richest 1%

mikepegg44

Seems as though the richest 1% in this country are paying quite a bit of the income taxes collected. Do we really think it is fair to continue to raise taxes on them?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

Seems as though the richest 1% in this country are paying quite a bit of the income taxes collected. Do we really think it is fair to continue to raise taxes on them?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

to be honest, I'm not too worried about the top 1%...I think they will be ok...

blackredyellow

I saw an article on yahoo news that said almost half of the US households don't pay any income taxes. I'm fine with a progressive tax structure, but something seems out of whack when half of the country (and according to pepe's thread - 2/3 of corporations) are getting by not paying anything.

FiveB247x

Couldn't the same exact premise be related to the fact that you pay more in taxes because you earn and have more? So if the top 1% have the most money and ownership compared to the rest as stated in this article, they should be paying that much?

Flagg

How much money do you have to earn to be in the top 1%?

Champaign breakfast for everyo

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

Being that only 15% of the wealth comes from 80% of the peaple , why should we be forced to pay 35% of the income taxes? Would'nt it be more fair to pay a % of what you make. For instance, I make 20,000$ per year * 30% = 6,000$. Which is 30% of "my" wealth. You make 40,000,000$ per year, 30% =12,000,000$.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Couldn't the same exact premise be related to the fact that you pay more in taxes because you earn and have more? So if the top 1% have the most money and ownership compared to the rest as stated in this article, they should be paying that much?

yep, but my point in posting the article is to just show people who may not have known that the richest 1% actually pay for a shit load of taxes. If the top 1% have a lot of money than 25% of that would be a lot of money. Why should they be required to pay a larger % of their money that they earned?
I just wanted to show that we do indeed have a progressive system and that the rich that got all those tax breaks during the bush administration are paying a higher percentage of taxes than most people give them credit for

mikepegg44

shannah wrote:

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

Being that only 15% of the wealth comes from 80% of the peaple , why should we be forced to pay 35% of the income taxes? Would'nt it be more fair to pay a % of what you make. For instance, I make 20,000$ per year * 30% = 6,000$. Which is 30% of "my" wealth. You make 40,000,000$ per year, 30% =12,000,000$.

couldn't agree more, flat tax baby!!!

mikepegg44

Flagg wrote:

How much money do you have to earn to be in the top 1%?

roughly $400,000 as far as I could tell

michelleelise

But 90% of those people make less than $20,000 a year, though. And many are supporting children on that amount. Are we really going to squeeze tax money out of them?

Meanwhile, CEO salaries have ballooned to an average of $11 million per year. Or, 250% more than the average worker. I won't be losing any sleep over them paying higher taxes.

aerial

How do you guys feel about a National Sales tax....this is from Obamas adviser Paul Volcker. Between 15% to 20% tax added to your purchase.......
This is additional to income tax. ...
then any insurance cost covered by your employer , will be considered income, another tax........
Americans standard of living will defiantly be going down if all this goes thru....

FiveB247x

Well I think you could make the very obvious point that albeit somewhat mis-directed, most of this 1% are in that class, not because of their direct tax percentage, but that of their ownerships (business's, stocks, and general wealth). I agree that we should have a flat tax for all, but more importantly, we need to tax business's and corporations to levels we used to... in essence it would reduce our deficit hand over fist.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/10-20-03tax-fact-f1.jpg

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Couldn't the same exact premise be related to the fact that you pay more in taxes because you earn and have more? So if the top 1% have the most money and ownership compared to the rest as stated in this article, they should be paying that much?

yep, but my point in posting the article is to just show people who may not have known that the richest 1% actually pay for a shit load of taxes. If the top 1% have a lot of money than 25% of that would be a lot of money. Why should they be required to pay a larger % of their money that they earned?
I just wanted to show that we do indeed have a progressive system and that the rich that got all those tax breaks during the bush administration are paying a higher percentage of taxes than most people give them credit for

mikepegg44

michelle822 wrote:

But 90% of those people make less than $20,000 a year, though. And many are supporting children on that amount. Are we really going to squeeze tax money out of them?

Meanwhile, CEO salaries have ballooned to an average of $11 million per year. Or, 250% more than the average worker. I won't be losing any sleep over them paying higher taxes.

everyone should pay the same percentage, no more no less. Just because someone worked hard and got a good job they should be punished by paying a larger percentage to a greedy bloated government?

keeponrockin

aerial wrote:

How do you guys feel about a National Sales tax....this is from Obamas adviser Paul Volcker. Between 15% to 20% tax added to your purchase.......
This is additional to income tax. ...
then any insurance cost covered by your employer , will be considered income, another tax........
Americans standard of living will defiantly be going down if all this goes thru....

We have a GST (General Sales Tax) in Canada which is now down to 6%, plus a PST which depends on the province, but in Ontario I THINK it's 7%. On top of that, I pay WAYYY too much for booze. However, I don't think me or my family live a lower standard of living due to it, but maybe.

I'll live with the extra taxes knowing my neighbour won't go bankrupt if he gets sick. Is our system perfect? No. But everybody I've known with a life threatening illness (grandfather with prostate cancer, uncle with cancer and uncle with a heart attack/bypass surgery) were all treated right away, at no extra cost to them.

mikepegg44

aerial wrote:

How do you guys feel about a National Sales tax....this is from Obamas adviser Paul Volcker. Between 15% to 20% tax added to your purchase.......
This is additional to income tax. ...
then any insurance cost covered by your employer , will be considered income, another tax........
Americans standard of living will defiantly be going down if all this goes thru....

that seems awfully high, I have seen numbers around 2 - 5 % that make sense, as long as it replaced high income taxes and wasn't in addition too.

Flagg

Think of the money they could save just by eliminating the IRS. You could do a national sales tax on everything except food and medicine maybe and do away with income tax.

A lot of accountants would be out of work I guess.

aerial

mikepegg44 wrote:

aerial wrote:

How do you guys feel about a National Sales tax....this is from Obamas adviser Paul Volcker. Between 15% to 20% tax added to your purchase.......
This is additional to income tax. ...
then any insurance cost covered by your employer , will be considered income, another tax........
Americans standard of living will defiantly be going down if all this goes thru....

that seems awfully high, I have seen numbers around 2 - 5 % that make sense, as long as it replaced high income taxes and wasn't in addition too.

addition to sales tax and income tax
what is being discussed now is this tax will not replace anything it is just another tax .....
to use your words ...to feed our greedy government

mikepegg44

aerial wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

aerial wrote:

How do you guys feel about a National Sales tax....this is from Obamas adviser Paul Volcker. Between 15% to 20% tax added to your purchase.......
This is additional to income tax. ...
then any insurance cost covered by your employer , will be considered income, another tax........
Americans standard of living will defiantly be going down if all this goes thru....

that seems awfully high, I have seen numbers around 2 - 5 % that make sense, as long as it replaced high income taxes and wasn't in addition too.

addition to sales tax and income tax
what is being discussed now is this tax will not replace anything it is just another tax .....
to use your words ...to feed our greedy government

of course, I would be for it if it was took away my income tax, they don't need any more money, but to just stop spending more than they take in

Wobbie

Flagg wrote:

Think of the money they could save just by eliminating the IRS. You could do a national sales tax on everything except food and medicine maybe and do away with income tax.

A lot of accountants would be out of work I guess.

sounds good...until I thought....even the ultra rich probably only pay (for example) 10x more for a car than the average joe (250K vs 25K). So, even tho they might make 100x more $, this tax structure would still favor the rich...a lot.

Flat tax, based on income; no loopholes; period. You could still put most of the IRS out of work.

Flagg

The only problem with a flat tax is that for someone that makes $20,000 a year, the 5% or whatever flat tax would take food or clothing or rent or something away. That same flat tax on someone who makes $400,000 per year takes away yacht money or vacation home money or play the stock market money.

Flat taxes aren't fair either. 5% percent of my income is worth a hell of a lot more to me than 5% if I made $100,000,000 a year.

Is there a fair tax?

I suppose if they did a national sales tax the super rich would just import everything.

brandon10

imalive wrote:

Flagg wrote:

Think of the money they could save just by eliminating the IRS. You could do a national sales tax on everything except food and medicine maybe and do away with income tax.

A lot of accountants would be out of work I guess.

sounds good...until I thought....even the ultra rich probably only pay (for example) 10x more for a car than the average joe (250K vs 25K). So, even tho they might make 100x more $, this tax structure would still favor the rich...a lot.

Flat tax, based on income; no loopholes; period. You could still put most of the IRS out of work.

Except that the ultra rich buy 5-10 cars. And new cars every other year.

OutOfBreath

The IRS will never be out of work, because some will always try to cheat or find loopholes. If noone is "policing", well...

And even if you started from scratch, how long do you think it would take before all kinds of amendments, special conditions etc start to pile up? My guess is about 5 minutes. The simple always sound simple until one think of the details, where as is said, the devil resides...

Peace
Dan

FiveB247x

There is no perfect way to set things up, but I believe a flat tax is the closest to fair way possible. It's unfair to over tax the rich or punish people for being successful (even if some question their methods of getting their).

Flagg wrote:

The only problem with a flat tax is that for someone that makes $20,000 a year, the 5% or whatever flat tax would take food or clothing or rent or something away. That same flat tax on someone who makes $400,000 per year takes away yacht money or vacation home money or play the stock market money.

Flat taxes aren't fair either. 5% percent of my income is worth a hell of a lot more to me than 5% if I made $100,000,000 a year.

Is there a fair tax?

I suppose if they did a national sales tax the super rich would just import everything.

Starfall

First of all, taxfoundation.org is to finance what FOX is to journalism. Its history of bias goes back quite a bit.

Secondly, what they forget to tell you is that while on paper these people pay a lot of taxes, once you factor in the tax breaks and the loopholes, the richest people actually paid way less in percentage of their taxes than you and me, AND their incomes DOUBLED. It's the effective tax rate that counts, not the marginal tax rate.
Warren Buffet famously pointed out, for instance, that he pays a much lower tax rate than his $33K/yr secretary.

Starfall

FiveB247x wrote:

There is no perfect way to set things up, but I believe a flat tax is the closest to fair way possible. It's unfair to over tax the rich or punish people for being successful (even if some question their methods of getting their).

Flagg wrote:

The only problem with a flat tax is that for someone that makes $20,000 a year, the 5% or whatever flat tax would take food or clothing or rent or something away. That same flat tax on someone who makes $400,000 per year takes away yacht money or vacation home money or play the stock market money.

Flat taxes aren't fair either. 5% percent of my income is worth a hell of a lot more to me than 5% if I made $100,000,000 a year.

Is there a fair tax?

I suppose if they did a national sales tax the super rich would just import everything.

What's wrong with returning us to the pre-Reagan tax rates? We were doing pretty well for a country that had a top marginal tax rate of 70%.
Or heck, under that notorious socialist Dwight Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. I seem to remember that as a period of unprecedented economic growth too.

Smellyman

Why do neocons and baggers care so much of the top1%? they could give two shits about you and second, most of them don't mind paying more.

Its Evolution Baby

The flat tax may seem the most fair but its almost inhumane to the poorest Americans. Someone stuck making 20K a year could work just as hard as someone making 200K a year but when you tax each 30%, you leave one person with roughly 14 K let to spend on rent food clothes etc and the other person has 140K left to spend. If you make under 50K a year in this country you should be taking home the majority of your check so you can spend it stimulating the economy.

I don't have all the figures in front of me but I don't see why this wouldn't be fair:
15% tax if you make less than 25K
20% less than 50K
25% less than 100K
30% less than 150K
35% less than 250K
40% all others

Jack Nicholson can afford to give 40% back of his 20 million per film deal. Joe the Plumber can't afford to give 30% of his 40K. Joe the Plumber works harder day in and day out than Jack Nicholson. Success is not an indicator of hard work. Rasheed Wallace came into Celtics camp 25 pounds overweight and is paid 10 mill or so a year so he's obviously not working hard.

Reasons like that is why I'm against a flat tax.

Cosmo

Yeah... those poor, poor AIG execs... why can't those damn Liberals leave them alone? They are entitled to their 'Hard Earned' bonuses... right?

KDH12

mikepegg44 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

How much money do you have to earn to be in the top 1%?

roughly $400,000 as far as I could tell

I don't know the number but yours seems a bit low

The minimum pay in MLB is something like $550K a year so that means a rookie that just made the team and owns nothing would be in the top 1%? Don't think so.....

wealth takes into account more then just income....it counts houses, business assets etc.

Ted Turner is a good example of the top 1% considering her owns half the state of Montana

KDH12

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Seems as though the richest 1% in this country are paying quite a bit of the income taxes collected. Do we really think it is fair to continue to raise taxes on them?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

to be honest, I'm not too worried about the top 1%...I think they will be ok...

agreed I could care less how much the top 1% is paying in taxes their families are set for life for generations to come... they will be okay

Obama proposes rolling back bush tax cuts for those making over 250K a year, they are as far from the top 1% as I am from China but with those roll backs they will still be okay

Indifference

Starfall wrote:

First of all, taxfoundation.org is to finance what FOX is to journalism. Its history of bias goes back quite a bit.
the richest people actually paid way less[/url] in percentage of their taxes than you and me,

What a crock. 47% of households pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX so I wonder how you pay less then none?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm