Dispelling the Tax Myth

[Niels Bohr 72]

Is she suffering some kind of mental illness? She doesn't seem right. She's twitching. Someone! Call the psychy ward! She's going into meltdown!

Edited October 31, 2008 by Niels Bohr

[NickD 203]

"In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation)."

Steven, can you get the last chart in the article?

A bit late, but here it is.

It's that AGI that is troubling, with a high paid tax attorney, can find means to hide those bucks like investing in bad subprime mortgages, sure the guy owns a house, but is an investment, where the houses the most of us build for the basics of shelter and protection from the environment are paid for with post tax dollars. We can't treat our homes as investments. Putting that money in stocks or trusts is another major deduction.

Our government operated schools says it cost them $10-15 thousand to baby sit your kid for a couple of hours a day, these are real actual dollars coming out of our pockets and post FICA dollars at that. But yet the government says you can raise a kid for $3,500 the majority of the time, and that includes everything, even none deductible transportation expenses from and back to school. Ant that $3,500 isn't real money, it's just money we do not have to pay extra taxes on, again already post FICA tax money that we may never get back.

It's a racket and guess who is getting screwed royally?

Figures do no lie, but liars figure.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ok, someone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong here but...

If the total wealth (income) in this country equals the combined earnings of the top 5% (h) and the other 95% (.l), that amount is all the Federal Gov't has to tax, correct? And let's say that number is represented W = h + l. And if h (top 5%) is 80% of W (total wealth income) expressed as h = W x .80 then the percentage of total income tax (T) collected of h (top 5%) should be comparable. If it is less, than such a tax structure is actually concentrating more of the income wealth to h (top 5%).

So as W = h (80 percent of W) + l (20 percent of W)

then T = T(.8) + T(.2)

Edited October 31, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[HAL 9000 96]

Ok, someone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong here but...

If the total wealth (income) in this country equals the combined earnings of the top 5% (h) and the other 95% (.l), that amount is all the Federal Gov't has to tax, correct? And let's say that number is represented W = h + l. And if h (top 5%) is 80% of W (total wealth income) expressed as h = W x .80 then the percentage of total income tax (T) collected of h (top 5%) should be comparable. If it is less, than such a tax structure is actually concentrating more of the income wealth to h (top 5%).

So as W = h (80 percent of W) + l (20 percent of W)

then T = T(.8) + T(.2)

Yeah but the ultra, ultra, ultra rich that frequent VJ do not want you to deconcentrate that wealth because by not being able to horde all that wealth they won't be able to create jobs.

Your mathematical expressions are logical.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Interesting, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 10% went up from 49% to 71% in 26 years; the share of the bottom 50% went down from 7% to 3% over the same period.

Yes, but it's not that simple. The charts are kind of awkward to read.

You're looking at Table 6. If you look at the top 1%, their percentage share had doubled. If you look at people who make up the 2% to 5% of top earners, their share has gone up only around 2.5% (these people are "Joe the Plumber" as according to Table 7, you can enter that percentage of earners with around $153K in AGI).

Wow. The wealthy are already paying more than their 'fair' share.

[tmma 467]

Interesting, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 10% went up from 49% to 71% in 26 years; the share of the bottom 50% went down from 7% to 3% over the same period.

Yes, but it's not that simple. The charts are kind of awkward to read.

You're looking at Table 6. If you look at the top 1%, their percentage share had doubled. If you look at people who make up the 2% to 5% of top earners, their share has gone up only around 2.5% (these people are "Joe the Plumber" as according to Table 7, you can enter that percentage of earners with around $153K in AGI).

Wow. The wealthy are already paying more than their 'fair' share.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 10% went up from 49% to 71% in 26 years; the share of the bottom 50% went down from 7% to 3% over the same period.

Yes, but it's not that simple. The charts are kind of awkward to read.

You're looking at Table 6. If you look at the top 1%, their percentage share had doubled. If you look at people who make up the 2% to 5% of top earners, their share has gone up only around 2.5% (these people are "Joe the Plumber" as according to Table 7, you can enter that percentage of earners with around $153K in AGI).

Wow. The wealthy are already paying more than their 'fair' share.

Fair is a relative term. For many in this world, fair is proportional rather than treating everyone exactly the same across the board. A flat tax is not a fair tax. But the larger question would be, how is that in this country 80 percent of the total income earnings annually is among only 5 percent of the population? Does that mean 95 percent of the population is just damn lazy?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No, it just means there's a big reward in this country for people willing to take risks. 95% of the population aren't lazy, but risk-averse.

[Ban Hammer 13,876]

Interesting, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 10% went up from 49% to 71% in 26 years; the share of the bottom 50% went down from 7% to 3% over the same period.

Yes, but it's not that simple. The charts are kind of awkward to read.

You're looking at Table 6. If you look at the top 1%, their percentage share had doubled. If you look at people who make up the 2% to 5% of top earners, their share has gone up only around 2.5% (these people are "Joe the Plumber" as according to Table 7, you can enter that percentage of earners with around $153K in AGI).

Wow. The wealthy are already paying more than their 'fair' share.

Fair is a relative term. For many in this world, fair is proportional rather than treating everyone exactly the same across the board. A flat tax is not a fair tax. But the larger question would be, how is that in this country 80 percent of the total income earnings annually is among only 5 percent of the population? Does that mean 95 percent of the population is just damn lazy?

hero of the masses.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, it just means there's a big reward in this country for people willing to take risks. 95% of the population aren't lazy, but risk-averse.

It's erroneous to assume that 95 percent of Americans don't want or aren't willing to pursue the American Dream. Although everyone has their own unique circumstances or reasons why, it would be offensive to dismiss all of them as simply not doing whatever is necessary to reach up to the top 5 percent.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 10% went up from 49% to 71% in 26 years; the share of the bottom 50% went down from 7% to 3% over the same period.

Yes, but it's not that simple. The charts are kind of awkward to read.

You're looking at Table 6. If you look at the top 1%, their percentage share had doubled. If you look at people who make up the 2% to 5% of top earners, their share has gone up only around 2.5% (these people are "Joe the Plumber" as according to Table 7, you can enter that percentage of earners with around $153K in AGI).

Wow. The wealthy are already paying more than their 'fair' share.

Fair is a relative term. For many in this world, fair is proportional rather than treating everyone exactly the same across the board. A flat tax is not a fair tax. But the larger question would be, how is that in this country 80 percent of the total income earnings annually is among only 5 percent of the population? Does that mean 95 percent of the population is just damn lazy?

hero of the masses.

If you want to use the Robin Hood analogy. Who would you root for - Robin Hood or Sheriff Nottingham?

[NickD 203]

No, it just means there's a big reward in this country for people willing to take risks. 95% of the population aren't lazy, but risk-averse.

I had my opportunities, but getting back to life after death and all that nasty stuff, you have to have insider knowledge, can really make a company look broke with knowledge of a huge contract coming in. Scare the hell out of the other stockholders and buy them up cheap, then make a fortune. I considered this as deceiving and stealing, so didn't do it. But that is exactly how you get rich. Many have lost in the stock market only to make the very few that much richer.

What really helps is to play a role in government, so if you do screw up, can get them to bail you out.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No, it just means there's a big reward in this country for people willing to take risks. 95% of the population aren't lazy, but risk-averse.

It's erroneous to assume that 95 percent of Americans don't want or aren't willing to pursue the American Dream. Although everyone has their own unique circumstances or reasons why, it would be offensive to dismiss all of them as simply not doing whatever is necessary to reach up to the top 5 percent.

It's not erroneous at all, and I don't care if it's offensive.

[AlHayatZween 2]

It's erroneous to assume that 95 percent of Americans don't want or aren't willing to pursue the American Dream. Although everyone has their own unique circumstances or reasons why, it would be offensive to dismiss all of them as simply not doing whatever is necessary to reach up to the top 5 percent.

i think a lot of us are persuing the American dream... and that it means different things to different people.

We are taking risks, but maybe not the kinds that can be measured monetarily. And certainly there is no flat-measuring scale for "success" or who works "the hardest." That's why i find these disagreements so interesting, when someone says: "Oh, you're punishing someone for being successful!" What about other successful people who aren't being "rewarded".

i don't have an answer for the fair-tax issue.

and AJ you are still my hero.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

and AJ you are still my hero.

Of course you're right about the different forms of rewards. In the context of this conversation, we're talking about money.