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.
The main reason for the drop in their tax rate of some 40% is the tax cuts by George Bush in 2003, taking the rate paid on dividends and capital gains down to 15%. This reduction in the investment class’s taxes powered the bull market in stocks from the fall of 2003 until the fall of 2007
That claim is just not so. The stock bull market was powered by low interest rates and cheap money. There is no evidence tax rates were the driver. It's part of the alternate history in which wonderful things happened under Bush, right-wingers invented. Even during the housing bubble we don't see huge real increases in GDP and deregulation led to a GDP drop of 5% in 2008:
Let's look at employment. Clinton raised taxes and Bush lowered them. Which had more employment growth? Even during the peak of the housing bubble, it never achieved the kind of job growth that was routine in the Clinton years.:
I'd like to see the top 1 percent paying around 10 percent or less of all income taxes collected. Unfortunately, far, far too few Americans are making luxury income that gets taxed at luxury rates though. It's a real shame that the top one percent is getting so much of the pie these days. Obviously, you're not going to tax people for pie they don't have though.
So you would like the wealthy to pay less. that puts you ar odds with dems.
Currently the wealthyt pay 37% of the income taxes collected you wan tthem to apy 10% of the income taxes collected. That far right wing nut job area
So you would like the wealthy to pay less. that puts you ar odds with dems.
Currently the wealthyt pay 37% of the income taxes collected you wan tthem to apy 10% of the income taxes collected. That far right wing nut job area
37% may sound like a lot but how much income does this group grab and how much has their share increased over the last 10-30 years?
37% may sound like a lot but how much income does this group grab and how much has their share increased over the last 10-30 years?
Your question deflects from what I ask. Currently the top 1% pay 37% of the taxes collected. What percent of the taxes collected do you think is enough
Your question deflects from what I ask. Currently the top 1% pay 37% of the taxes collected. What percent of the taxes collected do you think is enough
if you want to measure it that way, then their share of taxes ought to be proportionate to their wealth.
Tax inequity is more complicated than the media makes it out to be. "The top 1% of earners" are not really the appropriate poster child for preferential tax treatment.
So what percent of the collected income taxes shoudl the top %1 pay
An amount that's proportional to their wealth, or net worth.
There are so many different ways to look at this, statistically. Why do you measure taxation equity this way, as a percent of the total taxes collected?
An amount that's proportional to their wealth, or net worth.
Why do you measure taxation equity this way, as a percent of the total taxes collected?
we hear that the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes, yet the top 1% pay 37 % of the income taxes collected. So im trying to get a grasp on how much they woudl need to pay for the left wing nut jobs to say it was fair
we hear that the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes, yet the top 1% pay 37 % of the income taxes collected. So im trying to get a grasp on how much they woudl need to pay for the left wing nut jobs to say it was fair
That is correct, the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. The top 1% of income earners, as determined by adjusted gross income, are not necessarily wealthy.
You can't seem to grasp the difference between wealth and adjusted gross income.
You're defining "the top 1%" using income data that's modified according to the tax code.... the tax code we're talking about changing, because it is full of loopholes.
we hear that the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes, yet the top 1% pay 37 % of the income taxes collected. So im trying to get a grasp on how much they woudl need to pay for the left wing nut jobs to say it was fair
As I said, the 37% number sounds like a high number but when we learn that the top 1% earn 25% of all national income and have 40% of the wealth, it doesn't sound so disproportionate any longer.
The richest 1 percent of Americans have been getting far richer over the last three decades while the middle class and poor have seen their after-tax household income only crawl up in comparison, according to a government study.
Average after-tax income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households almost quadrupled, up 275 percent, from 1979 to 2007, the Congressional Budget Office found. For people in the middle of the economic scale, after-tax income grew by just 40 percent. Those at the bottom experienced an 18 percent increase.
It get's worse. Of the income of the top 1%, half of that income is concentrated in the top 0.1%.
What should the top 1% rates be? Since the conservatives are always telling us how great the Reagan years were, I suggest we go back to Reagan's tax-rates from the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, with a 50% top marginal rate. Also, I would make no distinction between whether income was earned through sweat labor or investment.
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.
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.
