Taxes and the Rich - Page 3

k&s · 07-23-2008, 04:10 PM

^
Uhh, the "rich" pay a higher % of the tax burden b/c they increasingly control a higher % of the nation's wealth (thanks to Bush - btw, I'm in the "high-income" bracket, but I'm concerned since the core of a democracy is a strong, vibrant middle class).

Quote:

The richest 1% of U.S. households -- those with annual incomes of $348,000 or better -- now control 34.3% of the nation's net worth, while the bottom 40% of households dispose of just 0.2% of America's wealth.

The percentages get even more obscene when you look at the top 0.1%.

tega · 07-23-2008, 04:35 PM

Your stat is not correct, the top 1% control 22% of income but pay 40% of the tax burden.

wis75 · 07-23-2008, 04:36 PM

Vote so the rich pay more, middle class less. I can afford to pay more and want the society around me to be better off. Far cry from my just post student days when I said my debts die with me. Please vote the taxes so the public schools and services are there for all. I never understand why all the low income people around here vote Republican...

tega · 07-23-2008, 04:42 PM

But the rich are paying more of their income in taxes than all the other groups. How much more do you want them to pay?

High taxes will force rich people to hire sophisticated bankers to hide their money in offshore accounts, or they will totally move to a lower tax country. A lot of rich europeans move to Switzerland every year to escape high taxes from their native countries.

A lot of the public schools are broken in a lot of places, adding more money won't solve the problem. In New Jersey, some counties receive far more money than other counties, but the schools there have not gotten better--poor test scores, students dropping out, etc.

Money is not the problem. Public schools are not going anywhere.

k&s · 07-23-2008, 05:02 PM

^ Please, the insanely wealthy would be hiding their $$ whether their tax rate is say, 30% as opposed to 33%.

Quote:

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/bu...nt&oref=slogin

Quote:

Your stat is not correct, the top 1% control 22% of income but pay 40% of the tax burden.

Your stat - income, my stat - net worth.

Quote:

Because the incomes of those at the top have grown so much more than those below them, their share of total income tax revenue has risen despite the reduced rates.

The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.

That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928.

The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.

The top tenth of a percent and top one-hundredth of a percent recorded even bigger gains in 2005 over the previous year.

tega · 07-23-2008, 05:07 PM

k&s, that is the reason why increasing taxes on the rich wont necessarily increase the tax revenue collected by the government, the rich will always have an incentive to hide their money from Uncle Sam.

k&s · 07-23-2008, 05:17 PM

^ Of course, but that's on appreciating assets, etc. and they would do it whether their tax rate is higher or lower by a few % points.

Otoh, the extremely wealthy did end up paying less in income taxes - no?

kluge · 07-23-2008, 08:19 PM

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Apparently the WSJ is majoring in the latter. (Can't be sure about the first two, but I'm beginning to have my suspicions.) Here's a fact you will never read in the WSJ but you can take to the bank as true: the wealthy keep a larger percentage of their income each year after paying all of the taxes they pay of every sort than do the poor and middle class. Only in income taxes is there any progressivity at all; all other taxes are regressive relative to income.

I can't wait to read the editorial in the WSJ the day when the wealthiest 1% has 100% of the nation's income.

mapesy · 07-23-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

I'm concerned since the core of a democracy is a strong, vibrant middle class

The middle class is in big trouble. In testimony before the Joint Economic Committee today, Harvard Prof. Elizabeth Warren said: "There have never been since the Depression so many families standing right on the edge. Families have tightened their belts. They have cut down in every discretionary spending area they possibly can."

Some startling facts that were discussed today:

--Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2000 and 2007.

--The average family is spending $4,655 more annually today on basic expenses, such as gas, housing, food and health insurance, than it did in 2000.

--Families are paying $2,195 more annually for gas today than in 2000.

--Childcare costs for children cost an additional $1,508 a month, while after-school costs for older children rose $622.

--People are using credit cards to cover their basic expenses. Approximately 10% of total disposable income in the US is used to pay off credit card debt.

--Approximately 43.5 percent of all households in the United States carry a balance on their credit cards.

--In 2006, the average annual income in the top quintile of U.S households was $168,170 -- almost 15 times the average income of $11,352 a year in the lowest quintile.

--The richest 20 percent in the country earned more than half of the nation's total income in 2006.

--The top 1 percent of U.S. households possess a third of America's wealth and the bottom 60 percent only 4.2 percent.

--In 2004, the median net worth was $140,800 for whites and $24,900 for non-whites.

LongPrime · 07-23-2008, 08:39 PM

Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow - WSJ.com

LongPrime · 07-23-2008, 08:54 PM

"...the rich will always have an incentive to hide their money from Uncle Sam."

There does not have to be much of an incentive nor do the wealthy/rich need to hide their wealth from Uncle Sam.

Even the less than middleclass will change banks for a 0.1% more in savings interest. Will change loans for 0.1%. Will find a "best" student loan for 0.125%.

BCEagle91 · 07-23-2008, 08:59 PM

"Harvard Prof. Elizabeth Warren said: "There have never been since the Depression so many families standing right on the edge. Families have tightened their belts. They have cut down in every discretionary spending area they possibly can.""

I read one of her earlier books written with her daughter and the interesting thing is they started with single-income households and then discussed a few women entering the workforce to provide more materially for their households including the ability to move to better school districts. These households held a competitive advantage in terms of money but had less to fall back on in the case of emergencies such as taking care of sick relatives or getting a job for short-term financial gain.

Of course competitive advantages often disappear as others figure out to get the same thing.

On schools: fix the families. You'd have to pay college tuition rates with boarding schools to provide an adequate education on an even footing.

BCEagle91 · 07-23-2008, 09:02 PM

The truly rich, those that plan wealth management down through generations, can just hold blue-chip stocks for decades and decades and not have to pay income taxes on these assets until they are cashed in. Or until dividends are paid. That's a legal method. As we now know, there are illegal methods too, aided and abetted by banks.

On fixing the families, fix the extended families too so that relatives help each other out when needed.

LongPrime · 07-23-2008, 09:10 PM

"aided and abetted by banks."

Add to this, your CPA, President, Congressman, government, real estate agent, mortgage broker, appraiser, neighbor, financial aid representative, relatives both known and unknown, and of course, yourself. And College Confidential. All aiding and abetting.

Left anyone out?

wbow · 07-23-2008, 09:11 PM

no one has yet mentioned the stagnant alternative minimum tax and how the number of families faced with this huge tax burden is increasing each year.

i think more taxation is not a solution. more fiscally sound spending would be a novel idea.