Over the past 10 years

[olyclimber]

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2202020,00.html

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2202020,00.html

 

 

there's nothing stopping him (or any of YOU) from paying more.

 

you can always fail to itemize, decline to take money owed to you, or simply cut Uncle Sam a check - GO FOR IT TRENDSETTERS

 

 

[JayB]

Key Quote;

 

"...the top 1% of US earners accounted for 39% of tax revenue - and the highest earning 25% of the population delivered 86% of the tax-take."

 

 

 

 

[olyclimber]

who are you guys to question Warren Buffet?

[sexual_chocolate]

The top 10% of the population owns 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% owns 38% of the wealth in the US.

 

The bottom 40% owns less than 1% of the total wealth.

 

This actually represents the federal tax take pretty evenly, and one could argue that this means the tax system is working fairly well (I tend to favor a progressive tax system that then uses resources to addresses the sources of this highly inequitable distribution of wealth, since it's fairly self-evident that the wealthy can afford a higher tax, and many broad social ills can then be addressed).

[lI1|1!]

i'm genuinely concerned if you give the poor a tax break they will just spend it on hookers and blow.

 

now if i just had more money i'd be a republican.

 

 

[JayB]

If you want to round out the analysis, look at the effect of state and local sales/income taxes on the working poor.

 

 

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Is our tax system primarily taxing wealth or income? Does it matter?

[olyclimber]

Is our tax system primarily taxing wealth or income? Does it matter?

 

true enough though they are 99 times out of 100 the same thing...money breeds money (interest being the easy way).

 

then you have Paris Hilton...

[Peter_Puget]

So if true Porter one would expect thet membership in the top 1% 5% to be fairly static. Can you find evidence supporting this? Why don't you start with 2005 then compare to 1980 then compare 1955. The consider the "robber barons" and their progeny.

[olyclimber]

no, i'd rather speculate about it, thanks.

[sexual_chocolate]

So if true Porter one would expect thet membership in the top 1% 5% to be fairly static. Can you find evidence supporting this? Why don't you start with 2005 then compare to 1980 then compare 1955. The consider the "robber barons" and their progeny.

 

There is a lack of plasticity in wealth movement in the very top tier, and there is ample evidence to prove this. Of course, Republicans want to do away with the inheritance tax, which would further solidify this situation.

 

Here's an interesting link.

[Bug]

Republicans demand a study.

Extensive research.

Notable experts.

Unless they are quoting Rush.

[JayB]

So if true Porter one would expect thet membership in the top 1% 5% to be fairly static. Can you find evidence supporting this? Why don't you start with 2005 then compare to 1980 then compare 1955. The consider the "robber barons" and their progeny.

 

There is a lack of plasticity in wealth movement in the very top tier, and there is ample evidence to prove this. Of course, Republicans want to do away with the inheritance tax, which would further solidify this situation.

 

Here's an interesting link.

 

If there's anything that helps the poor, its the mortgage interest deduction, the capital gains exemption, the deduction for property taxes, etc.

 

 

[chucK]

How do these home-owning tax breaks help the poor? What are you defining as poor?

[olyclimber]

if there is anything that helps the poor it is getting trickled on by the rich

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How do these home-owning tax breaks help the poor? What are you defining as poor?

 

who are you defining as rich? someone who makes more than you?

[olyclimber]

the rich are defined as the people who trickle down

[olyclimber]

eat the rich

[olyclimber]

but the top 1% who own the most of the wealth obviously have the thicker flow

[JayB]

How do these home-owning tax breaks help the poor? What are you defining as poor?

 

There's a wealth of data out there that prove that home ownership and wealth vary in inverse proportions to one another. The poorest Americans are statistically the most likely to own rather than rent, and the value of the homes they own increases in direct proportion to their poverty, so the dollar value of the subsidy they get for their larger mortgages, capital gains, property-taxes, etc increase in significance as their average wealth diminishes.

 

That's why it's so encouraging to see that those who are agitating for substantial reform to make the tax-code more progressive omit this aspect of the tax code from the discussion whenever the topic of tax-reform comes up.

[chucK]

Sorry JayB, but you'd better dumb it down a bit for me. I am so confused by what you wrote that I can't even tell if you were being sarcastic!

 

I guess I just figured that if you define poor as like below federal poverty level or thereabouts that home ownership seems tangential since none of these people will be able to buy a house. And also tax breaks seem a bit superfluous as these folks have zero tax liability already.

 

And KkkKk, I just jumped in this discussion. I haven't referred once to "rich", so I don't understand the basis of your question.

[tomtom]

There is a lack of plasticity in wealth movement in the very top tier, and there is ample evidence to prove this.

 

The two wealthiest folks in the US are Gates and Buffett. I guess it makes sense to you for the Fed Govt to tax the crap out of them to continue fund the war in Iraq versus their plan of tackling Global Health and Education issues through the Gates Foundation.

 

Oh, and which relative gave them their wealth?

[ericb]

There is a lack of plasticity in wealth movement in the very top tier, and there is ample evidence to prove this.

 

The two wealthiest folks in the US are Gates and Buffett. I guess it makes sense to you for the Fed Govt to tax the crap out of them to continue fund the war in Iraq versus their plan of tackling Global Health and Education issues through the Gates Foundation.

 

Oh, and which relative gave them their wealth?

 

They say ignorance is bliss and here's a perfect example

 

The ~$40B that Bill Gates has placed in the Gates Foundation is not taxed at all. In fact our tax laws encourage a high volume of grants coming out of the foundation since they must give out a certain % of the assets every year to maintain their tax exempt status. This is to ensure that people do not set up charitable foundations as veiled tax shelters by accumulating untaxed assets in them.

 

Oh, and if you'd been keeping up on current events, you'd know that Buffet is giving his entire fortune (~$40B) to the Gates foundation....why do you think that is? They (The Gates Foundation) now have the unfortunate problem of having to double their giving to the causes you mention to remain in compliance with US tax laws.

Edited November 1, 2007 by ericb

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Sorry JayB, but you'd better dumb it down a bit for me. I am so confused by what you wrote that I can't even tell if you were being sarcastic!

 

I guess I just figured that if you define poor as like below federal poverty level or thereabouts that home ownership seems tangential since none of these people will be able to buy a house. And also tax breaks seem a bit superfluous as these folks have zero tax liability already.

 

And KkkKk, I just jumped in this discussion. I haven't referred once to "rich", so I don't understand the basis of your question.

 

does the "federal poverty level" include/factor in transfer payments?