Top 20% of households pay vast majority of income taxes

[Hutch Starskey]

Profit doesn't extract money out of the economy and create wealth for the owner?

Well, it seems you're using the word "extract" because it sounds involuntary - as though the money was taken forcefully and not voluntarily exchanged. Is that your intent?

It's word. A simple one at that. I implied nothing. How about adressing my point rather than parsing.

I'm still trying to figure out what your point is.

You showed us all how the consumer pays the wages of the employees and makes the owner wealthy.

Right. So what?

LOL
That's a consumer driven economy.

And? I mean you're staking out a semantic claim here. We could dig into what "driving" an economy means, but why does it matter?

It's not semantics. It's understanding our economy. Policy that gives all the breaks to the top based on the wrongheaded idea that they drive the economy is horrible.

 

[dblack]

Policy that gives all the breaks to the top based on the wrongheaded idea that they drive the economy is horrible.

Well, that much I agree with. Policy that gives "breaks" to anyone, regardless of the reason, is horrible. But I suspect you're fine with government doling out the breaks, you just want different recipients. Am I correct?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

WTF?
Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

Are you asking why growth is a good thing?

Yes. Why are you taking it for granted that growing ever more wealthy is good? There's more to life. I'd rather have a just government that protects liberty than one preoccupied with driving economic growth at all costs.

Wow.
You just folded big time.
That's capitalism.

What?? How did I "fold"? What are you referring to when you say "That's capitalism"? Growth? Or government preoccupied with growth?

You're in a discussion about the economy and discounted growth.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Policy that gives all the breaks to the top based on the wrongheaded idea that they drive the economy is horrible.

Well, that much I agree with. Policy that gives "breaks" to anyone, regardless of the reason, is horrible. But I suspect you're fine with government doling out the breaks, you just want different recipients. Am I correct?

Uff. Who and how else could it be done if necessary?

 

[Andylusion]

Business can't "extract wealth". That is impossible.

If you don't provide me a product worth the price I am willing to pay, then I don't buy it from you.

If I don't buy it, then no wealth is extracted.

If the product is worth the money...... then wealth is still not extracted, because I have a product in my possession that is in equal worth to the amount of money I paid for it.

If the car isn't worth $10,000.... then I don't buy it. If it is... then I have a $10,000 car. No wealth was "extracted" from me.

Further you mention that this is a benefit for business owners and the employees..... but nearly all consumers are employees. So how can a group of people extract wealth, from themselves?

Again, if consumers were the driving factor, then why is there product shortages across the entire country of Venezuela? Are you saying there are no consumers? I promise you there are.

And if consumers were the driving factor in China, then why was there so little economic growth before they allowed wealthy people to invest in the economy?

Were there magically no consumers before, and magically they spawned into existence after liberalizing the economy.... and it just happen to be a magical fluke that wealthy people started creating companies and businesses at the same time?

No, I didn't explain why consumers drive the economy. You just refused to understand basic economics.

Profit doesn't extract money out of the economy and create wealth for the owner?

Well, it seems you're using the word "extract" because it sounds involuntary - as though the money was taken forcefully and not voluntarily exchanged. Is that your intent?

It's word. A simple one at that. I implied nothing. How about adressing my point rather than parsing.

You showed us all how the consumer pays the wages of the employees and makes the owner wealthy.

What you said there, is true. What you said before about the wealthy not driving the economy, is wrong.

Yes, once the wealthy setup a system, all players in the system act according to what you said here.

But without the wealthy making that investment, nothing else happens.

LOL
The "system" as you call it, was established for the sole purpose of making profit. Creating wealth for the owner. Not creating Jobs. The business exists soley to extract money from the economy. Not drive it.

Again, the bold points, I agree. There is a huge difference in creating wealth for the owners, and extracting wealth. Yes, they do create wealth. They take raw materials of low value, create products of high value, thus wealth is created. They then exchange those goods and services on the market, which benefits everyone involved, including the owner obviously.

And whether a business is created for the 'purpose' of jobs or driving the economy, is not relevant.

No one creates a business, thinking "I want to provide jobs and create growth!". But that is the natural result.

Brian Scudamore just wanted to earn a few bucks to pay for college. At age 18 with a whooping $700 saved from working a fast food job, he bought a beat up pickup truck, and started hauling trash. Today 1-800-GOT-JUNK has thousands of employees, and provides services across the world.

By the way, when I said "system", I was referring specifically to the system of how the company operates.

 

[dblack]

Policy that gives all the breaks to the top based on the wrongheaded idea that they drive the economy is horrible.

Well, that much I agree with. Policy that gives "breaks" to anyone, regardless of the reason, is horrible. But I suspect you're fine with government doling out the breaks, you just want different recipients. Am I correct?

Uff. Who and how else could it be done if necessary?

How could what be done?

 

[dblack]

Yes, seriously.

Are you asking why growth is a good thing?

Yes. Why are you taking it for granted that growing ever more wealthy is good? There's more to life. I'd rather have a just government that protects liberty than one preoccupied with driving economic growth at all costs.

Wow.
You just folded big time.
That's capitalism.

What?? How did I "fold"? What are you referring to when you say "That's capitalism"? Growth? Or government preoccupied with growth?

You're in a discussion about the economy and discounted growth.

Right, and?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Profit doesn't extract money out of the economy and create wealth for the owner?

Well, it seems you're using the word "extract" because it sounds involuntary - as though the money was taken forcefully and not voluntarily exchanged. Is that your intent?

It's word. A simple one at that. I implied nothing. How about adressing my point rather than parsing.

You showed us all how the consumer pays the wages of the employees and makes the owner wealthy.

What you said there, is true. What you said before about the wealthy not driving the economy, is wrong.

Yes, once the wealthy setup a system, all players in the system act according to what you said here.

But without the wealthy making that investment, nothing else happens.

LOL
The "system" as you call it, was established for the sole purpose of making profit. Creating wealth for the owner. Not creating Jobs. The business exists soley to extract money from the economy. Not drive it.

Again, the bold points, I agree. There is a huge difference in creating wealth for the owners, and extracting wealth. Yes, they do create wealth. They take raw materials of low value, create products of high value, thus wealth is created. They then exchange those goods and services on the market, which benefits everyone involved, including the owner obviously.

And whether a business is created for the 'purpose' of jobs or driving the economy, is not relevant.

No one creates a business, thinking "I want to provide jobs and create growth!". But that is the natural result.

Brian Scudamore just wanted to earn a few bucks to pay for college. At age 18 with a whooping $700 saved from working a fast food job, he bought a beat up pickup truck, and started hauling trash. Today 1-800-GOT-JUNK has thousands of employees, and provides services across the world.

By the way, when I said "system", I was referring specifically to the system of how the company operates.

It extracts wealth. That's why we have this now.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Policy that gives all the breaks to the top based on the wrongheaded idea that they drive the economy is horrible.

Well, that much I agree with. Policy that gives "breaks" to anyone, regardless of the reason, is horrible. But I suspect you're fine with government doling out the breaks, you just want different recipients. Am I correct?

Uff. Who and how else could it be done if necessary?

How could what be done?

OMG.
What you suggested. The govt doling out breaks.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Are you asking why growth is a good thing?

Yes. Why are you taking it for granted that growing ever more wealthy is good? There's more to life. I'd rather have a just government that protects liberty than one preoccupied with driving economic growth at all costs.

Wow.
You just folded big time.
That's capitalism.

What?? How did I "fold"? What are you referring to when you say "That's capitalism"? Growth? Or government preoccupied with growth?

You're in a discussion about the economy and discounted growth.

Right, and?

Inflation. Growth is needed to counter inflation.

 

[dblack]

Policy that gives all the breaks to the top based on the wrongheaded idea that they drive the economy is horrible.

Well, that much I agree with. Policy that gives "breaks" to anyone, regardless of the reason, is horrible. But I suspect you're fine with government doling out the breaks, you just want different recipients. Am I correct?

Uff. Who and how else could it be done if necessary?

How could what be done?

OMG.
What you suggested. The govt doling out breaks.

Well, what I'm saying is that government shouldn't be doling out breaks to favored parties. Equal protection is fundamental to a free society.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

[


I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

You are very confused about this. Have you ever taken a course in Economics?

I'm sure your local Community College has a course in Economics. You should really consider signing up for it.

You are getting beat up on this thread because you are lacking basic knowledge of how an economy works.

Capital is the driver for economic growth.

Poor people don't create jobs. They can "demand" all they want but if they don't have the money nothing is going is going to be bought. In order for them to get the money for demand they have to have jobs that are created by people with excess capital to invest.

Fuck you, hillbilly.

I'm getting beat up? Not likely.
You don't have a clue.

Consumers drive the economy. Not investment.
Investment capitalizes on demand. It doesn't create it.

You couldn't get through the first test in an economics course.

There are a lot of consumers in Venezuela yet that economy is in shambles. Ton of consumers in the old Soviet Union but the store shelves were empty. Without capitalism and innovation the consumer has nothing to purchase

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

But it was the "rich people" who developed, financed and executed on the WalMart premise. If it were easy then anyone could do it.

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

 

[OnePercenter]

The top 20% of households paid 88.1% of federal income taxes, and 69.5% of total federal taxes in 2015, ATR notes, citing the most recent numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The top one percent (around 1.2 million households) paid 39.4% of federal income taxes and 26.2% of total federal taxes, at an average total tax rate of 33.3%, dropping its average income from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. Its total percent of income was 16.6% before taxes and 13.2% after taxes.

A few key numbers from the other four quintiles via the CBO's 2015 report:

• The fourth quintile was taxed at 17.9% federal income tax and saw its average income of $108,000 drop to $91,000. Its share of income was 20% before and after taxes.
• The middle quintile was taxed at 14% federal income tax and saw its average income drop from $71,000 to $65,000. Share of income: 13.6% before taxes, 14.7% after.
• The second quintile paid 9.2% federal income tax but saw its average income of $44,000 increase to $47,000 from means-tested transfers. Share of income: 8.7% before transfers and taxes, 11% after.
• The bottom quintile paid 1.5% federal income tax and saw its average income of $20,000 grow from transfers to $33,000. Share of income: $3.7 before transfers and taxes, 11% after.

So why are we thinking of taxing the rich even more? How about addressing:

-- Entitlements;
-- Illegal Immigration - each illegal costs us ~$77k per year;
-- Fraud in our welfare system ($1.1Trn welfare system)

My solutions would be:

-- Entitlement reform in terms of raising the retirement age and giving people under 30 the option to invest SS monies privately (exiting the Social program). Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Use vouchers perhaps.

-- Get rid of sanctuary cities and enforce deportations.

-- Hire more officers to enforce waste and fraud.

Thoughts....?

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

You are VERY wrong.

 

[OnePercenter]

The top 20% of households paid 88.1% of federal income taxes, and 69.5% of total federal taxes in 2015, ATR notes, citing the most recent numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The top one percent (around 1.2 million households) paid 39.4% of federal income taxes and 26.2% of total federal taxes, at an average total tax rate of 33.3%, dropping its average income from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. Its total percent of income was 16.6% before taxes and 13.2% after taxes.

A few key numbers from the other four quintiles via the CBO's 2015 report:

• The fourth quintile was taxed at 17.9% federal income tax and saw its average income of $108,000 drop to $91,000. Its share of income was 20% before and after taxes.
• The middle quintile was taxed at 14% federal income tax and saw its average income drop from $71,000 to $65,000. Share of income: 13.6% before taxes, 14.7% after.
• The second quintile paid 9.2% federal income tax but saw its average income of $44,000 increase to $47,000 from means-tested transfers. Share of income: 8.7% before transfers and taxes, 11% after.
• The bottom quintile paid 1.5% federal income tax and saw its average income of $20,000 grow from transfers to $33,000. Share of income: $3.7 before transfers and taxes, 11% after.

So why are we thinking of taxing the rich even more? How about addressing:

-- Entitlements;
-- Illegal Immigration - each illegal costs us ~$77k per year;
-- Fraud in our welfare system ($1.1Trn welfare system)

My solutions would be:

-- Entitlement reform in terms of raising the retirement age and giving people under 30 the option to invest SS monies privately (exiting the Social program). Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Use vouchers perhaps.

-- Get rid of sanctuary cities and enforce deportations.

-- Hire more officers to enforce waste and fraud.

Thoughts....?

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

Soon infrastructure is going to require a tax increase. So if you were a politician, you would raise taxes on all 100% equally, not a heavier tax on the rich. A flat tax.

This is another way the rich have widened the gap between the rich and rest of us.

Not going to happen.

 

[OnePercenter]

A flat tax will INCREASE you tax liability.

Probably. Fair is fair.

Idiot.

Heh. Ok, I'll bite. Why?

Why would you want to increase your tax liability and not the tax liability of the wealthy or corporations which are the majority of wealthy.

 

[OnePercenter]

The top 20% of households paid 88.1% of federal income taxes, and 69.5% of total federal taxes in 2015, ATR notes, citing the most recent numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The top one percent (around 1.2 million households) paid 39.4% of federal income taxes and 26.2% of total federal taxes, at an average total tax rate of 33.3%, dropping its average income from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. Its total percent of income was 16.6% before taxes and 13.2% after taxes.

A few key numbers from the other four quintiles via the CBO's 2015 report:

• The fourth quintile was taxed at 17.9% federal income tax and saw its average income of $108,000 drop to $91,000. Its share of income was 20% before and after taxes.
• The middle quintile was taxed at 14% federal income tax and saw its average income drop from $71,000 to $65,000. Share of income: 13.6% before taxes, 14.7% after.
• The second quintile paid 9.2% federal income tax but saw its average income of $44,000 increase to $47,000 from means-tested transfers. Share of income: 8.7% before transfers and taxes, 11% after.
• The bottom quintile paid 1.5% federal income tax and saw its average income of $20,000 grow from transfers to $33,000. Share of income: $3.7 before transfers and taxes, 11% after.

So why are we thinking of taxing the rich even more? How about addressing:

-- Entitlements;
-- Illegal Immigration - each illegal costs us ~$77k per year;
-- Fraud in our welfare system ($1.1Trn welfare system)

My solutions would be:

-- Entitlement reform in terms of raising the retirement age and giving people under 30 the option to invest SS monies privately (exiting the Social program). Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Use vouchers perhaps.

-- Get rid of sanctuary cities and enforce deportations.

-- Hire more officers to enforce waste and fraud.

Thoughts....?

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

Soon infrastructure is going to require a tax increase. So if you were a politician, you would raise taxes on all 100% equally, not a heavier tax on the rich. A flat tax.

This is another way the rich have widened the gap between the rich and rest of us.

I would do a 1.5% federal consumption tax

A consumption tax directly targets the working class.

 

[dblack]

A flat tax will INCREASE you tax liability.

Probably. Fair is fair.

Idiot.

Heh. Ok, I'll bite. Why?

Why would you want to increase your tax liability and not the tax liability of the wealthy or corporations which are the majority of wealthy.

Because I'm more interested in just and fair government than using it for personal benefit. I don't think that makes me an idiot.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The top 20% of households paid 88.1% of federal income taxes, and 69.5% of total federal taxes in 2015, ATR notes, citing the most recent numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The top one percent (around 1.2 million households) paid 39.4% of federal income taxes and 26.2% of total federal taxes, at an average total tax rate of 33.3%, dropping its average income from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. Its total percent of income was 16.6% before taxes and 13.2% after taxes.

A few key numbers from the other four quintiles via the CBO's 2015 report:

• The fourth quintile was taxed at 17.9% federal income tax and saw its average income of $108,000 drop to $91,000. Its share of income was 20% before and after taxes.
• The middle quintile was taxed at 14% federal income tax and saw its average income drop from $71,000 to $65,000. Share of income: 13.6% before taxes, 14.7% after.
• The second quintile paid 9.2% federal income tax but saw its average income of $44,000 increase to $47,000 from means-tested transfers. Share of income: 8.7% before transfers and taxes, 11% after.
• The bottom quintile paid 1.5% federal income tax and saw its average income of $20,000 grow from transfers to $33,000. Share of income: $3.7 before transfers and taxes, 11% after.

So why are we thinking of taxing the rich even more? How about addressing:

-- Entitlements;
-- Illegal Immigration - each illegal costs us ~$77k per year;
-- Fraud in our welfare system ($1.1Trn welfare system)

My solutions would be:

-- Entitlement reform in terms of raising the retirement age and giving people under 30 the option to invest SS monies privately (exiting the Social program). Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Use vouchers perhaps.

-- Get rid of sanctuary cities and enforce deportations.

-- Hire more officers to enforce waste and fraud.

Thoughts....?

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

You are VERY wrong.

An opinion can be wrong?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The top 20% of households paid 88.1% of federal income taxes, and 69.5% of total federal taxes in 2015, ATR notes, citing the most recent numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The top one percent (around 1.2 million households) paid 39.4% of federal income taxes and 26.2% of total federal taxes, at an average total tax rate of 33.3%, dropping its average income from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. Its total percent of income was 16.6% before taxes and 13.2% after taxes.

A few key numbers from the other four quintiles via the CBO's 2015 report:

• The fourth quintile was taxed at 17.9% federal income tax and saw its average income of $108,000 drop to $91,000. Its share of income was 20% before and after taxes.
• The middle quintile was taxed at 14% federal income tax and saw its average income drop from $71,000 to $65,000. Share of income: 13.6% before taxes, 14.7% after.
• The second quintile paid 9.2% federal income tax but saw its average income of $44,000 increase to $47,000 from means-tested transfers. Share of income: 8.7% before transfers and taxes, 11% after.
• The bottom quintile paid 1.5% federal income tax and saw its average income of $20,000 grow from transfers to $33,000. Share of income: $3.7 before transfers and taxes, 11% after.

So why are we thinking of taxing the rich even more? How about addressing:

-- Entitlements;
-- Illegal Immigration - each illegal costs us ~$77k per year;
-- Fraud in our welfare system ($1.1Trn welfare system)

My solutions would be:

-- Entitlement reform in terms of raising the retirement age and giving people under 30 the option to invest SS monies privately (exiting the Social program). Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Use vouchers perhaps.

-- Get rid of sanctuary cities and enforce deportations.

-- Hire more officers to enforce waste and fraud.

Thoughts....?

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

Soon infrastructure is going to require a tax increase. So if you were a politician, you would raise taxes on all 100% equally, not a heavier tax on the rich. A flat tax.

This is another way the rich have widened the gap between the rich and rest of us.

I would do a 1.5% federal consumption tax

A consumption tax directly targets the working class.

You need to take an Econ class, Mr. Communist