Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:05 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Here are the answers. Easy to find the info, so I'm not sure why you couldn't do it yourself.

The top 1% owns 34.6% of the wealth, but pays 38.02% of the federal income taxes.

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
But..in the same link you just posted it also says the top 1% owns 42.7% of the wealth. This figure of 34.6% was net worth. Furthermore, both numbers are using 2007, pre-bailout data, not 2009, 2010, 2011 recessionary data.

Plus, your tax data is from 2008, which is the lowest possible year you could've cherrypicked, nevermind that it makes it an invalid comparison to 2007 data. You also only used income taxes, you didn't include all federal taxes in the calculation, notably omitting FICA and Social Security.

clear as mud, huh?

Quote:
What you advocate, "equal to the share," would necessitate a tax cut for the top 1%.
i didn't advocate "equal to the share." I have never used that term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:08 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,181,310 times
Reputation: 5481
Note: The information I am going to post comes largely from this WSJ article.

We talk about taxing the wealthy quite a bit. As a thought experiment, a writer did the math supposing we tax the rich 100%. Below are data from the article in question.
----

Currently the top 1% of taxpayers are those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above $380,000/yr. Suppose those people were taxed at 100% - the government confiscated 100% of their salaries, dividends and capital gains for one year. That would yield merely about $938 billion, when compared to the $4 trillion federal budget, or the $1.65 trillion deficit is simply not nearly enough.

Now the author supposed we tax 100% of the top 10%, or anyone with an income over $114,000, including joint filers. Note that the IRS breaks data down at the $100,000 level, so the author uses that and supposes we tax 100% of everyone with a six figure income or above. That nets $3.4 trillion per year.

To put it in perspective, if you taxed 100% of the top 5%, that would just cover the 2012 federal Medicare bill, and nothing else. Add in the proposed reform to take place in 2016 and 100% of the top 5%'s money would not even cover all of Medicare alone.

To sum up as the author does, "The rich, in short, aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in"

So where does the majority of the income available to tax actually reside? Well...in the middle class. The reality is that taxing the middle class is what would really obtain the most money in federal taxable revenue. Look at the graph below. We can focus on the rich all we want, however the simply fiscal reality is that according to taxable monies, the middle class are the only way to strive towards a balanced budget, assuming we do not wish to slash costs.




----
Now that I am done with the facts and the data behind the situation, I would encourage all of you to put emotion aside and practically look at the facts behind the situation. Taxing the wealthy to resolve America's economic issues simply is not a fiscal reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:14 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
Now that I am done with the facts and the data behind the situation, I would encourage all of you to put emotion aside and practically look at the facts behind the situation. Taxing the wealthy to resolve America's economic issues simply is not a fiscal reality.
that's not "facts and data", that's WSJ spin.

notice how they keep talking about INCOME, while ignoring wealth? The whole point to all this is that the wealthy have tax strategies to AVOID having taxable income, while maintaining assets and capital. If we are to have an equitable tax distribution, that's the nut you need to crack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:16 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,181,310 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
that's not "facts and data", that's WSJ spin.

notice how they keep talking about INCOME, while ignoring wealth? The wealth have tax strategies to AVOID the perception of having income, while maintaining assets and capital. If we are to have an equitable tax distribution, that's the nut you need to crack.
Capital Gains and dividends were included in those calculations.

Wealth is not taxed, income, dividends and capital gains are. How, exactly was there any 'spin'?

Please point out the specifics of what you think was misleading about the math used. What taxable monies were ignored in the article?

Please talk in specifics, rather than generalities. What 'strategies' do the wealthy have that are not available to the middle class? Personally, my income is firmly (actually on the lower end) of middle class, but my effective federal tax rate was 10.4% last year after deductions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:18 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
What taxable monies were ignored in the article?
Wealth.

Like you say, "Wealth is not taxed." "Not taxed" is different from "not taxable."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:21 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,181,310 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Wealth.

Like you say, "Wealth is not taxed."
So what is your proposition? Again, please be a bit more specific. You are throwing around broad topics. Please explain the math, or at least explain what you want to happen instead of only giving half-sentence answers. With all due respect, your replies make it seem like you have a passing thought but have not done the due diligence to see if your ideas are realistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,057,225 times
Reputation: 13765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
We already know you think the poor/middle class should sacrafice by giving up some benefits to social programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, pell grants, heating assistance, housing assistance, etc.

In what ways should the rich and corporate america contribute?
By refusing to contribute any more money to 0bama's presidential campaign or to any democratic politician.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:22 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,670,896 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
So what is your proposition?
A tax on financial assets would suffice. I'm not wedded to any particular ideas.... I just keep seeing this refrain, "We don't tax wealth", as if it came from the Bible that we should never tax wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:24 AM
 
Location: South East
4,209 posts, read 3,583,225 times
Reputation: 1465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
By refusing to contribute any more money to 0bama's presidential campaign or to any democratic politician.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2011, 07:24 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,181,310 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
A tax on financial assets would suffice.
Please explain how that would work. Can you actually explain HOW your 'wealth tax' would work? Again - when you propose a new tax system, it would be helpful to explain it in more detail than a single sentence.

How is this different than the current system of taxing what is earned?
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top