More on taxes

[Peter_Puget]

 

Adjusted gross income floors on top 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50% are as follows: $292,913 $127,904 $92,754 $56,085 $28,528.

 

PP

[HRoark]

Just as I thought, successful hard-working people are getting fucked.

[lI1|1!]

i'm afraid i'm too stupid to understand the above graph. don't columns of percentages need to add up to 100? what's it saying, anybody?

[fern]

only the bottom 2 rows need to add up to 100, since the top 50 includes the top 25 etc. dig?

 

I don't know what it means though. But then I don't pay any income tax

[sal]

hey PP, could you provide a link to that info? i have a friend who would enjoy this.

[Jim]

Oh please, not this again. If the upper incomes are getting so screwed then why has the large gap between the upper end and everyone else been increasing the fastest ever in the last 20 years. Gimme a break. Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years, the inheritance tax is fazing out. Oh poor guys, they have such a heavy burden.

[scott_harpell]

HRoark said:

Just as I thought, successful hard-working people are getting fucked.

 

Hmmm

[Ursa_Eagle]

and those poor people who can't afford a third learjet, life must be so tough for them!

[rr666]

I would say that all the top earners should be paying more of the total share, but why does the bottom 50% always complain that they are paying too many taxes. They may as well not pay anything... plus, how many of them are the main recipients of tax dollars from the top earners?

[Jim]

Let's look at it this way. If the total wealth in the country was $100, this is the way it would be distributed:

 

1 person gets $38.10

 

4 people get $5.32 each

 

5 people get $2.30 each

 

10 people get $1.25 each

 

20 people get .60 each

 

20 people get .23 each

 

40 people get 1/2 cent each

 

 

Given the current marginal tax rates I'd say the upper incomes are getting a deal.

 

[RobBob]

Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years, the inheritance tax is fazing out. Oh poor guys, they have such a heavy burden.

 

If you're going to look back 50 years, might as well look back 100 years. No marginal tax at all, right?

 

I prefer flat consumption tax. Use it---pay it.

[Ursa_Eagle]

Jim said:

20 people get .60 each

20 people get .23 each

 

do you mean 30 people get .23 each?

[rr666]

Jim said:

Let's look at it this way. If the total wealth in the country was $100, this is the way it would be distributed:

 

1 person gets $38.10

 

 

So I would guess that this guy is our friend Mr. Gates?

[Peter_Puget]

Link

 

Check this out:

 

The Swiss economy has faced hard times in the past few years. One canton, Schaffhausen, is doing something about it by changing its tax law to attract wealthy people. Beginning in January 2004, Schaffhausen will replace its system of increasing marginal tax rates on income with a system of degressive marginal rates. The cantonal tax rate will be set at just under 8 percent for income of SFr 100,000. It will rise to a peak of 11.5 percent for income between SFr 600,000 and SFr 800,000. Thereafter, the marginal rate declines with each incremental chunk of income: 10 percent at SFr 1,300,000; 8 percent at SFr 3,000,000; and just over 6 percent for income more than SFr 10,000,000. This is a true incentive-based tax system: the larger one's income, the lower one's marginal rate

 

Jim - Before you address this issue why don't you go back to the productivity thread and read the link I posted there. You might learn something if you free your mind from the constraints of your rigid worldview.

 

PP

[Jim]

Peter - I did read your link. You must have missed my point in my post. Your link cited productivity per capitia, and yes the US has a higher rate than the EU. But that is because US workers WORK MORE HOURS than any other country. When you figure out the productivity per hour the US drops behind the EU. So while they have more time off, they're more productive per hour.

 

Bottom line is that marginal tax rates are at lows not seen in at least 50 years. No reasons for whinning at the upper levels.

[Peter_Puget]

My link expressly addresses productivity per hour . You originally claimed that some EU nations had productivity per hour higher than the US. Now you seem to be suggesting that the EU on average has a higher productivity per hour. Which is it?

 

PP

[Ursa_Eagle]

Peter_Puget said:

My link expressly addresses productivity per hour . You originally claimed that some EU nations had productivity per hour higher than the US. Now you seem to be suggesting that the EU on average has a higher productivity per hour. Which is it?

 

PP

 

I don't see your point PP

[Jim]

Actually your link mixes measurements. While productivity is mention once per hour, the author switches back to GDP per capitia. This may be his intention but it's not clear. The source link doesn't work so hard to figure out.

 

I have read a summary that states otherwise. It's at home so I could rummage for it. But the summary is that the primary reason our GDP and per capitis productivity is high is that we WORK MORE HOURS than other countries. I haven't changed my tune on this point.

 

Productivity has doubled since 1969. Yet, unlike Europe, where productivity gains have translated into stable incomes and shorter hours, American employers have kept down wages and increased hours.

 

The average work isn't any better than a worker in 1970. So where did the profit go from all this productivity increase. Rewind to the income distribution chart.

 

Yea I know, lower taxes, lower taxes. Either that or bomb someone. Always a good answer.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Point one: Jim's claim that the link I posted doesn't address prod/hr is false.

 

Point two: Jim is now changing his facts.

 

See this for EU productivity per hour. You can come to your own conclusion on how misleading Jim’s claims are when they are true and how wrong they are when they are false.

 

PP

 

[HRoark]

Jim said:

Oh please, not this again. If the upper incomes are getting so screwed then why has the large gap between the upper end and everyone else been increasing the fastest ever in the last 20 years. Gimme a break. Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years, the inheritance tax is fazing out. Oh poor guys, they have such a heavy burden.

 

So, because successful people ARE successful that means you have a right to THEIR income, THEIR wealth, and THEIR labor? I don't understand this mentality. People talk about equality and 'fairness', but turn a blind eye when they see statistics like are in that chart. On a percentage basis, why should someone earning $250,000 pay more than someone earning $30,000? And come up with something better than, "because they can afford it". That is not a logical reason. A flat tax is fair and equitable.

[Jim]

Well I would disagree. I think inherent fairness is one part of a tax code. And certainly there should be limits. The trickle down theory of economics has been discredited, so let's not go down that road.

 

And again I would point to the widening economic gap between rich and poor. If the rich are hurtin' so much then why are they raking in more and more?

 

No whinning please.

[HRoark]

Jim said:

If the rich are hurtin' so much then why are they raking in more and more?

 

It's not a matter of "hurting." It is a matter of entitlement; the government claims an entitlement to the earned wealth of people who work hard and are successful. They exercise this entitlement in an unfair, and unequal way. They punish, in essence, those who have made themselves successful by imposing upon them higher taxes.

[Jim]

HRoark said:

Jim said:

If the rich are hurtin' so much then why are they raking in more and more?

 

It's not a matter of "hurting." It is a matter of entitlement; the government claims an entitlement to the earned wealth of people who work hard and are successful. They exercise this entitlement in an unfair, and unequal way. They punish, in essence, those who have made themselves successful by imposing upon them higher taxes.

 

Oh brother, you know, I'm gonna start crying here for the upper 10% soon if you keep it up. Poor babies. One more time - tax rates have been coming steadily down for the upper incomes - lower marginal rates, fazing out of the inheritance tax, lowering the capital gains tax.

 

Plus if you're in the upper 10% or so you have the capability of using the tax laws to help you, gifting, living trusts, insurance investments.

 

I'm not buying it. You earn more you pay more. No way that 10% off a $30,000 income means the same as 10% off a $3 million dollar income.

 

Gotta go key our some Alaskan sedges - later.

[HRoark]

Yes, Jim, you make more you pay more. However, the current system exacts a much higher percentage of those who earn more. If the percentage was the same for everyone, the upper 10% would still pay more than the lower 50%.

 

Oh, and thanks for responding in a logically thought out way. What type of response is "I'm not crying for them"? You are sidestepping the issue I brought up which is the blatantly unfair method of taxation.

[JayB]

Jim:

 

I would have to go searching for documentation to back it up - don't have time to google at the moment - but I recall reading a few papers which demonstrated that every time the top marginal tax rates have been lowered, the percentage of all taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans has increased, rather than decreased (maybe PP has a link).