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.
Also, this video doesn't talk about how much more the upper 20% pay in taxes. Also, the upper 20% give a bunch of lower and middle class people jobs.
The upper class pays more in tax dollars of course, but at a lower rate relative to their earnings. And where is it proved that the upper 20% produces jobs these days? That is a fallacy that loves to get repeated.
The upper class pays more in tax dollars of course, but at a lower rate relative to their earnings. And where is it proved that the upper 20% produces jobs these days? That is a fallacy that loves to get repeated.
Agreed. That poster makes the dumbest argument I've heard about this entire issue. The upper brackets pay more income taxes because they have the wealth. The poor don't pay income tax because they have no money. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. They do pay a host of other taxes, however, and because they have vastly lower incomes, these hit them far harder.
Plus, it's not the upper 20% that possess the wealth to 'produce jobs', but the top 1%. And as someone pointed out, most of that money produces jobs in places like China, India and Vietnam. What we get here in the US are low paying service jobs with a paucity of benefits. Think Walmart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
The upper class pays more tax dollars of course, but at a lower rate relative to their earnings. And where is it proved that the upper 20% produces jobs these days? That is a fallacy that loves to get repeated.
Having borders that leak like a sieve for decades and allow millions dirt poor illegals from Central American mountains in doesn't help reduce the income inequality either. Neither does giving them amnesty or a path to citizenship every 25 years. And it isn't just illegals, our legal immigration policy also allows people in with very poor backgrounds.
Much of this growing income inequality started around the same time we relaxed immigration and I don't think that is a coincidence.
I'm not an economist or expert on the subject. Is this accurate? If so, what are your thoughts?
I know this isn't the whole story. But a big chunk of the wealth disparity is that we now have a 41% out of wedlock birth rate. That pretty much kills many people's chances of ever hitting the middle class in the first place.
I also agree with the previous poster who said illegal immigration is another chunk of it. It creates a whole new poverty class and forces down wages for native born Americans.
The other issue is that there are a surprising number of high income people who have little or no net worth. I have a sister like this. She's 2 years older than me. Single. No kids. Always had a higher income than me. Her net worth is around Zero (savings minus debts). I've never made more than 52K per year, but my net worth is around 250K. I think a big part of our problems is we threw away the frugality ethic around 1980 and the middle class and poor decided to make up for slower wage growth with credit. That was foolish on our part.
I get that the above issues aren't a cure all. But it seems Americans have gotten dumber about what used to be considered basics (you know....first marriage and then kids...in that order. Credit cards are not a substitute for a savings account, etc.).
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 03-06-2013 at 11:32 PM..
These figures are accurate, but simplifies the entire situation.
It also doesn't mention that the top 20% paid 67.9% of taxes, while the bottom 20% paid 0.3% of taxes.
People are quick to attack CEO's, but what about our professional athletes and celebrities? Their pay is outrageous just like the bonuses of many CEO's. Should the government, tell Justin Bieber you can only make $100,000 per year? Do you think he would stay in the US? Do you think the music industry and all their tax dollars would stay in the US? Most likely not. This is the same with CEO's. I do think the pay discrepancy is a problem, but it is much more complicated than capping salaries/bonuses and increasing the minimum wage. I don't have the answer, but the government mandating salary/bonus limits for companies not on government assistance isn't the answer.
The bottom 20% are people like my 99 year old grandmother who gets a combined $15K a year from a small pension and Social Security. Blind and head of household she comes up zero after applying the standard exemption. And my 18 year old son in college who earned less than $1000 in 2012 attending school full time while working for pocket change. And high schoolers and single moms working for minimum wage. Statistically, apples and oranges.
Wealth redistribution really went into overdrive with the Bush era tax cuts. While the top 20% may have paid 67.9% of the total tax take, as a percentage of earnings it was still less proportionately than the average couple making $100K annually. Those 15% capital gains rates are awesome if that is where the majority of your income resides.
We don't need caps on salaries or bonuses or even minimum wage hikes. We need a tax system that does not help make the rich richer, they've proven capable of doing that on their own.
As long as the vast majority of Americans are OK paying a greater percentage of their annual income than the very wealthy are paying (regardless of total tax take) this will continue unabated until we live in a true plutocracy, dominated by the ultra wealthy, superpacs and special interests. After all, we wouldn't want to anger the lords of the castle, they might stop tossing us crumbs.
if you are a high income earner the amt tax system evens things out. the amt tax is just about a flat tax from dollar one once the phase out points are hit.
most of those complaining about the tax rates are to low for the high earners have no clue most already pay a very different 26 % or 28% tax rate than the same 28% marginal rate they are thinking in terms of.
The funny part of it is, it is constitutional. Because the Constitution was written by men who, in 1776, were in that One Percent, protecting their own half of the national wealth. Who, after the revolution, landed on their feet to divide up the king's share for themselves.
Tellingly, it is the defenders of the One Percent who raised the interesting concept of a Second Amendment Remedy. To fix what? The threat of redistribution.
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.
