New IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefitted middle, working class Americans most

[GothTalk]

They actually don't. Again their effective tax rate is much much less. Somewhere between 0% and 8% (I was being generous and using your 6% number).

OH we suddenly shift back to rate instead of total volume in dollars... how convenient.

They actually do Dan.... go back to total volume instead of effective rate.

When it comes to who puts the most dollars in the coffers it's the top 20% that pays for almost everything.

 

[jomar]

...

The fact that you ALWAYS point to that fact that the 1% has more, especially when (R)'s actually do things to help the working/middle class, unlike the (D)'eez who exist to fuck them.

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else here, unless you're using the royal you as a broad stroke for Dems.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

They actually don't. Again their effective tax rate is much much less. Somewhere between 0% and 8% (I was being generous and using your 6% number).

Also, since the US tax system is geared towards redistributing money upwards the very wealthy wind up paying almost nothing on huge incomes. For example, "the rich pay a far lower payroll tax rate than regular people. A nurse making a salary of $50,000 per year pays (counting both the employee and employer side) 12.4 percent in OASDI taxes (for Social Security and disability insurance). But a sitcom star making a thousand times that, or $50 million a year, will pay the 12.4 percent only on the initial $130,000 of their salary, working out to a total OASDI tax rate of just 0.03 percent on their $50 million. And because OASDI taxes are only levied on earned income — meaning, money you make from a job — a billionaire investor with a $50 million annual income from dividends and capital gains will pay exactly zero percent in OASDI taxes."

In other words the rich are paying way below whatever the income tables state because once their incomes get above a certain level they're basically paying no taxes.

Again, the stuff you're saying is exactly what Heartland said "Look at the tax rates in the tables the rich are paying 40%!" Well, no, they're not. Once you factor in their actual incomes their effective tax rate drops to anywhere between 0 and 8%. This is how you wind up with Warren Buffet's secretary paying a higher tax rate than he does.

The top 1% contributed 40% of all federal income tax revenues in 2018. The top 10% contributed 71%.

 

[GothTalk]

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else here, unless you're using the royal you as a broad stroke for Dems.

Economic and racial equity is literally the party platform dude.

I'm not broad stroking anything, I'm just acknowledging what they themselves say they are and not pretending (D)'s haven't changed a single bit in 80 years.

Diversity, equity and inclusion are most important, fuck freedom, civil liberties and the pursuit of happiness.... that's all white supremacist shit.

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

 

[dan_c00000]

OH we suddenly shift back to rate instead of total volume in dollars... how convenient.

They actually do Dan.... go back to total volume instead of effective rate.

When it comes to who puts the most dollars in the coffers it's the top 20% that pays for almost everything.

The top 1% contributed 40% of all federal income tax revenues in 2018. The top 10% contributed 71%.

Hmm you both clearly didn't read my post. It's pretty obvious from the fact that I talked about rate quite a bit. Maybe you both ought to re-read that?

Sure, the rich pay 40% of federal income tax, no is disputing that. In fact, I said it. My point is that is that 40% number fair? Historically, it's quite low. I'd bet that when the rich had to pay a 70% tax rate they paid a higher total percentage of all income tax. Again though the question is: is that number fair?

I just told you it isn't, since the rich make so much more money and that rate is only in effect for a small portion of it they wind up paying less, percentage-wise, than the average person. I used Warren Buffet as an example. This is all discussed in detail in a report literally called "The Buffet Rule: A Basic Principle of Tax Fairness".

Anyway, I really really suggest you actually read posts before replying to them. You might learn something.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hmm you both clearly didn't read my post. It's pretty obvious from the fact that I talked about rate quite a bit. Maybe you both ought to re-read that?

Sure, the rich pay 40% of federal income tax, no is disputing that. In fact, I said it. My point is that is that 40% number fair? Historically, it's quite low. I'd bet that when the rich had to pay a 70% tax rate they paid a higher total percentage of all income tax. Again though the question is: is that number fair?

I just told you it isn't, since the rich make so much more money and that rate is only in effect for a small portion of it they wind up paying less, percentage-wise, than the average person. I used Warren Buffet as an example. This is all discussed in detail in a report literally called "The Buffet Rule: A Basic Principle of Tax Fairness".

Anyway, I really really suggest you actually read posts before replying to them. You might learn something.

We both agree on what was stated in the original post. I’m not interested in debating whether or not the top 1% should be paying more than 40% of revenues collected by the treasury. FWIW, in 1980, the top 1% only paid 19% of the total vs 40% today.

 

[pecksniff]

We both agree on what was stated in the original post. I’m not interested in debating whether or not the top 1% should be paying more than 40% of revenues collected by the treasury. FWIW, in 1980, the top 1% only paid 19% of the total vs 40% today.

That they can pay that much more now is indicative of how much more of the national wealth the top 1% has cornered since 1980.

 

[Lazaran]

.
BabyBooBoo just cant stop shooting himself in the dick.

He also must be one hell of a shot.

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

.
BabyBooBoo just cant stop shooting himself in the dick.

He also must be one hell of a shot.

JFC

SAD!!!

Get back to us when you are able to provide evidence that any statement I made is incorrect. We’ll wait.

 

[ishtat]

The source data comes from the IRS. Some of the liberals here are having a difficult time understanding the difference between dollars and percentages. Taxpayers making $50K to $100K saw a 17% tax cut. Those with AGIs between $100K and $500K saw a 13% cut. People earning more than $1 million only saw a 6% cut.

In other words, wealthier tax payers saw a lower percentage cut than middle class taxpayers. Overall, 94% of us got a tax cut. I’ve been monitoring the comments. Lots of deflection and misdirection, but no one has refuted these numbers.

You seem to completely miss the basic point that wealthier taxpayers, like me, were enabled by Trump to opt out of paying taxes altogether. Poorer people were given a pittance to con them. Playing the percentages game is nonsense: it is not about percentages; it is firstly whether you pay at all and secondly how much in dollars.

No -one should bother with or refute those numbers, because they are the heart of the con job.

 

[GothTalk]

My point is that is that 40% number fair?

Only if everyone is paying 40%.

Historically, it's quite low.

No it's not, I mean unless you ignore everything before WWII.

I'd bet that when the rich had to pay a 70% tax rate they paid a higher total percentage of all income tax. Again though the question is: is that number fair?

Of course, and again, only if everyone is paying 70%.

I just told you it isn't, since the rich make so much more money and that rate is only in effect for a small portion of it they wind up paying less, percentage-wise, than the average person.

No, they don't, they pay the same as everyone else (% rate wise) and because they have so much they pay more than everyone else.

I used Warren Buffet as an example. This is all discussed in detail in a report literally called "The Buffet Rule: A Basic Principle of Tax Fairness".

Ahhh yes, the rage generator for people who don't understand the differences between income, wealth, investments and capital gains.

Bravo!!!

Anyway, I really really suggest you actually read posts before replying to them. You might learn something.

I'm not the one spouting ignorant shit that needs to learn something.

 

[pecksniff]

Only if everyone is paying 40%.

There are very good reasons why the income tax has always been levied on a progressive basis.

 

[Lazaran]

You seem to completely miss the basic point that wealthier taxpayers, like me, were enabled by Trump to opt out of paying taxes altogether. Poorer people were given a pittance to con them. Playing the percentages game is nonsense: it is not about percentages; it is firstly whether you pay at all and secondly how much in dollars.

No -one should bother with or refute those numbers, because they are the heart of the con job.

BabyBooBoo thinks decent people are as gullible as Deplorables.

 

[GothTalk]

You seem to completely miss the basic point that wealthier taxpayers, like me, were enabled by Trump to opt out of paying taxes altogether.

Only if you keep it invested in something, move it and pay.

Nothing new and nothing that Trump did.

Poorer people were given a pittance to con them.

Allowing pooer people to keep more of their hard earned money is a con??

Better than anything the (D)'s have offered sine the space program.

Playing the percentages game is nonsense: it is not about percentages;

^^ This is either an intentional lie of obfuscation or ignorance showing.

Percentages matter, anyone telling you otherwise is trying to put their hand in your pocket.

it is firstly whether you pay at all and secondly how much in dollars.

Everyone pays.

How much is determined by that percentage you said doesn't matter.

No -one should bother with or refute those numbers, because they are the heart of the con job.

The only con job here is in your post above.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You seem to completely miss the basic point that wealthier taxpayers, like me, were enabled by Trump to opt out of paying taxes altogether. Poorer people were given a pittance to con them. Playing the percentages game is nonsense: it is not about percentages; it is firstly whether you pay at all and secondly how much in dollars.

No -one should bother with or refute those numbers, because they are the heart of the con job.

Ok, I’ll bite. There are, and always have been cases where high income people legally avoid paying any tax at all. Those cases are rare, and if the taxpayer is using tax law provisions as they were intended, perfectly ok.

So tell us, what provisions in the TCJA enable you to pay zero income tax?

 

[Lazaran]

.
BabyBooBoo moves the goalposts yet again, veering into "legal" vs just.

The whole point of the traitor in chief's and republican's big beautiful tax cuts for the rich was to make it "legal" for them to avoid paying taxes on their grossly disproportionate compensation. Duh.

The rich realized long ago that it was better to buy politicians to write favorable tax laws than to cheat on their taxes and risk prosecution.

Decent people recognize the scam, while Deplorables contribute to the grifters efforts.

SAD!!!

Side note: BabyBooBoo should stop shooting himself in the dick. He mist be costing himself a fortune in BBs

*chuckles*

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

.
BabyBooBoo moves the goalposts yet again, veering into "legal" vs just.

The whole point of the traitor in chief's and republican's big beautiful tax cuts for the rich was to make it "legal" for them to avoid paying taxes on their grossly disproportionate compensation. Duh.

The rich realized long ago that it was better to buy politicians to write favorable tax laws than to cheat on their taxes and risk prosecution.

Decent people recognize the scam, while Deplorables contribute to the grifters efforts.

SAD!!!

Side note: BabyBooBoo should stop shooting himself in the dick. He mist be costing himself a fortune in BBs

*chuckles*

And yet you have not disputed a single fact I’ve posted. Tax cuts by income bracket, percent of all taxpayers who received a tax cut, and tax revenue contribution by the top 1% from 1980 till now. Take as long as you need to keep working on it. We’ll wait.

 

[dan_c00000]

FWIW, in 1980, the top 1% only paid 19% of the total vs 40% today.

That's a very good point and it's because, simply, the rich own an even greater percentage of the wealth than they did in the 1970s/1980s.

For example, the top 1% in 1980 owned about 35% of the wealth by 2010 they owned nearly 55%. The richest have also seen their income increase much more rapidly than anyone else (and their income has continued to rise even as the middle class's has fallen). In fact, according to one report, the current level of income concentration resembles the 1920s.

So while the rich are paying a larger percent and paying more in terms of overall dollars they own and earn significantly more creating an extremely unequal society. The US has a Gini coefficient number of 41 which puts it between Sir Lanka (39) and South Sudan (44). Which is to say that the US has an extremely poor level of wealth distribution.

Again, you keep missing the point here: the numbers aren't in dispute what's in dispute is are those number fairs? And, again, the answer is no because the wealthy have so much and pay so little compared to everyone else.

Your issue is you can't defend people like Bezos or Musk buying yet another ultra mega yacht because someone who has of nearly $270 billion is going to live just as good a life as if he had "only" $150 billion.

The right has done such a stellar job of suckering voters into thinking that the rich are on the average person's side and they totally aren't. If they cared about actual people they wouldn't pollute the communities they live in or fire their workers out or revenge for reporting awful working conditions.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Another 2 million quit their jobs.


...not really relevant but there are no good econ threads.

 

[Lazaran]

That's a very good point and it's because, simply, the rich own an even greater percentage of the wealth than they did in the 1970s/1980s.

For example, the top 1% in 1980 owned about 35% of the wealth by 2010 they owned nearly 55%. The richest have also seen their income increase much more rapidly than anyone else (and their income has continued to rise even as the middle class's has fallen). In fact, according to one report, the current level of income concentration resembles the 1920s.

So while the rich are paying a larger percent and paying more in terms of overall dollars they own and earn significantly more creating an extremely unequal society. The US has a Gini coefficient number of 41 which puts it between Sir Lanka (39) and South Sudan (44). Which is to say that the US has an extremely poor level of wealth distribution.

Again, you keep missing the point here: the numbers aren't in dispute what's in dispute is are those number fairs? And, again, the answer is no because the wealthy have so much and pay so little compared to everyone else.

Your issue is you can't defend people like Bezos or Musk buying yet another ultra mega yacht because someone who has of nearly $270 billion is going to live just as good a life as if he had "only" $150 billion.

The right has done such a stellar job of suckering voters into thinking that the rich are on the average person's side and they totally aren't. If they cared about actual people they wouldn't pollute the communities they live in or fire their workers out or revenge for reporting awful working conditions.

Deplorables like BabyBooBoo knows THIS ^ AND that the traitor in chief's and republican's tax cut for the rich exacerbated the problem, but he purposefully avoids it because it destroys his propagandistic narrative.

SAD!!!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

We’re still waiting but go ahead and get some rest. We’ll be patient.

 

[Lazaran]

.
I love when Deplorables like BabyBooBoo start threads like this, only to wind up having their teeth kicked in by facts in evidence proving the rich benefitted the "MOST" from the traitor in chief's and republican's big beautiful tax cuts for the rich.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

.
I love when Deplorables like BabyBooBoo start threads like this, only to wind up having their teeth kicked in by facts in evidence proving the rich benefitted the "MOST" from the traitor in chief's and republican's big beautiful tax cuts for the rich.

Still nothing to refute the facts I shared. It’s ok Laz. We’ll continue waiting.

 

[srgreene]

.
BabyBooBoo should read ProPublica's expose on the secret IRS files that show how billionaires reaped yuuuge tax savings from the traitor in chief's and republican's "big beautiful" tax cuts for the wealthy.

JFC

SAD!!!

Did you have some point to make? You couldn't even be bothered to cite the expose. Sheesh!

 

[dan_c00000]

Still nothing to refute the facts I shared. It’s ok Laz. We’ll continue waiting.

If you read my posts I didn't refute your facts. I refuted your interpretation of the facts, well, not yours, but Heartland's.

Also, the facts pretty much prove that the US has a horrible problem with income inequality that make social and economic mobility extremely difficult to achieve which means that the poor stay poor while the rich get richer.