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

[Fuzzy1975]

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.”

Lol,

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:

Right the rates have drop by 5.6% which means in 1950 the wealthy were paying 5.6% more than today. Glad we agree.

“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.”

Note 4
The data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman is not divided among federal, state, and local taxes, so it is difficult to tell exactly how much the rich were paying in federal income taxes specifically during this period.

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:

In 1950 the ratio of money the wealthy had to compared to the middle class was much smaller than today. Today the wealthy to middle class ratio is much larger. However the middle class itself is much large than it was in 1950, due to population, where as the wealthy ratio of the rich to middle class as people has not grown as much.

Which is why, statistic can be twisted to fit any narrative. You are arguing the rich pay more today proportionally than they did in 1950, which is statistically correct. Yet the rich as a percentage of their income are paying less than they did in the 1950's by about 5.6 %.

A 5.6% increase of taxes from the 724 billionaires in the USA would be how much?

 

[Lazaran]

Do you just not have the ability to be civil?

Harpy’s Tourettes like outbursts are a side effect of drinking Carbon based water.

Also: Harpy is a sociopathic cuck who sees some benefit in the gross disparities

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.

That ^ is why I focus on today, and which party / voting bloc is most dedicated to (and capable of) correcting the gross social and economic disparities in America.

As the RWCJ is so fond of recalling, Democrats were the original party of white supremacists. - Now the “republicans” are.

Times and parties change.

Moral compasses don’t.

 

[Lazaran]

A 5.6% increase of taxes from the 724 billionaires in the USA would be how much?

Then multiply that by 40 years or more.

Then imagine if the percentage was even bigger.

That ^ would add up.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Which is why, statistic can be twisted to fit any narrative. You are arguing the rich pay more today proportionally than they did in 1950, which is statistically correct. Yet the rich as a percentage of their income are paying less than they did in the 1950's by about 5.6 %.

A 5.6% increase of taxes from the 724 billionaires in the USA would be how much?

We know the effective rate dipped for the top 1% but The Tax Foundation’s analysis of proportional contribution to taxes collected doesn’t go back to that far and it doesn’t address changes to effective rates for earners outside the 1% group so we can’t get a full picture.

To your question about the potential revenue collection impact of a 5.6% hike in the effective tax rate, thats anyone’s guess. Would the the 735 billionaires pay more taxes? Or would they take steps to reduce their taxable income? Your guess is as good as mine.

While we don’t have an apples to apples comparison between now and the 50s, the Tax Foundation does provide an apples to apples comparison that goes back each year to 1980. That’s useful because 1980 pre-dates the Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump tax cuts. What the analysis shows is that top 1% actually pay more of their fair share today than they did 40 years ago, before Reagan and his successors signed legislation reducing rates. I suspect that surprises many people.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I’ve seen several comments in this thread alluding to the growing (and very real) gap between the wealthiest individuals in America and the middle class and the poor. Although the topic of this thread is income and income taxes paid rather than wealth disparities, some have suggested taxing wealth as a remedy to the wealth gap. At the national level, Senators Warren and Sanders have been the most visible promoters of that idea. So far, no wealth tax bills have gotten traction in Congress and to his credit, President Biden has shown no interest in the concept either.

There is a wealth tax bill that has been introduced this year in the California state legislature. What’s interesting about this development is that Governor Newsom, who is one of the most progressive governors in the country, also recognizes the folly of this idea. He’s already declared the bill “dead on arrival.”

https://www.atr.org/gavin-newsom-declares-new-wealth-tax-dead-on-arrival-in-california/

 

[ll74]

A side note - the whole, "if you tax the rich, that will pass along the cost to the consumer" argument would hold water if tax percentage for the higher tiers used to be significantly higher. Yet costs didn't significantly drop once those taxes were lowered.

 

[HisArpy]

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.

More bullshit.

Your lot in life isn't dictated by regulations which benefit the very richest. You get where you are by the skills and talents you have. If the only thing you can do is dig latrine ditches, then you dig. If that's not as lucrative as other jobs in the high finance world that's no one's fault, it's just the way it is.

Thinking that everyone is equal and deserves an equal outcome just shows that you don't really know what equal means. Which is probably why you're out there in the latrine pit with a shovel.

 

[JohnEngelman]

A statement about fairness is a normative statement. An empirical statement can be measured and verified. A normative statement cannot be.

A normative statement amounts to saying "I like it." or "I do not like it." People like and dislike different things. Consequently, normative statements are not really debatable. In political arguments I try to restrict myself to empirical statements.

In the decades leading up the the French Revolution the French aristocracy was the richest class in France. It did little that was useful to anyone else. It paid virtually no taxes.

Most of those in the French aristocracy and their hangers on and apologists thought this was fair. Most the French did not. The French Revolution happened.

 

[HisArpy]

Do you just not have the ability to be civil?

Certainly I can. If you want to debate without being a flaming hemorrhoid I'm more than willing to do so. All it takes is for you to stop parroting bullshit as if it were fact then step back and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

But remember this; if you're going to act like a flaming hemorrhoid, then I'm going to get my tube of Prep H and apply it liberal-ly.

 

[JohnEngelman]

The Second World War ended in 1945. The national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was 114%.

The last year of Jimmy Carter's administration was 1980. The national debt was $905,billion. The national debt was 32% of gross domestic product. From 1945 to 1980 the United States had had Republican and Democratic presidents. During this time the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) declined every year. It declined during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. During this time the top tax rate never got below 70%. It was shortly as high as 94%. During the Eisenhower administration it fluctuated between 91% and 92%.

The administration of Ronald Reagan lasted from 1981 to 1988. During this time the top tax rate declined to 28%. The national debt grew to $2,602. The national debt as a percentage of GDP grew to 50%.

Because of Republican tax cuts for the rich, when President Trump left office in 2020 the national debt as a percentage of GDP had grown to 129% of GDP.

After two years of the Biden presidency this had declined to 123%.

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Beginning with the Reagan administration real after tax income for the best paid one percent of the U.S. population had risen dramatically. For most Americans it has stagnated or declined.



I will let others decide if this is fair or not.

 

[AlexBailey]

Certainly I can. If you want to debate without being a flaming hemorrhoid I'm more than willing to do so. All it takes is for you to stop parroting bullshit as if it were fact then step back and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

But remember this; if you're going to act like a flaming hemorrhoid, then I'm going to get my tube of Prep H and apply it liberal-ly.

Yeah? Follow your responses to my posts on this thread and see who’s acting like the “flaming hemorrhoid.”

 

[adrina]

More bullshit.

Your lot in life isn't dictated by regulations which benefit the very richest. You get where you are by the skills and talents you have. If the only thing you can do is dig latrine ditches, then you dig. If that's not as lucrative as other jobs in the high finance world that's no one's fault, it's just the way it is.

Thinking that everyone is equal and deserves an equal outcome just shows that you don't really know what equal means. Which is probably why you're out there in the latrine pit with a shovel.

Heh, the wealthy folks lot in life sure is. Wonder why it is that one group is so positively impacted but apparently you believe there is no negative impact on others.

I'm debating from a place of facts and statistics. You're spouting corporate shill platitudes. Keep slinging insults. I'm sure if you call people enough names that the wealth gap will magically narrow, the housing crisis will be solved and greedflation will disappear as if it was never a thing.

 

[Lazaran]

Heh, the wealthy folks lot in life sure is. Wonder why it is that one group is so positively impacted but apparently you believe there is no negative impact on others.

I'm debating from a place of facts and statistics. You're spouting corporate shill platitudes. Keep slinging insults. I'm sure if you call people enough names that the wealth gap will magically narrow, the housing crisis will be solved and greedflation will disappear as if it was never a thing.

Like most on the “right”, Harpy would like decent intelligent people to ignore the rich elephant in the room and focus on the poor mice that are terrifying the rich elephant.

Harpy

 

[HisArpy]

Heh, the wealthy folks lot in life sure is. Wonder why it is that one group is so positively impacted but apparently you believe there is no negative impact on others.

I'm debating from a place of facts and statistics. You're spouting corporate shill platitudes. Keep slinging insults. I'm sure if you call people enough names that the wealth gap will magically narrow, the housing crisis will be solved and greedflation will disappear as if it was never a thing.

Even more bullshit.

What you term "negative impact" is nothing but the fact that some people don't have the buying power that others do. There's nothing nefarious in that but you're trying to make it seem like achieving financial success is a bad thing.

Why?

Because you, like so many others, have to excuse your own excesses and financial mistakes by blaming those who didn't make those mistakes.

You have no facts. All you have is a whine more tinny than the sound of a mosquito combined with enough acid to make more batteries than the world can use in a 1000 years.

 

[Rotadom]

You have no facts. All you have is a whine more tinny than the sound of a mosquito combined with enough acid to make more batteries than the world can use in a 1000 years.

You're an "author?"

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah? Follow your responses to my posts on this thread and see who’s acting like the “flaming hemorrhoid.”

That would be you, but I repeat myself.

You've got this misconception that, in a polite conversation about a ball game between OKC and Oakland you can inject slurs about a different team which somehow affect the yet to be decided outcome of the game we're talking about. And then blame me for those slurs.

Polite, you are not.

 

[HisArpy]

You're an "author?"

Straight to Ad Hom.

You're such a winner...

 

[JohnEngelman]

You have no facts.

I have already posted these facts:



I doubt the rich are working any harder than they were before the Reagan administration. Because economic growth goes increasingly to interest, rents, and dividends, rather than pay raises, many of the rich do little work at all.

 

[adrina]

Even more bullshit.

What you term "negative impact" is nothing but the fact that some people don't have the buying power that others do. There's nothing nefarious in that but you're trying to make it seem like achieving financial success is a bad thing.

Why?

Because you, like so many others, have to excuse your own excesses and financial mistakes by blaming those who didn't make those mistakes.

You have no facts. All you have is a whine more tinny than the sound of a mosquito combined with enough acid to make more batteries than the world can use in a 1000 years.

Does it make you feel better to make excuses to belittle people?

I've been popping off statistics in this thread in almost every single post. Usually multiple.

Financial success for the very very few is what we have. You don't seem to comprehend that what is bad for most Americans is indeed bad for America. Merger capitalism and mega corporations are not good for most Americans.

Go yell at the clouds.

 

[HisArpy]

Does it make you feel better to make excuses to belittle people?

I've been popping off statistics in this thread in almost every single post. Usually multiple.

Financial success for the very very few is what we have. You don't seem to comprehend that what is bad for most Americans is indeed bad for America. Merger capitalism and mega corporations are not good for most Americans.

Go yell at the clouds.

You seem to think that your beliefs and fantasies are statistics and facts when they aren't.

You also seem to believe that you're entitled to take the achievements of others and give them to yourself while blaming them for being successful and "forcing" you to steal from them.

"[M]ost Americans" wouldn't know what is good for them from what is bad for them. The proof in that is in their poor decision making when it comes to finance and their own health. That's not even mentioning their decisions when it comes to imbibing things like Fentanyl, crack, and even pot. Or are you suggesting that those who do and support the free use of that shit are making choices because the wealthy have all the money?


The only one yelling at clouds here; is you. People make bad decisions and need to accept the consequences of those decisions. You blaming "the rich" because of those bad decisions is yet another bad decision on your part.

 

[Rotadom]

More bullshit.

Your lot in life isn't dictated by regulations which benefit the very richest. You get where you are by the skills and talents you have. If the only thing you can do is dig latrine ditches, then you dig. If that's not as lucrative as other jobs in the high finance world that's no one's fault, it's just the way it is.

Thinking that everyone is equal and deserves an equal outcome just shows that you don't really know what equal means. Which is probably why you're out there in the latrine pit with a shovel.

Certainly I can. If you want to debate without being a flaming hemorrhoid I'm more than willing to do so. All it takes is for you to stop parroting bullshit as if it were fact then step back and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

But remember this; if you're going to act like a flaming hemorrhoid, then I'm going to get my tube of Prep H and apply it liberal-ly.

Even more bullshit.

What you term "negative impact" is nothing but the fact that some people don't have the buying power that others do. There's nothing nefarious in that but you're trying to make it seem like achieving financial success is a bad thing.

Why?

Because you, like so many others, have to excuse your own excesses and financial mistakes by blaming those who didn't make those mistakes.

You have no facts. All you have is a whine more tinny than the sound of a mosquito combined with enough acid to make more batteries than the world can use in a 1000 years.

You're an "author?"

That would be you, but I repeat myself.

You've got this misconception that, in a polite conversation about a ball game between OKC and Oakland you can inject slurs about a different team which somehow affect the yet to be decided outcome of the game we're talking about. And then blame me for those slurs.

Polite, you are not.

Straight to Ad Hom.

You're such a winner...

Hypocritical whiny bitch boy sez watt?

 

[adrina]

Am I the only one seeing how completely ridiculous this exchange is?

Me: Here's a detailed and accurate statistic.

Him: You're jealous of rich people because you're poor and you suck.

Okie dokey artichokey.

 

[ll74]

Even more bullshit.

What you term "negative impact" is nothing but the fact that some people don't have the buying power that others do. There's nothing nefarious in that but you're trying to make it seem like achieving financial success is a bad thing.

Why?

Because you, like so many others, have to excuse your own excesses and financial mistakes by blaming those who didn't make those mistakes.

You have no facts. All you have is a whine more tinny than the sound of a mosquito combined with enough acid to make more batteries than the world can use in a 1000 years.

The majority of issues, financially in the US, is due to the cost of medical care

Fuck your "they make bad decisions" horseshit

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...americans-have-problems-medical-bills-or-debt

 

[Rotadom]

Am I the only one seeing how completely ridiculous this exchange is?

Me: Here's a detailed and accurate statistic.

Him: You're jealous of rich people because you're poor and you suck.

Okie dokey artichokey.

Quit insulting the intelligence of artichokeys.

If I heard this exchange in a bar, I would think Ashton was punking me.

 

[HisArpy]

Am I the only one seeing how completely ridiculous this exchange is?

Me: Here's a detailed and accurate statistic.

Him: You're jealous of rich people because you're poor and you suck.

Okie dokey artichokey.

The truth hurts, yes?