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.
How much these among the top 400 made per capita, compared to the bottom 50%? And I'm assuming that will be the math only for income, not capital gains.
Almost anyone who understands anything about economics understands that capital gains are counted as income. Ever had an economics course? Or filled out your own income tax form?
Almost anyone who understands anything about economics understands that capital gains are counted as income. Ever had an economics course? Or filled out your own income tax form?
You can save the snide tone for someone else.
While capital gains are of course income the point is that this income is taxed at less than half the rate of earned income. Since, the top 1% earn 80% of the nation's capital gains income and the top 0.1% earn half the capital gains of the 1%, we see that the very, very rich are taxed at a lower rate than anyone else.
Since there also is no economic evidence to support this apparent giveaway to the richest among us, it's not unjustified for E.G. to question the policy.
While capital gains are of course income the point is that this income is taxed at less than half the rate of earned income. Since, the top 1% earn 80% of the nation's capital gains income and the top 0.1% earn half the capital gains of the 1%, we see that the very, very rich are taxed at a lower rate than anyone else.
Since there also is no economic evidence to support this apparent giveaway to the richest among us, it's not unjustified for E.G. to question the policy.
Obamcare will take care of that along with the Obama tax cuts expiring.
Cap gains and dividends will be taxed much, much higher. Tax on dividends can go as high as over 40%.
With that Fiscal Restraint, What Will Economic Growth Be in 2013?
Under those fiscal conditions, which will occur under current law, growth in real (inflation-adjusted) GDP in calendar year 2013 will be just 0.5 percent, CBO expects—with the economy projected to contract at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the first half of the year and expand at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the second half. Given the pattern of past recessions as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research, such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession.
How Would Eliminating or Reducing the Fiscal Restraint Affect the Economy in the Long Run?
However, eliminating or reducing the fiscal restraint scheduled to occur next year without imposing comparable restraint in future years would reduce output and income in the longer run relative to what would occur if the scheduled fiscal restraint remained in place. If all current policies were extended for a prolonged period, federal debt held by the public—currently about 70 percent of GDP, its highest mark since 1950—would continue to rise much faster than GDP.
Such a path for federal debt could not be sustained indefinitely, and policy changes would be required at some point. The more that debt increased before policies were changed, the greater would be the negative consequences—for the nation’s future output and income, for the burden imposed by interest payments on the federal debt, for policymakers’ ability to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges, and for the likelihood of a sudden fiscal crisis.
(Yes, you read that right. That's $5.4 trillion in tax increases over the next decade under current law.)
Do it now on everyone and the pain will be short. Wait and do it incrementally or not at all and the agony will be long lasting and in the end will result in our economy being worse off and unable to fully address future crises.
Let's pretend all of the income in America is 1 million dollars: $1,000,000.00,
and that there are only 100 people in America.
Let's pretend that only 1 person in America makes $500,000.00, let's call him "Top Earner."
He makes this money selling knickknacks to the other 99, so if he leaves, he doesn't get to make more money.
Let's pretend that the other 99 are a bunch of bums and the rest is distributed to them, $500,000.00
Because they're on welfare and get a bunch of luxurious tax breaks, these 99 bums only pay $100,000.00 in taxes. They each make about $5000 and pay about $1000 in taxes, about 20%
Top Earner, on the other hand, pays $150,000.00 in taxes, and keeps $350k all to himself.
OMG HE IS PAYING MORE THAN THE REST OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WTF?!?!?!
Ok, so do you guys see where this statistic completely and utterly fails? It reveals nothing about the actual state of the economy and whether the tax system is truly broken. If you think about it for more than about a minute, it turns into an argument for wealth redistribution.
Let's pretend all of the income in America is 1 million dollars: $1,000,000.00,
and that there are only 100 people in America.
Let's pretend that only 1 person in America makes $500,000.00, let's call him "Top Earner."
He makes this money selling knickknacks to the other 99, so if he leaves, he doesn't get to make more money.
Let's pretend that the other 99 are a bunch of bums and the rest is distributed to them, $500,000.00
Because they're on welfare and get a bunch of luxurious tax breaks, these 99 bums only pay $100,000.00 in taxes. They each make about $5000 and pay about $1000 in taxes, about 20%
Top Earner, on the other hand, pays $150,000.00 in taxes, and keeps $350k all to himself.
OMG HE IS PAYING MORE THAN THE REST OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WTF?!?!?!
Ok, so do you guys see where this statistic completely and utterly fails? It reveals nothing about the actual state of the economy and whether the tax system is truly broken. If you think about it for more than about a minute, it turns into an argument for wealth redistribution.
Let's pretend all of the income in America is 1 million dollars: $1,000,000.00,
and that there are only 100 people in America.
Let's pretend that only 1 person in America makes $500,000.00, let's call him "Top Earner."
He makes this money selling knickknacks to the other 99, so if he leaves, he doesn't get to make more money.
Let's pretend that the other 99 are a bunch of bums and the rest is distributed to them, $500,000.00
Because they're on welfare and get a bunch of luxurious tax breaks, these 99 bums only pay $100,000.00 in taxes. They each make about $5000 and pay about $1000 in taxes, about 20%
Top Earner, on the other hand, pays $150,000.00 in taxes, and keeps $350k all to himself.
OMG HE IS PAYING MORE THAN THE REST OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WTF?!?!?!
Ok, so do you guys see where this statistic completely and utterly fails? It reveals nothing about the actual state of the economy and whether the tax system is truly broken. If you think about it for more than about a minute, it turns into an argument for wealth redistribution.
You've loaded the analogy by saying that Mr. 'Top Earner' is a seller of knickknacks. If we raise his tax rate to the point where he might decide to play golf rather than sell, it's no great loss.
But what happens if Mr. Top Earner is the nation's only farmer. None of the other 99 have the knowledge or ability to farm. In fact let's say that they are all allergic to soil, and would become deathly sick if they even tried to farm. Now what happens if we raise Mr. Top Earner's tax rate to the point where he decides to devote himself to golf?
You've loaded the analogy by saying that Mr. 'Top Earner' is a seller of knickknacks. If we raise his tax rate to the point where he might decide to play golf rather than sell, it's no great loss.
But what happens if Mr. Top Earner is the nation's only farmer. None of the other 99 have the knowledge or ability to farm. In fact let's say that they are all allergic to soil, and would become deathly sick if they even tried to farm. Now what happens if we raise Mr. Top Earner's tax rate to the point where he decides to devote himself to golf?
Umm... I think you missed my point.
My point was that the use of that particular statistic is stupid, and reflects a refusal to think. That's all. I wasn't trying to make any statements about knick-knack sellers or farmers or anything else.
While capital gains are of course income the point is that this income is taxed at less than half the rate of earned income. Since, the top 1% earn 80% of the nation's capital gains income and the top 0.1% earn half the capital gains of the 1%, we see that the very, very rich are taxed at a lower rate than anyone else.
Since there also is no economic evidence to support this apparent giveaway to the richest among us, it's not unjustified for E.G. to question the policy.
Yes, the snide tone is usually reserved for your use. Let me state unequivocally that there is no such thing as "unearned income", except to the lazy and stupid.
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.
Tax increases for everyone under current law
