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.
So InformedConsent, lets get informed. I can't find the tax rate for the top .1% (I know its out there...but I do have the tax rate for the top 400 filers with the IRS in 2007.
in 2007 it was 16.62%. vs 28.3% for the top 1%.
in 2007 I paid a federal tax rate of 36.9% if I include social security.
in 2007 the top 1% paid a tax rate of 28.4% if I include social security
in 2007 the top 400 payers paid a tax rate of 16.62% (and social security is such a rounding error I don't even bother)
LOL...so suddenly you JUST want to talk about the first 113,700? Right?
Yes because everyone only pays SS tax on earned income up to $113,700. The top 1%'s average effective federal income tax rate is still higher than a $100K earner's even after that.
Quote:
Seriously, when your argument is to take the people earning 1,000,000 and just look at the first 113700 only.....
You must not understand math. The $1,000,000 earner's effective federal income tax rate would still be higher.
Quote:
Thats sad....why are you trying to do this? Everyone looks at this and says "WTH? So somone making 1 million pays about 1.3% of his income on social security. I pay about 12%, most pay 12.4%.
SS taxes are capped because SS benefits are capped. Not only that, SS benefits are PROGRESSIVE, as well:
Quote:
"Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration."
...in 2007 I paid a federal tax rate of 36.9% if I include social security.
Not likely. What was your income? In 2007, the marginal rate of 25% only applied to income amounts between $63,701 and $128,500 for married filing jointly (between $31,851 and $77,100 for singles). Income below that amount is only taxed at a rate of 10% to 15%.
Let's take a look at how tax brackets and marginal tax rates work with an example using 2012 data:
Quote:
Federal income tax rates progressively increase as income increases. Instead of just one, flat rate that applies to all income, a person's income will fall into one or more tax rates depending on their income and deductions. For example, a single person with taxable income of $50,000 falls into the 25% tax bracket. (See the single tax rates below.) This "25% tax bracket" means that the person's income from zero to $8,700 is taxed at 10%, and income from $8,700 to $35,350 is taxed at 15%, and finally income from $35,350 to $50,000 is taxed at 25%. The 25% tax rate is this person's marginal tax rate, the tax rate that applies to the last dollars of income earned during the year.
Not likely. What was your income? In 2007, the marginal rate of 25% only applied to income amounts between $63,701 and $128,500 for married filing jointly (between $31,851 and $77,100 for singles). Income below that amount is only taxed at a rate of 10% to 15%.
It strongly appears that you have NO idea what you're talking about.
I'm sure you feel that way as it doesnt fit in your world view.
in 2007 AS PER THE LINK I PROVIDED I was in the top quintile. The average tax rate for that quintile is 24.7% AS PER the link. Add in the 12.4% and thats 37.1%
Its strongly appears you aren't looking at the links, or that you are being deliberately ignorant
Yes I too can bold, and use smileys. Also why are you switching between marginal and effective? Trying to confuse the issue? Because suddenly you can then claim a rate of 35% on the richest 400 despite them ACTUALLY paying a rate MUCH lower? Obscenely lower? Hmm...one must wonder.
Last edited by greywar; 11-12-2013 at 05:24 PM..
Reason: forgot to add that last smiley...must have the smiley for the snark to come accross properly!
in 2007 AS PER THE LINK I PROVIDED I was in the top quintile. The average tax rate for that quintile is 24.7% AS PER the link. Add in the 12.4% and thats 37.1%
I'm not buying it.
I've looked at two different CBO documents. One document has data through 2005 and has the average TOTAL (includes income tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, excise taxes, etc.) effective federal tax rate for the top quintile at 25.5% http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...ve_rates_0.pdf
Its strongly appears you aren't looking at the links, or that you are being deliberately ignorant
No. I am spot on, and I've backed everything I've posted with links to actual data.
Quote:
Also why are you switching between marginal and effective?
Because no one pays the marginal tax rate on all their taxable income unless they're in the lowest bracket. The fact that you don't know that proves you have NO idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Trying to confuse the issue?
No, I've always only posted EFFECTIVE tax rates. You're the one mistakenly thinking marginal rates are what one pays.
Again, actual U.S. Census and IRS data:
U.S. population 2012: 314 million.
U.S. federal income tax returns filed: Only 135 million.
U.S. federal income taxpayers: Only 71.5 million.
And we know from IRS reports that the top 5% of filers, roughly 7 million, are subsidizing over 300 million people to a very significant extent:
The latest ACTUAL average effective federal income tax rates by income group, published by the IRS:
Top 0.1%: 22.84% Top1%: 23.39% Top 5%: 20.64%
And then a HUGE effective tax rate drop-off below the top 5%... Top 5-10%: 11.98% Top 10-25%: 8.70% Top 25-50%: 6.01% (middle class)
Bottom 50%: 2.37% IRS Latest Federal Income Tax Data
New York University economist Edward Wolff has done the best work I’ve seen on the contribution of inheritance to wealth inequality, and his latest paper, coauthored with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Maury Gittleman, is chock full of relevant data on the matter. In 2007, the last year Wolff and Gittleman look at, wealth transfers (mainly inheritances, but also including gifts) made up, on average, 14.7 percent of the total wealth of the 1 percent (more specifically, the top 1 percent in terms of wealth). Interestingly, inheritance’s share has declined over time. In 1992, 27 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent came from wealth transfers.
But there will always be poor people even if we confiscated all the wealth handing it back equally to everyone. In one years time the poor would be poor again and the rich would becoming rich again.
It isn't luck so much as a lot of hard work, a little luck and in my mind the biggest ability is to defer the reward to a later date.
I've looked at two different CBO documents. One document has data through 2005 and has the average TOTAL (includes income tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, excise taxes, etc.) effective federal tax rate for the top quintile at 25.5% http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...ve_rates_0.pdf
No. I am spot on, and I've backed everything I've posted with links to actual data.
Because no one pays the marginal tax rate on all their taxable income unless they're in the lowest bracket. The fact that you don't know that proves you have NO idea what you're talking about.
No, I've always only posted EFFECTIVE tax rates. You're the one mistakenly thinking marginal rates are what one pays.
Again, actual U.S. Census and IRS data:
U.S. population 2012: 314 million.
U.S. federal income tax returns filed: Only 135 million.
U.S. federal income taxpayers: Only 71.5 million.
And we know from IRS reports that the top 5% of filers, roughly 7 million, are subsidizing over 300 million people to a very significant extent:
The latest ACTUAL average effective federal income tax rates by income group, published by the IRS:
Top 0.1%: 22.84% Top1%: 23.39% Top 5%: 20.64%
And then a HUGE effective tax rate drop-off below the top 5%... Top 5-10%: 11.98% Top 10-25%: 8.70% Top 25-50%: 6.01% (middle class)
Bottom 50%: 2.37% IRS Latest Federal Income Tax Data
Trust me, I do know the difference between effective and marginal. When we had tax rates approaching 90% the rich were not paying even close to that. (On a side note its hard finding good data on what their effective rate was spread out amongst good sets of income brackets back at that time)
And yes the bottom 50% Make less then about 28K I think (I know its 25K for the bottom 48% or so) Kinda seems appropriate that they have a low effective tax rate. Problem we have with out argument is our sources are using a bunch of different numbers (some include social security some dont, some base it on taxes paid - tax benefits...). And the bottom 50% may be lower then you represent as it appears that many of the sources we have seperate out the ones with a negative % and include them only in the total.
However...All that being said. I agree you are correct about the effective rates (we could argue the employer side %'s). I has been schooled.
Any response however to my entry into this? The REAL bottom line of this? The three questions? IE:
1. Do you or do you not want to live in a plutocracy? If the answer is no, then this needs to change.
2. Do you, or do you not believe we are a consumer driven economy? If the answer is yes, then this needs to change.
3. Do you, or do you not believe that money can define who our leaders are in this country, if you do, then this needs to change.
This needs to change and some people do not see this as a problem . This right here is why republicans should never have a majority of any every again if they do they will own 60% to 70% of the wealth and US will be a third world country
Not to worry there. Obama and the Democrat party are well on the way to making this a third world country -- after all, it's his goal -- to redistribute the wealth -- remember?
in 2007 I paid a federal tax rate of 36.9% if I include social security.
I highly doubt it
to pay in the 30%+ you would have to earn a heck of a lot
I earned 60k and paid a 0% rate to include ss
if you paid 36%...higher a new accountant
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.
Sheesh. Another Socialist telling us we mustn't have wealth!
. This right here is why republicans should never have a majority of any every again if they do they will own 60% to 70% of the wealth and US will be a third world country
