McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth

[dalegg 143]

When you look at the amount of money they were taxed on compared to the amount the rest of us were taxed on, then it's abundantly clear that the other 95% of the population spread their wealth upward to make up for collected taxes. In the case of 1998, the lower 95% of wage earners were taxed on 71 cents out of each dollar they earned. The upper 5% were taxed on 33 cents of every dollar they earned.

This is the part your losing me on. Where are you getting this info from? I'm not seeing that column from what you posted.

[mawilson 2,133]

But if there is such a lopsidedness, how does it happen?

The answer is very simple - you get a better return on your investment if you have more money to invest.

I.e. it's easier to turn $100,000,000 into $200,000,000 in N months/years than it is to turn $10,000 into $20,000 over the same period of time.

That's all great. Really. However, horded money is hardly invested. We are talking about the countless millions locked away while others are locked away in a cycle of not being able to invest in much for everyday subsistence.

I don't understand. Hoarded money is not invested? Where do you think "the rich" keep their money then,

if not invested? Under the mattress?

[IAMX 3,055]

The tax rate is very low on the lower classes, unless every document I've read and that anyone has ever posted is a lie.

What is the timeframe of your tax data based on?

1980-2006

Let me rephrase: How often is tax data, as well as taxable income, calculated?

Once per...

[mawilson 2,133]

The tax rate is very low on the lower classes, unless every document I've read and that anyone has ever posted is a lie.

What is the timeframe of your tax data based on?

1980-2006

Let me rephrase: How often is tax data, as well as taxable income, calculated?

Once per...

year. Obviously.

[rebeccajo 14]

When you look at the amount of money they were taxed on compared to the amount the rest of us were taxed on, then it's abundantly clear that the other 95% of the population spread their wealth upward to make up for collected taxes. In the case of 1998, the lower 95% of wage earners were taxed on 71 cents out of each dollar they earned. The upper 5% were taxed on 33 cents of every dollar they earned.

This is the part your losing me on. Where are you getting this info from? I'm not seeing that column from what you posted.

From Table 5. Top 5% of wage earners - adjusted share of AGI - 32.85%. Year 1998.

All adjusted dollars are the same. They are worth - a buck. Whether they are on Bill Gates tax return or mine.

Edited November 4, 2008 by rebeccajo

[HAL 9000 96]

But if there is such a lopsidedness, how does it happen?

The answer is very simple - you get a better return on your investment if you have more money to invest.

I.e. it's easier to turn $100,000,000 into $200,000,000 in N months/years than it is to turn $10,000 into $20,000 over the same period of time.

That's all great. Really. However, horded money is hardly invested. We are talking about the countless millions locked away while others are locked away in a cycle of not being able to invest in much for everyday subsistence.

I don't understand. Hoarded money is not invested? Where do you think "the rich" keep their money then,

if not invested? Under the mattress?

For the rich to have all of their wealth at risk would be excessively stupid don't you think?

I literally mean- money that is locked away. You know- those funds that end up in all kinds of creative places that the Tax man tends to overlook.

It is truly impossible to reinvest all of one's investment earnings. And furthermore, once it gets to that point, then you really do have horded wealth far beyond what is at play for the rich investor and hence, serves no logical purpose to be there if not just to be there.

[dalegg 143]

When you look at the amount of money they were taxed on compared to the amount the rest of us were taxed on, then it's abundantly clear that the other 95% of the population spread their wealth upward to make up for collected taxes. In the case of 1998, the lower 95% of wage earners were taxed on 71 cents out of each dollar they earned. The upper 5% were taxed on 33 cents of every dollar they earned.

This is the part your losing me on. Where are you getting this info from? I'm not seeing that column from what you posted.

The other thing is, that even if the upper class does somehow manage to put 66% of their income into deductions, they are still being taxed on the remaining 33 cents at 40%, while the lower classes are taxed on their 71 cents at only 3%..

3% of 71 cents= 2 cents.

40% of 33 cents= 13 cents- still 6 times as much tax as the lower bracket.

[rebeccajo 14]

When you look at the amount of money they were taxed on compared to the amount the rest of us were taxed on, then it's abundantly clear that the other 95% of the population spread their wealth upward to make up for collected taxes. In the case of 1998, the lower 95% of wage earners were taxed on 71 cents out of each dollar they earned. The upper 5% were taxed on 33 cents of every dollar they earned.

This is the part your losing me on. Where are you getting this info from? I'm not seeing that column from what you posted.

The other thing is, that even if the upper class does somehow manage to put 66% of their income into deductions, they are still being taxed on the remaining 33 cents at 40%, while the lower classes are taxed on their 71 cents at only 3%..

3% of 71 cents= 2 cents.

40% of 33 cents= 13 cents- still 6 times as much tax as the lower bracket.

And why are they taxed at 40% instead of 3%?

Because.......the bottom line figure on their tax return is a gigormous amount of money.

PS - not all the deductions taken are 'hard expenses' either. That's why there's a career path for people who want to be tax accountants.

[Amby 490]

But if there is such a lopsidedness, how does it happen?

The answer is very simple - you get a better return on your investment if you have more money to invest.

I.e. it's easier to turn $100,000,000 into $200,000,000 in N months/years than it is to turn $10,000 into $20,000 over the same period of time.

That's all great. Really. However, horded money is hardly invested. We are talking about the countless millions locked away while others are locked away in a cycle of not being able to invest in much for everyday subsistence.

I don't understand. Hoarded money is not invested? Where do you think "the rich" keep their money then,

if not invested? Under the mattress?

I know someone who does this. Also, coffee cans buried in the yard and money in the sock drawer.

[Marilyn. 340]

my grandma used to keep her money under her mattress.. or at least that is what my dad said...

[dalegg 143]

When you look at the amount of money they were taxed on compared to the amount the rest of us were taxed on, then it's abundantly clear that the other 95% of the population spread their wealth upward to make up for collected taxes. In the case of 1998, the lower 95% of wage earners were taxed on 71 cents out of each dollar they earned. The upper 5% were taxed on 33 cents of every dollar they earned.

This is the part your losing me on. Where are you getting this info from? I'm not seeing that column from what you posted.

From Table 5. Top 5% of wage earners - adjusted share of AGI - 32.85%. Year 1998.

All adjusted dollars are the same. They are worth - a buck. Whether they are on Bill Gates tax return or mine.

You are going to have to get a little more detailed to help me put this together! This just says that their adjusted share of AGI is 32.85%. That doesn't say they are only being taxed on 33 cents of every dollar they make! If it does then I guess the bottom 50% is only being taxed on 13.67 cents for every dollar in the same column.

Edited November 4, 2008 by dalegg

[IAMX 3,055]

The tax rate is very low on the lower classes, unless every document I've read and that anyone has ever posted is a lie.

What is the timeframe of your tax data based on?

1980-2006

Let me rephrase: How often is tax data, as well as taxable income, calculated?

Once per...

year. Obviously.

Ok, so what people misinterpret about tax burden is it's based upon end-of-the-year returns. It's not. Why? Because bills and other things aren't based upon the end of the year returns. It's based up a daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly income because that is taxed and directly relative to ability to afford things. If the burden lies upon the lower and middle class, they have more of a difficulty paying for goods and services. This also coincides with lower wages, because these costs are being transferred to them. This is what raising taxes on the highest incomes, and giving a tax break to the lower and middle class will relieve. Additionally, due to costs being transferred, it means the upper class can stomach the taxes with little to no economic movement, or, relatively, the least amount.

[rebeccajo 14]

But if there is such a lopsidedness, how does it happen?

The answer is very simple - you get a better return on your investment if you have more money to invest.

I.e. it's easier to turn $100,000,000 into $200,000,000 in N months/years than it is to turn $10,000 into $20,000 over the same period of time.

That's all great. Really. However, horded money is hardly invested. We are talking about the countless millions locked away while others are locked away in a cycle of not being able to invest in much for everyday subsistence.

I don't understand. Hoarded money is not invested? Where do you think "the rich" keep their money then,

if not invested? Under the mattress?

I know someone who does this. Also, coffee cans buried in the yard and money in the sock drawer.

I can't tell you the number of weird stories I've heard of relatives finding money in the weirdest places when going through a loved ones home after death. Freezers; mason jars; tin cans; sewing boxes.

Cash never seems to make it to the probated assets either. The survivors of the deceased just love it.

[Amby 490]

my grandma used to keep her money under her mattress.. or at least that is what my dad said...

according to my grandma my great grandma kept money in fertilizer bags in her barn for years

But if there is such a lopsidedness, how does it happen?

The answer is very simple - you get a better return on your investment if you have more money to invest.

I.e. it's easier to turn $100,000,000 into $200,000,000 in N months/years than it is to turn $10,000 into $20,000 over the same period of time.

That's all great. Really. However, horded money is hardly invested. We are talking about the countless millions locked away while others are locked away in a cycle of not being able to invest in much for everyday subsistence.

I don't understand. Hoarded money is not invested? Where do you think "the rich" keep their money then,

if not invested? Under the mattress?

I know someone who does this. Also, coffee cans buried in the yard and money in the sock drawer.

I can't tell you the number of weird stories I've heard of relatives finding money in the weirdest places when going through a loved ones home after death. Freezers; mason jars; tin cans; sewing boxes.

Cash never seems to make it to the probated assets either. The survivors of the deceased just love it.

I need to remind some people to do this for me if they feel the end is coming soon

[dalegg 143]

The tax rate is very low on the lower classes, unless every document I've read and that anyone has ever posted is a lie.

What is the timeframe of your tax data based on?

1980-2006

Let me rephrase: How often is tax data, as well as taxable income, calculated?

Once per...

year. Obviously.

Ok, so what people misinterpret about tax burden is it's based upon end-of-the-year returns. It's not. Why? Because bills and other things aren't based upon the end of the year returns. It's based up a daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly income because that is taxed and directly relative to ability to afford things. If the burden lies upon the lower and middle class, they have more of a difficulty paying for goods and services. This also coincides with lower wages, because these costs are being transferred to them. This is what raising taxes on the highest incomes, and giving a tax break to the lower and middle class will relieve. Additionally, due to costs being transferred, it means the upper class can stomach the taxes with little to no economic movement, or, relatively, the least amount.

Look. We either accept the figures produced by Tax Foundation or you don't. You can manipulate this data and twist it around apparantly in some very complicated ways, but at the end of the day it states simply that in 2006

From Table 8, the average tax rate on the bottom 50% was a whopping 3%. 3 freakin percent. How much lower are you going to go?

From the same table, the average tax rate on the top 5% is 20.68%.

From Table 6, it says that the top 5%- those getting taxed at 20.68%, contributed 39.89% of the total tax revenue while the bottom 50%- those getting taxed at the average rate of 3 freakin percent, contributed only 2.99% of the total tax revenue.

Now, how it is that you are saying that the group paying 3% of the total taxes is carrying the burdon for the group that is contributing 39.89% is completely beyond me.