1% vs. 99%

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/10/19/busting_the_1_vs_99_inequality_myth_99318.html

A 2007 Treasury Department study bears this out. Nearly 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher level by 2005. The reverse also held true. Of those households that were in the top 1% in income in 1996, more than 57% dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.

Every day in America, the poor join the ranks of the rich, and the rich fall out of comfort.

A very interesting point. I would not have thought the top movement to be that extreme.

Another problem with the census data is they don't include the noncash income received by the lowest-income households. Each year, the poor get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for housing, food and health care. None of these transfer payments, a lot of it paid for by the 1%, is counted as income by the Census Bureau.

One report estimates that the share of total income earned by the lowest-income group would rise roughly 50% if such welfare were considered.

Likewise, the share of total income earned by the top income quintile would drop about 7% if taxes paid to fund welfare were considered.

Census doesn't take into account the equalizing effects of taxes. Though they earn more than 45% of total income, the top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total income-tax burden. The top 1%? They shoulder a whopping 40% of the tax load.

Federal Reserve and other data - which include all financial and nonfinancial assets, including bank accounts, investments, houses and cars - give a more complete picture of the gap. When you count all wealth, not just income, inequality has not gotten worse.

The top 1% account for 35% of total wealth, compared with 37% in 1922. In fact, the worst wealth disparity ever was in the 1990s under President Clinton.

Just keep that in mind when complaining that they don't pay a 'fair share'

 

[Damocles]

Their definition of "share" is where I get confused. The top 52% or so pay all of the federal tax bill, that isn't a "share", it can't be a "share" unless the bottom 48% or so actually pay something, then it would be a "share"...

 

[DamnYankee]

The only fair way to tax people is at the same rate. No deductions. Liberals don't want fairness; they want at least 51% beholden to their policies in order to garner votes so they can establish themselves as the power brokers.

It's really as simple as that.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The only fair way to tax people is at the same rate. No deductions. Liberals don't want fairness; they want at least 51% beholden to their policies in order to garner votes so they can establish themselves as the power brokers.

It's really as simple as that.

I would modify that to a flat tax with a standard deduction. Everyone still gets the same exact deduction, but they also get a break on the first say $30k of income per adult. After that tax ALL sources of income at 20%.

Eliminate the corporate tax code, eliminate the special tax rate for dividends and capital gains.

I know why the two parties fight a change to the current tax code.... the more complex they allow it to become the more special interest groups/corps will lobby (aka... BRIBE them) to get special deductions.

 

[Bonestorm]

Their definition of "share" is where I get confused. The top 52% or so pay all of the federal tax bill, that isn't a "share", it can't be a "share" unless the bottom 48% or so actually pay something, then it would be a "share"...

Just an FYI: there are federal taxes other than the federal income tax.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just an FYI: there are federal taxes other than the federal income tax.

fyi: The sky is blue, water is wet

 

[DamnYankee]

I would modify that to a flat tax with a standard deduction. Everyone still gets the same exact deduction, but they also get a break on the first say $30k of income per adult. After that tax ALL sources of income at 20%.

Eliminate the corporate tax code, eliminate the special tax rate for dividends and capital gains.

I know why the two parties fight a change to the current tax code.... the more complex they allow it to become the more special interest groups/corps will lobby (aka... BRIBE them) to get special deductions.

I agree 100% that the tax code is used for political favoritism and should therefore be as simple as possible. Although I don't agree even with a $30k across-the-board deduction if that's what it takes to bribe the electorate into accepting it then at least it's better than the current system.

 

[Bonestorm]

fyi: The sky is blue, water is wet

Damo claimed that the top 52% pay all of the federal tax bill. That's false. It seems his mistake is that the federal tax bill is comprised of only income taxes. That's the only way his statement could be true.

By the way, do you find it at all ironic that you criticized in one thread while posting a IBD op-ed in another?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Damo claimed that the top 52% pay all of the federal tax bill. That's false. It seems his mistake is that the federal tax bill is comprised of only income taxes. That's the only way his statement could be true.

You play this same stupid 'gotcha' game every fucking time the income tax code is being discussed. We are talking about INCOME taxes here. Only a fucking idiot would think otherwise.

I am a rambling fucking hack

Yes, we know.

 

[Bonestorm]

Anyone talking about income taxes should not refer to "all of the federal tax bill." It's intentional and I'll continue to call Damo out on his bullshit whenever I see it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am a rambling fucking hack.

again, we know... no sense repeating yourself.

 

[DamnYankee]

Anyone talking about income taxes should refer to "all of the federal tax bill." It's intentional and I'll continue to call Damo out on his bullshit whenever I see it.

So, dungheap, who do you think pays the majority of these other federal taxes that aren't income tax?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I knew it! We can all be in the top 1%!

What a stupid analysis.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I knew it! We can all be in the top 1%!

What a stupid analysis.

lol... poor spaz, I know MS sucks, but the very least they could do is teach you to read. Public education at its finest ey?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Though they earn more than 45% of total income, the top 10% of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total income-tax burden. The top 1%? They shoulder a whopping 40% of the tax load.

With a wealth distribution that looks like this, it'd be pretty damn hard for them not to:

The robbers have taken everything I own, but they sure do pay high numerical taxes because of it*! Gee, I'm so greatful!

*They still pay lower rates than me.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The bottom 40% don't pay taxes? How on Earth are they supposed to? They aren't even visible!

 

[DamnYankee]

Once more, Watermark has proven to as useless as the Pope's balls.

 

[Damocles]

Just an FYI: there are federal taxes other than the federal income tax.

True. I should be careful to be accurate. The top 53% pay all of the federal income tax.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The top 1% account for 35% of total wealth, compared with 37% in 1922. In fact, the worst wealth disparity ever was in the 1990s under President Clinton.

Wow, compare now to the era of Coolidge. That's totally sensible. I see, no real left-wing movements happened between those two periods of time, after all, nothing to suspect that equality got better between 19 fucking 22 and now.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

True. I should be careful to be accurate. The top 53% pay all of the federal income tax.

oh but he busted you...... idiot with gotcha games