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.
Just seems unlikely it would ramp up all of a sudden during Trump's administration. Unless of course their income increased even more.
There are probably two major factors at work:
1) People at the top earning more money through variable compensation increasing. People among the top 1% or so selling appreciated stock for several purposes, including portfolio rebalancing to remain on the pareto efficient frontier or to use the proceeds to upgrade, say, a house ... etc. All of this adds to income being taxed.
2) People at the top tend to live in coastal states with high state income taxes and property taxes, and the current tax system partially closes the SALT deduction loophole.
By the way, quoting piketty and saez (authors of the graph) have some serious flaws in both their methodology and source data. They are rarely quoted any more for that reason.
The Top 1% will pay a total of 43% of ALL Personal Federal Income Taxes Paid for tax year 2018.
Yeah, you said that in the very first post here but you have answered no questions whatsoever about what is their percentage of all income for the year. You have also not clarified how "the top 1%" is defined by whatever entity is making that claim. What do you expect anyone should do about such a vague concept?
Maybe it will help if I illustrate with an example. In 1980 the top 1% received 10% of all income, and paid 19% of all federal income taxes. In 2018 the top 1% received 21% of all income and paid 37% of all federal income taxes.
So their share of tax/income ratio when from 1.90 to 1.76.
The conclusion is not that the rich are over taxed (as the OP wishes to spin) but that the rich are taking a much larger piece of the pie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Yeah, you said that in the very first post here but you have answered no questions whatsoever about what is their percentage of all income for the year. You have also not clarified how "the top 1%" is defined by whatever entity is making that claim. What do you expect anyone should do about such a vague concept?
Whether the correct percentage of taxes paid is 37 or 43, is either of those numbers reasonable when the amount of total income earned by the 1% is only 21%?
Whether the correct percentage of taxes paid is 37 or 43, is either of those numbers reasonable...
That's a political question not math or economic beyond application of the Sutton principle.
On that basis though... I say double the assessment of the 1% to cover 86%.
That's a political question not math or economic beyond application of the Sutton principle.
On that basis though... I say double the assessment of the 1% to cover 86%.
At the practical level... nothing short of this sort of pressure on the 1% will get the OTHER changes needed put into place.
And in the mean time the Treasury gets the dosh from them. Win-Win.
At the practical level... nothing short of this sort of pressure on the 1% will get the OTHER changes needed put into place.
And in the mean time the Treasury gets the dosh from them. Win-Win.
What other changes are you looking for? Since the treasury needs more money why shouldn’t you also be paying more as well?
Many and varied... one of them is for more in the bottom half to be able to pay more/any tax.
Another is for the raw number currently composing "the bottom half" to be reduced. A lot.
Quote:
Since the treasury needs more money ...
Well... that's what they say.
Curious... why are so many of you so eager to apologize for and be such sycophants of the 1%?
I doubt ANY of the posters here are from that cohort... are they employees of some sort?
Yeah, you said that in the very first post here but you have answered no questions whatsoever about what is their percentage of all income for the year.
The source didn't list that.
A different source, the Tax Foundation, lists data for calendar 2016, so it isn't comparable. For 2016, the Top 1% earned 19.7% of total AGI while paying 37.3% of total federal income taxes. Still quite progressive, but not as progressive as under the TCJA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
You have also not clarified how "the top 1%" is defined by whatever entity is making that claim.
Really? Res ipsa loquitur.
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.
