers via the goods and services they sell.

That means everyone is paying for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:22 PM
 
Location: NJ
23,330 posts, read 29,357,440 times
Reputation: 15209
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post

It clearly torpedoes the political rhetoric on the extreme left who claim the wealthy get special breaks and loopholes and avoid paying taxes altogether.
i engaged someone recently on facebook regarding this type of rhetoric. the guy was extremely responsive to everything i said until i asked him to name me specific tax giveaways that he is referring to (he was suggesting that the government gave walmart tons of money in the trump tax reform). all the sudden he stops directly answering and starts telling me to look it up myself.

most of the time, i can come up for better arguments for them than they can. you have the carried interest loophole and long term capital gains tax rates that could be dropped. id get rid of mortgage interest tax deduction also (probably and any other tax deduction). of course, id reduce the rates to make sure that this stuff doesnt get the government more revenue, just makes the tax system better. i guess it makes it easy that they are generally know nothings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,264 posts, read 48,431,582 times
Reputation: 18422
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Whatever the share... are the raw numbers adequate? Is that 'share' a fair one?
It seems not.
What makes 'fair'?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top