Octang Frye

Math is hard. Do you like bunnies? I like bunnies.

snowbunny

I am a bunny. I'm also an electrical engineer. I don't find maths hard.

Thydney

Why wait for the truth lets just jump to conclusions! It's the only excercise some people get

cindyabs

Sadly, yes.

another bloody yank

Taxes and the rich.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...s_the_top.html

zargof

Don't spoil the argument by bringing facts into it!

bevinva

Around here the drywall people are kept busy repairing termite damage. My OH hates doing it, he was actually repairing a wall at home (you know how rare that can be) and got mad at one innocent bit of sheetrock and kicked the crap out of it, then he felt better, ran out to get another sheet and finished the job.

snowbunny

I have fact checked. If you look at taxes paid as % of income at the state and local level, it's pretty even across the entire income spectrum.

Only the federal income tax weighs more heavily on higher earners, and even then, there are ways to structure income and take advantage of deductions and loopholes for the wealthy than there are for the poor. Ross Perot has famously paid only 8-9% of his total income in federal taxes -- far lower than the effective rate for middle class earners.

Ash UK/US

Did we hear from Manc yet? bet the bugger is still in that strip club!

Dan725

Say no more.

rivit

If that truck driver got payed 42cents per mile he'd have to drive 59523809 miles per year

Guess i'm lazy, i only drive half that many

Michael

Very few tax systems around the world in reality spread the wealth whether it is a complete welfare state like Denmark or more capitalist systems like the US and Switzerland. The main difference between countries like the US and Denmark is that Denmark spreads the wealth among 90% of its people better than the US but leaves the top 10% of the population relatively in tact. Proposals such as Obamas to increase taxes only among the top 5% earners is usually defeated in most countries. In other words, wealth is spread to the poor in many welfare states by primarily increasing the taxes on the middle class.

The following is the percentage of wealth owned by the top 10% of the population in various countries. I suspect many of the oil rich countries (not listed) are much higher. I also suspect that many large historical estates in Europe may not be considered as wealth of the owner so the figures may possibly be inaccurate.

Switzerland 71.3%
United States 69.8%
Denmark 65.0%
France 61.0%
Sweden 58.6%
UK 56.0%
Canada 53.0%
Norway 50.5%
Germany 44.4%
Finland 42.3%

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

Normally I find that factcheck.org is fairly accurate but in this case, it seems drastically incorrect. Factcheck.org indicates that top 1% of the population had 18.1% of the income but paid 27.6% of the taxes. However, the previous link indicates that the top 1% of the population has 33.4% of the wealth.

Now it would seem that people that own 33.4% of the wealth of the country but only make 18.1% of the income of a country must be very bad at investing. If that was the case, the wealthiest would be getting poorer and poorer each year (ex. GDP increases by 5% per year but inflation increases by 3% per year and since the wealthiest only make about 1/2 of the GDP or 2.5%, they would get poorer in real terms each year).

Since we know that is not what is happening, why would the income be so low? In reality people owning 33.4% of the wealth should probably be making about 50% of the countries income instead of only 18.1% of the countries income. The only logical answer is that the income is based on gross adjusted income and a large amount of tax loopholes are used by the rich to show a much lower income. Some people might argue that the rich may own many houses and other property around the world and that is why their income is so low but eventually that property would be sold or inherited but the taxable income for the top 1% has remained fairly stable at about 18% for years.

Besides any taxable income that may be evaded by tax loopholes or by putting money in illegal offshore banks, the super rich also use the corporation or private company that they may own or work for as a CEO or CFO to get freebees that you and I could only dream of such as free corporate jets, helicopters, yatchs, expensive cars, park avenue apartments, family vacations, private parties, low or no interest loans, etc. that are used as a deduction for the corporation but not shown as income to the executive.

So in reality, the rich (expecially the super rich) do not pay their fair share of taxes. Personally I don't think it is fair that someone making millions of dollars (AGI) should pay a smaller percentage of taxes on their real income (GI) than some secretary making $40,000 per year.

cindyabs

How about a travel agent making 30K a year?

Michael

If you believe that the top 1% of the populations income is only 18.1% of the nations income and they pay 27.6% of the taxes, then all federal taxes (income tax, 56.8% of corporate income taxes, excise taxes (gas, alcohol, tobacco, etc.), social security taxes, medicare taxes, and import duty) would comprise 28% of their income which is probably more than someone making $30,000 per year.

However, if you believe that the top 1% probably makes about 6% per year on their total net worth (homes, property, stocks, bonds, cash, etc.) instead of 3.2% as would be indicated in the previous example, they would be paying about 15% of their income in federal taxes. Real wealth (inflation adjusted) grew about 8 fold in the last 50 years which averaged about 3% per year so a growth of 6% would seem to be reasonable assumption including inflation.

Since all taxpayers pay 6.2% for social security taxes on the income up to $97,000 and 1.75% medicare taxes, that already equals 7.95%. If the person making $30,000 is single and uses the standard deduction ($5,450) plus one personal exemption ($3,300), then the tax on $22,250 would be $2935 or 9.8% of $30,000. So 7.95% + 9.8% = 17.75% which is greater percentage of income paid by the super rich of 15% on the previous calculation and excise tax (gas, alcohol, tobacco, communications, etc.) and import duty has yet to be calculated.

As far as state tax, the super rich usually set up their primary residence in a state without income taxes such as Texas, Nevada, Florida, or Washington so he will usually pay very little state taxes. By doing this, he can be a CEO of a company in New York but New York will only be able to tax him on his income and not on any of his investments. The following is one example.

MacDonald also delivered the scoop on the secret fight between President George H. W. Bush and the IRS over his state residency status (Maine vs Washington, D.C.), which led to President Bush's use of a room at The Houstonian, a Houston, Texas hotel, as his primary residence. The move let the president avoid Maine and District of Columbia taxes. MacDonald's story provided grist for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign stump speeches and for editorials and political cartoons nationwide, including Doonesbury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_MacDonald

Even if the super rich really paid 28% of their income for federal taxes and little or no state taxes, the super rich still would not pay their fair share of taxes since all taxes (federal, state, local, property, etc.) collected from all people by all levels of government is approximately 30% of GDP.

Now this may sound unfair but the republicans were investing the possibility of a national sales tax (VAT) in 2004 to replace the federal income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax, and estate tax. If this was even enacted, the super rich would pay almost nothing in taxes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140076,00.html

Okachickima

You seem to be driving yourself silly trying to reconcile figures that are simply pulled from the sky by various advocacy groups. Actual income tax returns show that the top 10% of households earn 30% of the nation's income and the lowest 10% earn 2%. These figures are accepted by serious economists.

Does anyone really contend that the top 1% of households own over a third of the nation's wealth while the top 10% only earn 30% of the national income? Similarly, if the top 1% made 18% of the national income that would leave the others in that 10% group with an average income lower than the next lower group.