Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Mac1958]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

The "rich" are anyone making more than me.
"Fair" is "more".
I decide.

That's the gist of what I see.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

You keep repeating that like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't.

Not very specific, is it?

.

It's like 1/4 of a theory. If he would expand on it, we could debate it.

Either he soon makes a cogent point or he gets added to the list.

Hey, I'm trying!

.

 

[Ernie S.]

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Sorry, but payroll taxes are taxes, plain and simple. You also do not include state taxes which are completely regressive and where the lowest income earners pay the highest percentages, in many cases more than five times what the wealthiest pay. Personally, I think the current rates are adequate, but I would like to see the capital gains rate raised to equal the earned income tax rate.

Payroll taxes aren't taxes at all. They are advance payments for services. You pay in every check in return for a check each month and medical overage when you retire

Some on the federal left believe we should abolish our warfare-State in favor of willful obedience to our Commerce Clause and that lack of infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism; or even insurrection-ism nor rebel-ism to our supreme law of the land.

Where the fuck did you regurgitate THAT from?

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

The "rich" are anyone making more than me.
"Fair" is "more".
I decide.

That's the gist of what I see.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

You keep repeating that like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't.

too simple for the Right to obfuscate? it is no wonder the left refuses to authorize any general advance for the honest injuen contingent; due in full and not in any Part--to the continual bifurcation of the Right.

Do you put a bunch of words in a box, shake them out and type what you see?

 

[Ame®icano]

Payroll taxes aren't taxes at all. They are advance payments for services. You pay in every check in return for a check each month and medical overage when you retire

Correction: You pay in every check with hope to receive a check each month and medical overage when you retire.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm done with him.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not going to look through 44 pages, just curious:

Has anyone specified precisely who "the rich" are, precisely what "fair" is, and/or precisely who is charged with making those determinations in the future?

.

The "rich" are anyone making more than me.
"Fair" is "more".
I decide.

That's the gist of what I see.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

You keep repeating that like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't.

Not very specific, is it?

.

It's like 1/4 of a theory. If he would expand on it, we could debate it.

Either he soon makes a cogent point or he gets added to the list.

I noticed the brightest guys in the thread weren't asking asking any questions to prove their points and instead merely appealing to ignorance, hearsay, and soothsay, like wo-men.

 

[Ernie S.]

Payroll taxes aren't taxes at all. They are advance payments for services. You pay in every check in return for a check each month and medical overage when you retire

Correction: You pay in every check with hope to receive a check each month and medical overage when you retire.

I paid in for nearly 50 years and I get a check every month and I make use of medicare. There is no reason for me to doubt that I will continue to reap the benefit as long as I live.
I expect that at some point, the programs will be altered, but I don't see an end to SS and Medicare.

 

[Ernie S.]

The "rich" are anyone making more than me.
"Fair" is "more".
I decide.

That's the gist of what I see.

we can distinguish between Capitalists with capital and Laborists with labor usually on a capital gains versus earned income basis. that should work in any given scenario.

You keep repeating that like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't.

Not very specific, is it?

.

It's like 1/4 of a theory. If he would expand on it, we could debate it.

Either he soon makes a cogent point or he gets added to the list.

I noticed the brightest guys in the thread weren't asking asking any questions to prove their points and instead merely appealing to ignorance, hearsay, and soothsay, like wo-men.

Bu Bye.

 

[danielpalos]

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Sorry, but payroll taxes are taxes, plain and simple. You also do not include state taxes which are completely regressive and where the lowest income earners pay the highest percentages, in many cases more than five times what the wealthiest pay. Personally, I think the current rates are adequate, but I would like to see the capital gains rate raised to equal the earned income tax rate.

Payroll taxes aren't taxes at all. They are advance payments for services. You pay in every check in return for a check each month and medical overage when you retire

Some on the federal left believe we should abolish our warfare-State in favor of willful obedience to our Commerce Clause and that lack of infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism; or even insurrection-ism nor rebel-ism to our supreme law of the land.

Where the fuck did you regurgitate THAT from?

i muster with well regulated dictionary and thesaurus militia, and develop them as we go along.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[danielpalos]

no real reason to discover sublime Truth (value) through argumentation, Persons on the Right; i can always be Faithful to my State motto: Eureka!

 

[danielpalos]

only the right practices the abomination of hypocrisy (to a god), merely to prove how really really serious they are about a really really serious relationship with Him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism?

Incoherent again. Please! Please respond with complete thoughts that actually fit the context of the post you are replying to.

no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism. equality is a Social concept not a Capital concept.

Equality is an American concept. You all have equality of opportunity. Nowhere are you guaranteed equality of outcome. Outcome is based on effort, not entitlement.

Really, guy WTF does "no clue or Cause, like usual, Person on the Right. so what, under Any form of Capitalism but not Socialism." mean? Is someone other than you supposed to be able to respond, or do you just like to type gibberish?

equality is not a Capital concept.

I SAID, it is an AMERICAN concept, dingbat. Equality is there for you all you have to do is want it enough to work for it. No one owes you shit other than an even chance, My wealth in no way limits yours, as a matter of fact, I'd rather you were at least as well off as me. Poor people are lousy customers.

You get that leftists won't understand that, though, don't you? They like to have lots of miserable people around, because they don't have customers; they have dependents.

 

[Cecilie1200]

only the right practices the abomination of hypocrisy (to a god), merely to prove how really really serious they are about a really really serious relationship with Him.

Is that even supposed to make real sense, or is it just supposed to sound vaguely deep and profound, while meaning nothing?

 

[Cecilie1200]

First off, I used the numbers to demonstrate percentage of income. There was no intention or effort made to make the numbers match actual percentages because we don't know state tax rates, deductions or anything.

We do know that most states have some form of sales taxes, and everyone pays property taxes. For renters, the property taxes are factored into their rent.

So even if the person with $20,000 in income pays little or no federal tax, they still pay property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.

The guy with the $1,000,000 income has more deductions and ways of reducing his taxes. He gets to deduct his mortgage. His car is leased or owned by his company, and likely tax deductible, as are the golf club memberships.

My friends had a RV business. They worked long hours, often late into the night, during the season. When they picked up their financial statements for the year, their company had made $100,000, or $50,000 each.

My friend said she couldn't believe they had worked that hard for so little but then she thought about it. Their house and business were all on the same property so all of their expenses for the property were deductible, as were both their vehicles, and even her show horses (they sold horse trailers so the horses promoted the trailers).

So they paid tax on $50,000 each, after deducting over $150,000 in expenses they would have been paying out of net income if her husband had worked for someone else.

So even if the person with $20,000 in income pays little or no federal tax, they still pay property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.

Even in idiotic states like California, sales taxes peak at about 10%.
A person with $20,000 in income probably doesn't own a home.
State and Federal gas taxes add up to about 49 cents a gallon, on average.
About 16%, currently.
They're still paying a much, much lower rate than those mean rich guys.

You don't get it, Todd. Lefties don't care about the comparative rates. All they really care about is that those damned, "eeevil" rich people are still rich after the taxes.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's sum funny shit right thar ..... I worked with government employees for 40 years. You can count the good ones on your fingers and toes ... civil service is nothing more than welfare day care.

My point being that I don't care what your personal feelings are. Government employees are lazier than private sector? prove it. I don't mean mean for you to post anecdotes but to statistically prove it.

Frankly, that's a chicken-shit way to avoid a discussion .... have fun.

How so? I say something you don't like and you call it chicken shit. Give me a reason to care?

No - what you did was insist on a statistic that you and I both know doesn't exist. You want a statistical analysis of the quality of performance comparing private and government employees.

You know that no such statistic exists ... then, when I obviously can't quote such a statistic, you claim some fictitious high ground.

It's bullshit - and you know it.

Happy, like most leftists, has an attention span equivalent to a mayfly's lifespan. By the time he gets a response, he forgets what the topic was, and ends up babbling about points that aren't the least bit apropos.

How is that? Somebody said government employees were lazy, he couldn't back it up and then you chime in with a false summary of the conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point being that I don't care what your personal feelings are. Government employees are lazier than private sector? prove it. I don't mean mean for you to post anecdotes but to statistically prove it.

Frankly, that's a chicken-shit way to avoid a discussion .... have fun.

How so? I say something you don't like and you call it chicken shit. Give me a reason to care?

No - what you did was insist on a statistic that you and I both know doesn't exist. You want a statistical analysis of the quality of performance comparing private and government employees.

You know that no such statistic exists ... then, when I obviously can't quote such a statistic, you claim some fictitious high ground.

It's bullshit - and you know it.

Happy, like most leftists, has an attention span equivalent to a mayfly's lifespan. By the time he gets a response, he forgets what the topic was, and ends up babbling about points that aren't the least bit apropos.

How is that? Somebody said government employees were lazy, he couldn't back it up and then you chime in with a false summary of the conversation.

How is that? I said you should be surprised that your mail shows up routinely, and you wandered off babbling about all manner of things you read into that that had nothing to do with what I said.

That Spare is willing to follow you down your ludicrous tangent doesn't mean it isn't still ludicrous.

 

[bripat9643]

First off, I used the numbers to demonstrate percentage of income. There was no intention or effort made to make the numbers match actual percentages because we don't know state tax rates, deductions or anything.

We do know that most states have some form of sales taxes, and everyone pays property taxes. For renters, the property taxes are factored into their rent.

So even if the person with $20,000 in income pays little or no federal tax, they still pay property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.

The guy with the $1,000,000 income has more deductions and ways of reducing his taxes. He gets to deduct his mortgage. His car is leased or owned by his company, and likely tax deductible, as are the golf club memberships.

My friends had a RV business. They worked long hours, often late into the night, during the season. When they picked up their financial statements for the year, their company had made $100,000, or $50,000 each.

My friend said she couldn't believe they had worked that hard for so little but then she thought about it. Their house and business were all on the same property so all of their expenses for the property were deductible, as were both their vehicles, and even her show horses (they sold horse trailers so the horses promoted the trailers).

So they paid tax on $50,000 each, after deducting over $150,000 in expenses they would have been paying out of net income if her husband had worked for someone else.

So even if the person with $20,000 in income pays little or no federal tax, they still pay property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc.

Even in idiotic states like California, sales taxes peak at about 10%.
A person with $20,000 in income probably doesn't own a home.
State and Federal gas taxes add up to about 49 cents a gallon, on average.
About 16%, currently.
They're still paying a much, much lower rate than those mean rich guys.

You don't get it, Todd. Lefties don't care about the comparative rates. All they really care about is that those damned, "eeevil" rich people are still rich after the taxes.

It's obvious they will be wailing about the rich "Paying their fair share" until all their income above some specified maximum is confiscated. Anyone who uses that phrase is a communist.

 

[HappyJoy]

Frankly, that's a chicken-shit way to avoid a discussion .... have fun.

How so? I say something you don't like and you call it chicken shit. Give me a reason to care?

No - what you did was insist on a statistic that you and I both know doesn't exist. You want a statistical analysis of the quality of performance comparing private and government employees.

You know that no such statistic exists ... then, when I obviously can't quote such a statistic, you claim some fictitious high ground.

It's bullshit - and you know it.

Happy, like most leftists, has an attention span equivalent to a mayfly's lifespan. By the time he gets a response, he forgets what the topic was, and ends up babbling about points that aren't the least bit apropos.

How is that? Somebody said government employees were lazy, he couldn't back it up and then you chime in with a false summary of the conversation.

How is that? I said you should be surprised that your mail shows up routinely, and you wandered off babbling about all manner of things you read into that that had nothing to do with what I said.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't give a shit enough about whatever inane thing you were saying and moved on? Sorry.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How so? I say something you don't like and you call it chicken shit. Give me a reason to care?

No - what you did was insist on a statistic that you and I both know doesn't exist. You want a statistical analysis of the quality of performance comparing private and government employees.

You know that no such statistic exists ... then, when I obviously can't quote such a statistic, you claim some fictitious high ground.

It's bullshit - and you know it.

Happy, like most leftists, has an attention span equivalent to a mayfly's lifespan. By the time he gets a response, he forgets what the topic was, and ends up babbling about points that aren't the least bit apropos.

How is that? Somebody said government employees were lazy, he couldn't back it up and then you chime in with a false summary of the conversation.

How is that? I said you should be surprised that your mail shows up routinely, and you wandered off babbling about all manner of things you read into that that had nothing to do with what I said.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't give a shit enough about whatever inane thing you were saying and moved on? Sorry.

Like I said, lefties have no attention span. "You said something, and it was out of my head before I finished responding . . . which didn't stop me from continuing to talk about it."

Thanks for admitting it.