Yes, the rich really do pay their “fair share” of income taxes

[AlexBailey]

California has about 15 million dwelling units so the loss of about 15,000 units from the wildfires didn’t have a significant impact. Housing in CA will never be affordable by national standards because supply will never catch up with rising demand.

The loss of 15k dwellings made more than 45k people in need of new housing. It made greater competition for the available housing in a market that was already tight, increased the demand for housing in the areas that lost it to accommodate workers who came in to rebuild.

The concept of supply and demand effect the cost of housing and therefore the economy and the cost of living.

It’s a common theme that one of the best real estate investments in CA is short term rentals, ie AirBnb.

My wife deals with the housing shortage as her job. I know what I’m talking about.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Yes, despite higher marginal tax rates under Eisenhower, the top 1% contributed a much lower percentage of total tax revenue collected by the Treasury and paid a much lower percentage of their income in taxes than they do today. Guess Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump felt it was important for the rich to pay more of their fair share in taxes.

Assertions like need to be documented. Just because you read something on a right wing news journal or website does not mean it is true.

 

[adrina]

This is the result of their choices in life. It is not fair to those who made better choices to also be required to pay for the bad choices of others.

It's due to policy which favors the rich. Especially as they are the ones who majorly influence policy.

You can blame them for making choices which do not help or even hurt their chances for wealth accumulation, however you cannot ignore the choices being made by the rich to exploit their leverage and use it to their gain. Especially when it comes at the expense of just about everyone else, but most especially the taxpayers.

 

[AlexBailey]

It's due to policy which favors the rich. Especially as they are the ones who majorly influence policy.

You can blame them for making choices which do not help or even hurt their chances for wealth accumulation, however you cannot ignore the choices being made by the rich to exploit their leverage and use it to their gain. Especially when it comes at the expense of just about everyone else, but most especially the taxpayers.

Real estate investors are constantly advertising quick cash for any house in target areas.

Adds like “John buys Bay Area houses!” Is one of the most common adds you hear if you listens to talk radio.

These are typically large investment groups who provide upward pressure to the markets. It then provides a constant stream of trickle-up revenue as more renters pay rent to more wealthy people who already have more buying leverage.

 

[adrina]

https://www.businessinsider.com/wea...-trillion-working-americans-what-means-2020-9

The wealthiest 1% has taken $50 trillion from working Americans and redistributed it, a new study finds. Here's what that means.​

The report found that $2.5 trillion is redistributed from the bottom 90% of Americans to the wealthiest 1% of Americans every year.

Thanks to the proliferation of trickle-down policies like tax cuts, wage suppression, and stock-market deregulation, 90% of all Americans are demonstrably worse off financially than they were 45 years ago.

Even those Americans who are lucky enough to be in the upper class — from the 90th to the 99th percentile — have basically been treading water these past few decades. People of color, women, and white men have all lost massive sums of money over the past few decades. It's only the top 1% that has benefited from this $50 trillion transfer of wealth.

In the three years since this article was written another 7.5 trillion was sucked up by the wealthy from the poor.

I repeat: policies that are not good for everyday Americans are not good for America itself.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The loss of 15k dwellings made more than 45k people in need of new housing. It made greater competition for the available housing in a market that was already tight, increased the demand for housing in the areas that lost it to accommodate workers who came in to rebuild.

The concept of supply and demand effect the cost of housing and therefore the economy and the cost of living.

It’s a common theme that one of the best real estate investments in CA is short term rentals, ie AirBnb.

My wife deals with the housing shortage as her job. I know what I’m talking about.

I hear you. I lived in CA most of my life and moved out of state the Bay Area last year. Lotsa reasons CA housing is so expensive relative to the rest of the country:

- Cost of land and building costs. Labor, materials, and permitting is really high. Cost to develop typical apartment unit in the Bay Area is estimated to be $850K
- Boomers who have owned their homes for decades and would typically downsize stay put because they have golden handcuffs, so lots of homes that should be on the market are not. There is a proposal in Congress to double the capital gains exclusion. Long overdue and would help a lot if it passes
- Obstacles to build. NIMBY, permitting, etc

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Assertions like need to be documented. Just because you read something on a right wing news journal or website does not mean it is true.

Go back and read my posts. The source data from the WSJ, the Tax Foundation comes directly from the IRS.

 

[IsobelDoc]

There are people starving in America. There are people living in cars and vans because homes are not available or affordable. There are people working three or more gig jobs in America because full time labor with reasonable benefits is more of a pipe dream than a reality for too many.

If you want to castigate those pointing it out that's on you. You're here bitching, so tend to yourself first.

Either address the reality that it's not jealousy or just GTFO. This isn't the kiddie pool.

What exactly is the reality then

How are you helping all those poor people whilst scrolling up and down the politics board to ward of your orgasm while your diddling yourself to the content on the other board.

Its funny you talking about tending to yourself because that's all you are doing. Harping on and screaming at posters on here makes absolutely no difference. If you are such a fucking social warrior get out there and make a difference.

And bitch you want to talk to me about the kiddie pool - bring it on - ill not even bother to spit out your bones.

 

[Lazaran]

The bottom line is: AFTER the corrupt orange traitors TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS, the FEW at the top have an even bigger piece of the pie AFTER taxes than the MANY.

And inflation is TRULY hurting the MANY while the FEW are ACTUALLY benefitting in many ways.

Hope that ^ helps.





Side note: THE FOX “NEW” SCANDAL is tied into this because corrupt rich fucks like Rupert Murdoch love the tax policies of “republicans”.

SAD!!!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And look who has become the head biter....*chuckles*

Before you bite my head off - i'm not rich - I work In the UK's NHS - work more hours and pay more tax than I should.

And bitch you want to talk to me about the kiddie pool - bring it on - ill not even bother to spit out your bones.

How fast they fall.....

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The bottom line is: AFTER the corrupt orange traitors TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS, the FEW at the top have an even bigger piece of the pie AFTER taxes than the MANY.

And inflation is TRULY hurting the MANY while the FEW are ACTUALLY benefitting in many ways.

Hope that ^ helps.





Side note: THE FOX “NEW” SCANDAL is tied into this because corrupt rich fucks like Rupert Murdoch love the tax policies of “republicans”.

SAD!!!

Learn to code

 

[adrina]

What exactly is the reality then

How are you helping all those poor people whilst scrolling up and down the politics board to ward of your orgasm while your diddling yourself to the content on the other board.

Its funny you talking about tending to yourself because that's all you are doing. Harping on and screaming at posters on here makes absolutely no difference. If you are such a fucking social warrior get out there and make a difference.

And bitch you want to talk to me about the kiddie pool - bring it on - ill not even bother to spit out your bones.

Histrionic much. Spit out bones. Go ahead keyboard warrior.

Discussion and basic empathy are required to address the situation. Beyond that you have zero idea what anyone does, what organizations they belong to or what charities they support. Or me. And frankly it's none of your business. You just want to spout off because it reinforces your biases and makes you feel better about having them.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No. The link you provided from the Tax Foundation shows “Historical U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1862-2021.”

It does not show the percentage of federal tax revenue actually collected from each income bracket, nor does it show taxes paid as a proportion of income for each bracket. You are failing to understand the difference between marginal tax RATES and taxes actually PAID.

I never claimed the link did, what I claimed was they paid a higher percentage then, as compared to now.

Here is the Tax Foundation statistics that show the percentage of income and its share of taxes paid for each year from 1980 (pre-Reagan tax cuts) and 2011. As you can see, the percentage paid by the top 1% in 1980 was 19%. The Tax Foundation’s latest analysis for 2020 shows the top 1% PAID 42% of taxes collected. In other words, the contribution from the top 1% has more than doubled despite reductions in tax RATES. The policies enacted under Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump have resulted in the top 1% paying more of their fair share than they did in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

You charts goes back to 1980,are you that fucking stupid??? Nothing in your link below is prior to 1980....
"

The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent. As you can see in the chart below, this is a stark change from the 1980s and early 1990s. But since the early 1980s, the share of taxes paid by the bottom 90 percent has steadily declined.
The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent | Tax Foundation

The effective rate in the 1950's was 42% for upper earners. What is it today?

 

[Lazaran]

BabyBoobs needs to learn how much the average “coder” makes.

(Hint: The average coder is solidly lower middle class.)

Hope that ^ helps.

BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I never claimed the link did, what I claimed was they paid a higher percentage then, as compared to now.

You charts goes back to 1980,are you that fucking stupid??? Nothing in your link below is prior to 1980....
"

The effective rate in the 1950's was 42% for upper earners. What is it today?

Your link does not show that. It simply shows higher rates per bracket. You still don’t get it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Your link does not show that. It simply shows higher rates per bracket. You still don’t get it.

The 42% is not from the link. The 42% is the effective tax rate paid by earners of over $200,000 in 1950. In fact the Tax Foundation, in another article stated the effective rate to be 42%.

Funny eh?

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

 

[HisArpy]

It's due to policy which favors the rich. Especially as they are the ones who majorly influence policy.

You can blame them for making choices which do not help or even hurt their chances for wealth accumulation, however you cannot ignore the choices being made by the rich to exploit their leverage and use it to their gain. Especially when it comes at the expense of just about everyone else, but most especially the taxpayers.

No, it's not.

Bad financial decisions are bad financial decisions. If you want to spend most of your income buying a fancy ride, or worse LEASING one, then don't expect to have the money saved for a down payment on the house of your dreams.

That's not a policy which favors the rich, it's common sense which you seem to lack while you foam at the mouth about others who made better decisions in life than you have.

 

[AlexBailey]

No, it's not.

Bad financial decisions are bad financial decisions. If you want to spend most of your income buying a fancy ride, or worse LEASING one, then don't expect to have the money saved for a down payment on the house of your dreams.

That's not a policy which favors the rich, it's common sense which you seem to lack while you foam at the mouth about others who made better decisions in life than you have.

If you hold the position that our economy isn’t set up in a way that favors the rich, please tell my what you think of Fractional Reserve lending.

Is it not a financial advantage for the banking industry, most profitable sector of the economy, to be able to lend and collect payments on money they do not have?

This makes it so every time someone borrows to extend their resources, the banks are receiving trickle-up money based on repayment for money they never had.

The wealth accumulated by the banking industry is what is behind most of those investment groups that now own more than 40% of the US residential rental market.

 

[HisArpy]

If you hold the position that our economy isn’t set up in a way that favors the rich, please tell my what you think of Fractional Reserve lending.

Is it not a financial advantage for the banking, most profitable sector of the economy, to be able to lend and collect payments on money they do not have?

Banks lend out many times more than the reserves they have and the debtors end up paying back a fiat principal and interest.

This makes it so every time someone borrows to extend their resources the banks are receiving trickle-up money based on paying them back for money they never had.

Lol, it's like you seem to not understand that a lender can lend money they don't have if they sell the paper for that loan to someone who does have money.

You can even do it if you're not the lender in some cases. It's called mortgage origination and it's done in real estate all the time. Which is something done by the little guy and not big money/finance.

Basically, it comes down to the simple fact that you have no clue what you're talking about so you make up shit to cover up your stupidity.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The 42% is not from the link. The 42% is the effective tax rate paid by earners of over $200,000 in 1950. In fact the Tax Foundation, in another article stated the effective rate to be 42%.

Funny eh?

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

Yes, funny indeed. You still haven’t come up with any empirical data regarding actual tax revenues collected from top tier earners earners and bottom tier earners, but at least you’ve found something more than tax tables. And I’m giving you extra credit for sharing a link showing that despite dramatically higher marginal tax RATES, “the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.”

The link also shows us that while the top bracket of tax tables has fallen from the 90% range in the 50s to the around 38% today, and effective rates have dipped only slightly between 1950 and 2014, the top earners still contribute the lions share of tax receipts collected by the US Treasury. That’s even more striking given this explanation of the 1950s average tax rates:

“The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.”

As noted in the original post of this thread, the percentage of taxes collected from the top 1% represents 42% of the total. The top 5% today accounts for 63%.

The final paragraph in your link summarizes the point of this thread well:

“All in all, the idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid much more of their income in taxes should be abandoned. The top 1 percent of Americans today do not face an unusually low tax burden, by historical standards.”

Thanks for helping confirming the point of the thread and the tax policy wisdom of presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump.

 

[adrina]

No, it's not.

Bad financial decisions are bad financial decisions. If you want to spend most of your income buying a fancy ride, or worse LEASING one, then don't expect to have the money saved for a down payment on the house of your dreams.

That's not a policy which favors the rich, it's common sense which you seem to lack while you foam at the mouth about others who made better decisions in life than you have.

Yes it is.

Tax cuts that benefit the very richest. Financial regulations which benefit the very richest.

You seem to lack a basic understanding. If it's a few it's on the individual, if it's over half then it's systemic. The majority of Americans are not living even middle class lives. Over half of American workers make less than $50k a year. That's not poor choices. That's a shitty economy.

 

[AlexBailey]

Lol, it's like you seem to not understand that a lender can lend money they don't have if they sell the paper for that loan to someone who does have money.

You can even do it if you're not the lender in some cases. It's called mortgage origination and it's done in real estate all the time. Which is something done by the little guy and not big money/finance.

Basically, it comes down to the simple fact that you have no clue what you're talking about so you make up shit to cover up your stupidity.

Do you just not have the ability to be civil?

 

[JohnEngelman]

Yes it is.

Tax cuts that benefit the very richest. Financial regulations which benefit the very richest.

You seem to lack a basic understanding. If it's a few it's on the individual, if it's over half then it's systemic. The majority of Americans are not living even middle class lives. Over half of American workers make less thank $50k a year. That's not poor choices. That's a shitty economy.

And I have read that the upper one percent of the U.S. population has as much wealth as the lower half. That is not because the upper one percent work a lot harder than the lower half. It is because of economic decisions Republican politicians have made since the Reagan administration.

 

[adrina]

And I have read that the upper one percent of the U.S. population has as much wealth as the lower half. That is not because the upper one percent work a lot harder than the lower half. It is because of economic decisions Republican politicians have made since the Reagan administration.

To be fair to Reagan (heh) it actually started in the late late 60s and the early 70s. I think it's fair to say that by 1974 we were on our way down this path. Big business mergers, wages beginning to stagnate, the employee benefits gained after WW2 beginning to erode etc. Reagan gave us a big shove further down the path, but it began before him.

And while "conservative" "economic" "policy" is largely responsible for where we are, there are two other groups who have blood on their hands. The democrats who in order to get big money donors, adopted policies beneficial to big corporations into their platform. And the electorate who sat complacent while merger capitalism bought them off with shiny objects.

 

[AlexBailey]

And I have read that the upper one percent of the U.S. population has as much wealth as the lower half.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/

Actually, in the US as of Q3 2022 the upper one percent has 41.38 % of the wealth, while the lower fifty percent has 4.52% of the wealth.