<p>Seems like enough to me. Yes a handful pay nothing but most are invested in taxfree stuff so they give up yield and help fund your school buildings at a low cost.</p>
<p>Over all, the top 2 percent of earners, the 2.5 million filers with income of $200,000 or more, paid almost 27 cents in taxes for each dollar of income they reported in 2002, other I.R.S. data showed. This group accounted for 53.5 percent of the income tax paid by all Americans.</p>
<p>27 cents in federal taxes, correct? Otherwise, that’s a low tax rate. When state & city & property & social security & Medicare taxes are thrown in, I thought it was much higher than that.</p>
<p>this is interesting but hardly unexpected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually I think few people would guess that the top 2% are paying over half the total tax. I’d bet most would guess less than 25%.</p>
<p>In the bloomberg article unless I am reading it wrong- it said that the top income tax rate was 38.6 not 50%
Does anybody want to see what percentage of income teh top2% holds?
Do they hold more than half of Americas wealth?
I don’t have a problem with the ones with the most wealth paying more tax.
Didn’t we leave England because we wanted to get away from teh class system?</p>
<p>I would be happy if I was forced to pay a million dollars in taxes every year!</p>
<p>Barrons, there are a lot more taxes out there than income taxes. What share of the income do these people make? When you look at all taxes paid, what percentage of income do those at the top pay compared to those in the middle? When you look at this, we don’t have the big progressive tax structure.
Doesn’t the top 1% control over 30 percent of the wealth?</p>
<p>emeraldkity:</p>
<p>the top marginal bracket is 38%, but for higher income earners (or folks who live in high cost states), deductions get phased out, and AMT phases in, which increases the effective tax rate over the marginal bracket at that income level.</p>
<p>I’ll just throw this out there - but “top 2%” covers a LOT of territory. I can see the seeds of the usual CC class warfare discussion going on here… and I’ll try to prevent a bit of it:</p>
<p>The top 2% covers income earners from $200,000/year, and I think that the top 1% is the over $400k/year crowd. The 2%-1% group:a doctor who is paying off student loans, has high malpractice premiums, and lives in an expensive/urban area of the country with a wife & kids at home. Doing well, yes, but by no means wealthy. Very little money left for extras - effectually earns the same as someone with half the salary but not the student loans or malpractice.</p>
<p>Then it covers people - maybe two engineers who are working with kids in middle school, but no one stays home with them. Some negative effects here - no one is around for the kids after school, and maybe they’ve been baby-sat afterward school for years now.</p>
<p>Moving onwards, the 2%-1% category includes the DINK types, people who probably are working about 60 hours a week, older people (salary increases with age), small business owners during a good year, perhaps some real estate agents, etc. In some towns, that salary is good for buying a small cape-style house (using the rough formula of home price = pre-tax income x 2), and the kids through college if they drive used cars, don’t vacation, and don’t eat out much. In short, it buys what a lot of people on these boards have, although the salary isn’t the same. </p>
<p>Just me, but when we talk about the top 1%, and especially the top </p>
<p>I guess I’m just trying to say that it’s not so black-and-white of “wow, those people have tons and tons of money- wow, their lives must be so easy.” There is also the matter of (to get into the questions above) analyzing wealth by income. My guess is that the very top earners (Fortune’s Most Wealthy People crowd) have a higher wealth/taxes ratio than the middle class. Meander down into my upper-middle class, 2-1% of earners range, and I bet that they have a lower wealth/tax ratio than the middle class: AMT will do that to you.</p>
<p>my brain hurts after reading that…</p>
<p>Sorry. (Looks all bashful)</p>
<p>Well, let’s see, the top 1% holds 38% of the national wealth (<a href=“http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html[/url]”>http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html</a>)</p>
<p>"A household in the middle the median household has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution. " (same source)</p>
<p>but the top 1% pays 34% of the <em>income</em> tax burden (<a href=“http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/[/url]”>http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/</a>)</p>
<p>Now, when you consider how much of the actual income of the top 1% of tax-filers is from unearned income–stock dividends, capital gains, etc.–which are taxed at a lower rate, you realize that in effect, the bottom 99% (which is the vast majority of of the CC posters) are subsidizing people who really don’t need our help.</p>
<p>Aries, your comments are right on re the big difference between the top 1% and the top 1-2%, and the effects of the AMT. All I can say is ouch… And, no, I am not feeling sorry for myself, but I would rather have the option of donating those tax dollars to inner-city education and childcare, rather than have it funding war and government groups that don’t believe in global warming.</p>
<p>aries:</p>
<p>I didn’t read where anyone said…‘wow’…moreover, your point is well made, but you are incorrect about insurance premiums…the figures quoted are AGI, or Adjusted Gross Income. </p>
<p>Assuming the physician is not his/her own accoutant (doctor tax thyself?), that medical premium comes right out of the practice, and is adjusted off the front page of the 1040. Thus, the AGI should be net of insurance, net of office expenses, net of staff salaries, etc., but not net of school loans, as you point out.</p>
<p>The difference is huge between these two families: in family A, one spouse is self-employed (physician, attorney, etc.) and earns $250,00 per annum. Second spouse doesn’t work. They claim a home office, and (sorry - I’m speaking from facts I am familiar with) take tax deductions for dinner with friends who also happen to be clients.</p>
<p>Family B has two working spouses, both work for corporations, one making $100K and the other $150K. </p>
<p>Between these two families, the taxes will be very similar, yet the lifestyle and financial differences of B versus A are huge.</p>
<p>Hayden made my point much better than I could have. 
Thanks!</p>
<p>From what I have seen the time and effort expended to make that $250, particulary for the second family, may eventually not be worth it.</p>
<p>One family I know for instance the dad is a trial attorney and the mom a physician. Probably made lots of income at one point. But the attorney decided he wanted to do more community service work so he ran and won a spot on the school board- huge time commitment no money. He also works with students to teach basics of the legal system and get them intrested in pursuing a career in the law as well as coaches his daughters sports teams.
His wife developed an illness which was exacerbated by clinical practice so she has had to take quite a different job which doesn’t pay as well. They are still doing well, but I would be surprised if they make over $200K and I really don’t think that is as important as having a good life.
You don’t need $200K to have a good life- however you do need health insurance- some job stability and enough money to pay for housing and food for your family.
I am not as concerned with those who easily have enough money to cover all their wants and needs as I am for those families who can’t take their kids to the doctor when they need it or buy them good food.</p>
<p>If this is the same set of statistics that are usually trotted out, don’t forget that it’s based on all tax returns filed. That means out of the 4 returns filed in my house, one (the parents) represents 100% of the income taxes paid. The other 3 (the kids) represent 0% of the income tax paid. Lots of tax returns are filed for people who have little income - retirees, youngsters, etc. Skews the “top X% pay X% of the taxes” perception.</p>
<p>Also skews the “median household income is $50,000/year” perception. That stat is trotted out a lot in an attempt to demonstrate that most families are struggling.</p>
<p>IMO, the best stat would be for type of income tax return filed - full-time student, part-time student, recent college grad who is single and lives in an apartment. Those would be the best for really making some decent policy decisions.</p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>don’t forget the hundreds of thousands that file no return at all, due to the tax changes promulgated by Clinton and Bush.</p>