Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth This Needs To Change (income, votes)
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.
I don't always have hours of chat time to spend with you, so when I have to cut and run, all you get is a parting gift and maybe a web link to read.
The truly wealthy pay a 16% tax rate because they do not earn an "income" hence they never pay income taxes. So you guys can call for raising income taxes on "the rich" all you like, meanwhile the Warren Buffett, Wall Street fat cats of the world get cozy with the likes of Obama and make a killing off the fed essentially pumping $85 billion a month into their bank accounts.
No link, but yes they do have an income. That 5 trillion im refereing to is from their income taxes.
If you're referring to investment income....uhmmm.notice the word income there. yeah. We need to treat that more like regular income. If trickle down had worked I might say the opposite, but its very obvious that it has not worked.
Actually, those ARE the facts. Published by the CBO.
60% are TAKING more than they contribute, making them a net drain on society. The 4th highest quintile are moderate contributors. But the top 20% is the demographic that's largely funding the federal government and all of its programs, and the top 1% even more so.
Are you under the impression that the European social democracy countries' regressive tax systems don't work?
Those European countries have the social programs leftists 'claim' they want, including national healthcare, and they have MUCH more income equality. Are you now saying you would rather stick with our progressive tax system and that you DON'T want European-style social programs and income equality anymore?
SURE! Lets use a European style thats more regressive.....Which European country do you want to try?
Germany
Oh...no thats amazingly progressive, going up to 45% at the high end and the first 20K or so are untaxed. hmmm...
OK maybe uhmm....you're thinking Britain!
hmmm...no similar. Still hitting that 42.5% at the high end.
That would be a most excellent way of summarizing your position.....wealth is a choice....people choose to build wealth, or not.
Disposable income is also a personal choice. You can choose to increase or decrease your disposable income at will, regardless of your income level.
By choice.....you make bad choices and then demonize those who make good choices.....that's real smart.
Noting....
Mircea
Is wealth choice? I mean really. Did I choose to be fascinated by software engineering and embedded systems? Nope, pretty much that was a predisposition. Its worked out well for me.
But really thats somewhat random. I know a lot of people who had similar interests who made BETTER choices then me, and have nothing. I know that some drunk driver could slide into my lane leaving me brain damaged, and unable to work. I know that LUCK plays a much larger part then ever in "choosing wealth".
But...without making the correct choices you will never get to roll the dice to win. So everyone looks at those who make poor choices, and blames them for being poor. Everyone KNOWS that everyone that makes poor choices are poor. And they're right. But what they forget is that the RANGE of choices is limited for the poor. And the way we approach things encourages us to limit that range.
Then...make every right choice....and its STILL a roll of the dice. And some people get to play with loaded dice. They know the right people, or are related to them.
So...the sons and daughters of the casino owners are going to keep being wealthy, you can step up to the table, put your money down and roll the dice. Or you can work at the casino and never take risks. You wont be wealthy, but you will survive. Or...you can do none of that, be on welfare, and just look in the window.
And thats kinda how it looks to many people.
This isnt "make wealth choices" Most of them dont even have a CLUE what those choices are. They dont have disposable income sufficient to make any significant wealth. If they set aside some money, it gets eaten up when they are late on a bill and get fees. Its just not realistic here.
And having kids-thats a horrible thing financially! (being completely serious here) But hey no worries, we will remove sex ed, teach abstinence, and somehow...SOMEHOW they will know to make the right choices. Despite our basic biology.
Ahh...See heres the thing. They have a VERY progressive income tax, and a very regressive sales and VAT tax,, MASSIVE taxation, and THATS your argument correct? Im ok with this.
OK so you want Massive taxation, and incredibly progressive wealth redistribution? Sure! We agree!
FLAT tax, 50%
Guaranteed income of $1,500 per month. for everyone-not means tested.
Simple, and concise, and VERY much in line with the idea of large regressive taxation coupled with a .... hmm...not regressive or progressive technically as everyone gets the same redistribution.
Cause thats what you're suggesting here. And thats so far from what we have that its not going to happen. Its fantasyland. But if you want a "regressive" system like 25% VAT tax, and 45% income tax....sure i am game. As long as the resulting wealth is redistributed and wealth "trickles up" per se. But when we put it that way its not so good for you is it?
You complain already about how BAD our system is that the lowest % get far more benefits then what they pay in, and yet here you are trying to twist an argument for regressive taxation, without seeing the other side of it, which is amazingly progressive benefits. Like this will solve it. It might slow it down, but wealth inequality will continue. Until we make some basic changes this problem will not stop.
PS-I found a better way of putting this for the TLDR crowd....
Reduction of inequality is caused by the LEVEL of taxation, and progressiveness of distribution, not necessarily the progressiveness of the taxation. argueing that our progressive taxation system is a failure is merely because its used to cover the basics of our government operating, not because of any failure in the progressiveness or regressiveness of the taxes, thats a distraction.
Last edited by greywar; 11-15-2013 at 01:18 PM..
Reason: ps, 2nd edit level of taxation and progressiveness of distribution
Ahh...See heres the thing. They have a VERY progressive income tax
Let's look at how progressive their direct taxes (income, wealth, property and employee social security contributions) are, compared to the same in the U.S.:
FLAT tax, 50%
Guaranteed income of $1,500 per month. for everyone-not means tested.
No guaranteed income. No means testing.
Quote:
But if you want a "regressive" system like 25% VAT tax, and 45% income tax....sure i am game. As long as the resulting wealth is redistributed and wealth "trickles up" per se. But when we put it that way its not so good for you is it?
Apparently, you've missed my multiple posts explaining that countries that have REGRESSIVE tax systems have more equal income distributions.
I know one this for sure. Under Obama and Bernanke's FED monetary manipulation, the rich have gotten richer and the middle-class have been left in the dust. The economy is still sputtering along, GDP can't even hit an annual rate above 3%. The labor force participation keeps dropping every year; right now it's at a 35 year-low. With so many Americans out of work, and with a record number of people on food stamps/welfare, it's not hard to see why the the wealth gap is increasing.
Let's not forget that the Top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of federal taxes (CNN Money).
Obama has done NOTHING to lessen the wealth gap in this country, he has only EXPANDED it.
I know one this for sure. Under Obama and Bernanke's FED monetary manipulation, the rich have gotten richer and the middle-class have been left in the dust. The economy is still sputtering along, GDP can't even hit an annual rate above 3%. The labor force participation keeps dropping every year; right now it's at a 35 year-low. With so many Americans out of work, and with a record number of people on food stamps/welfare, it's not hard to see why the the wealth gap is increasing.
Let's not forget that the Top 10% of income earners in this country pay over 70% of federal taxes (CNN Money).
Obama has done NOTHING to lessen the wealth gap in this country, he has only EXPANDED it.
Yup the rising inequality has not slowed under Obama, despite him paying lip service to it. Something im pretty unhappy about. I want more opportunity for everyone, not just those at the top. If a candidate comes along that has actual ideas or plans to resolve that issue I will give him serious consideration.
Actually, those ARE the facts. Published by the CBO.
60% are TAKING more than they contribute, making them a net drain on society. The 4th highest quintile are moderate contributors. But the top 20% is the demographic that's largely funding the federal government and all of its programs, and the top 1% even more so.
I'm pretty sure you knew that my "that's not a fact" wasn't referring to your section above, but to your insinuation that government tries to keep people poor so that they can tax the rich more and gain the votes of poor people. Maybe next time, I'll highlight it in red for you.
Quote:
Are you under the impression that the European social democracy countries' regressive tax systems don't work?
I'm aware that the far, far higher taxes in those countries seem to work. So yes, let's say it's because the poor are taxed more. In the UK, it would appear that about 70% fall into the 20% bracket, the next 48% fall into the 40% bracket, and the top 2% fall into a 45% bracket. Also note that the bottom 1% makes up to the equivalent of $13,600 (that's about the 12% mark here in the US). Once you get to about the 25% mark is when the US surpasses them in income. So maybe, just maybe, it's because their low-income folks actually make enough to support such a system, going back to my saying that we should increase wages on the low end.
Quote:
Those European countries have the social programs leftists 'claim' they want, including national healthcare, and they have MUCH more income equality. Are you now saying you would rather stick with our progressive tax system and that you DON'T want European-style social programs and income equality anymore?
And you are saying that the income equality is based solely on their taxation system, even though their rich are taxed far, far higher than they are here?
Now, as for what I would like to see:
- Raise wages at the low end substantially. The upper 20% needs no help here.
- Flat 20% rate for all earnings over $20,000, with the only deduction being higher education costs.
- Dividends are counted as income.
- Capital gains and losses are counted as income/loss of income
- Business at 25% of profits (gotta figure out this hiding stuff overseas)
- Sales tax is tricky since we have 50 separate states who can't agree on anything. But it should not include food or medicine, and none of this silly "you buy it on the internet, no tax" crap.
I'll absolutely agree to your more taxes spread more evenly across all sectors, once you agree to higher wages at the low end.
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.
