Top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Gee, Joey---
Sounds to me like we need more unions! Or perhaps some other form of redistribution.
KS
Sounds to me like we need more unions! Or perhaps some other form of redistribution.
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
by Scott A. Hodge
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.
Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Good article.
This chart says it all:
People at ALL income levels have prospered better under a Democrat than a Republican president. All income levels have propspered roughly equally under Democrats while only the rich prosper much more greatly than lower income folks under Republicans. Proof that Republicans are much more guilty than Democrats of "redistribution of wealth". And more proof that Democrats work for all Americans while Republicans work only to get re-elected.
This chart says it all:
People at ALL income levels have prospered better under a Democrat than a Republican president. All income levels have propspered roughly equally under Democrats while only the rich prosper much more greatly than lower income folks under Republicans. Proof that Republicans are much more guilty than Democrats of "redistribution of wealth". And more proof that Democrats work for all Americans while Republicans work only to get re-elected.
So, Johnny, how does that "chart" account for people who change percentiles?
Classic liberal misunderstanding of economics is that they fail to realize that in a robust economy, people change income percentiles.
Charts like that demonstrate a lack of economic understanding....
not to mention being completely worthless and misleading, for example, presenting a .2% difference as though it were huge.
Classic liberal misunderstanding of economics is that they fail to realize that in a robust economy, people change income percentiles.
Charts like that demonstrate a lack of economic understanding....
not to mention being completely worthless and misleading, for example, presenting a .2% difference as though it were huge.
Perhpas some of those "top 1 percent" can start buying the foreclosed homes that the lower 99% cant seem to get financing for..
Lets see. A guy making 3 million a year buys how many cars? Maybe 4? 5? How many TVs? Coffee Makers? Furniture?
That $3 million = 60 people making $50k or 30 People making $100k. How many cars, tvs, etc do you think they buy?
Now tell me who creates jobs. The rich take jobs overseas so they can become richer.
See any issues yet?
The middle class is the key to the USA being a strong power. The great depression happened when the middle class vanished. That 1% is paying the biggest tax share right now because they are the ones with Jobs... Not too many CEOs on the unemployment lines.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
There are certainly some manufacturing jobs that get sent out of the country by concerns trying to be more competitive. But the overwhelming majority of jobs are in small businesses. These are not being 'outsourced' and only when small business owners have enough financial relief to feel safe in growing---read that as tax relief---will the economy really begin recovery. And the latest BS trick by BHO of 'creating' jobs by doing road work is only designed to spike the numbers until after the election.
KS
KS
Why should they? You seem to be assuming some universal moral obligation on their part that does not exist. Private property rights be damned!
This whole point is completely irrelevant unless you assume an economic fallacy called the "zero-sum" fallacy. Essentially, you assume wealth is one giant pie and "the rich" have an unfair share.
This is fallacious because when the rich invest their money and create jobs, the byproduct is the creation of wealth. That "pie" is constantly replenished. When you start taking part of the pie away from the wealthy you hinder the economic mechanisms that replenish that pie.
Pointing out who "controls most of the wealth" is irrelevant except as a means to appeal to envy on the part of those who are swayed more by emotion than reason; it is nothing but a shrewd piece of political rhetoric.
no coherent economic point is raised by that fact. wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few is a natural byproduct of the market. It is also a natural byproduct that can NOT be corrected. Social stratification is inevitable and attempts to "correct" it inevitably lead to dystopia.
Here is something from a criticism of Riech's economic foolishness.
...here’s the point, Mr. Reich. Our system of government depends on the consent of the governed. In our system, that top 1% (and perhaps more importantly, the slice between 30% and 1%) represents the job-creation dynamo for our economy. We burden it at our peril. No less luminary than Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has shown us that the ultra-rich like paying taxes no more than the common man. In fact, they have the resources to (legally) avoid paying taxes that they deem to be unfair, by hiring accountants, tax lawyers, or by taking delivery of their foreign-made yachts in tax-friendly jurisdictions.
Failing that, many will check out of the system by retirement (full or partial) or by relocation.
Besides, it’s not the super-wealthy upon whom this new tax burden would fall; most of them are Heinz-Kerry style coupon-clippers, anyway. No, the brunt of the new taxes and redistributive schemes would fall upon the entrepreneurial class, the ones willing to gamble on their own skill or with who are trying to make it into that top 1%, but who haven’t made it yet. That’s the problem with our economy now, Mr. Reich: too many of these folks are afraid to risk their money because they realize that their financial success is not viewed by morons Democratic policy gurus like you, not as a solution, but as the root injustice of our system that must be expunged. Consequently, job growth is nonexistent
Failing that, many will check out of the system by retirement (full or partial) or by relocation.
Besides, it’s not the super-wealthy upon whom this new tax burden would fall; most of them are Heinz-Kerry style coupon-clippers, anyway. No, the brunt of the new taxes and redistributive schemes would fall upon the entrepreneurial class, the ones willing to gamble on their own skill or with who are trying to make it into that top 1%, but who haven’t made it yet. That’s the problem with our economy now, Mr. Reich: too many of these folks are afraid to risk their money because they realize that their financial success is not viewed by morons Democratic policy gurus like you, not as a solution, but as the root injustice of our system that must be expunged. Consequently, job growth is nonexistent
Jobs are taken overseas because of the incentive structure created by policies making that same "zero-sum" mistake and with the same foolish myopic focus on "fixing" some perceived "injustice" instead of wisely considering the trade-offs involved.
Correlation does not mean causation. The fact you cite, in no way shows that the great depression happened because the middle class vanish. I think you are mistaking a symptom for a cause.
Most CEO's are not in the "upper one percent".
Instead of simply focusing myopically on some narrow perception of "injustice" in wealth distribution, you need to look at the bigger picture and the trade offs inherent in attempting to "fix" that "injustice".
It is not a coincidence that ideologies aimed at social justice cause more problems then they fix (and it is questionable if they truly ever "fix" any problems they aim to fix). These policies are not simply incompatible with the principles this country was founded on (including the whole notion of liberty) they fly in the face of human nature. When you make policy that is incompatible with human nature, the predicted results never happen and many more problems are created.
Even ignoring that, policies aimed at myopically fixing some perceived "injustice" always create more problems to then be "fixed". When you look at it as an issue of "solutions" you only create a mess. Consider the trade-offs.
See, I dont see it as a perceived injustice. I see it simply as practicality. The more money in the hands of the lower income brackets means more sale of consumer goods, which means a stronger economy and more jobs.
Ultimately the rich make money off those sales and strong economy. Everyone benefits.
Ultimately the rich make money off those sales and strong economy. Everyone benefits.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
If you tax the rich, who produces the goods? Nobody takes the risk without sufficient capital. You punish productivity, you get less of it.
I don't see any practicality.
Focusing on demand misses the supply side of things and on how they are interdependent. more money in the "lower brackets" means less job creation from those with enough disposable income to invest. Less jobs means less disposable income to drive demand and less supply to meet demand.
The economy works a certain way for a reason. Social interactions evolve through trial and error in a specific way. If more money in the hands of the "lower classes" was more efficient or "practical" it would have evolved that way. The fact that it did not is proof against that notion.
Any efforts by humans to tinker with the markets, to make them more "efficient" always end in failure because humans are not capable of understanding the markets enough to be able to reorganize it in a more efficient manner. History shows this to be true time and time again.
But you also have to make sure they have someone to sell it to. That is my point. The more money you put in the hands of the lower income brackets, the more they buy, the more productivity you get, the more profits the rich get.
Call it anything you want. Fact is, Bush walked in with a nice surplus and a good economy. He left with a nice deficit and a crashing economy. I'm not laying blame. But 2 things happened. We spent billions on the wars and we had a tax cut.
Im not saying those are the only causes, but they were at least factors. We would likely be in much better shape today had at least 1 of those 2 things not occurred. Perhaps good enough that the bailouts wouldnt have been necessary OR necessary to a lessor extent.
This was said back in the day. How can you do a tax cut while spending billions on a war. Well, you cant. We are experienceing the evidence.
Hence the need for jobs, created by the wealthy, so the majority can get enough disposable income to consume.
Yes, but what you are arguing infers specific causation. They are both factors that are necessary, but to give preference to one or the other (which you seem to be implying) suggests one causes the other. You are left with a "Chicken or the egg" dilemma which is unnecessary and cannot be answered in the way this is being framed.
All that is necessary is looking at the way the economy truly works. There is social stratification and it did not come about by accident. Efforts throughout history against that social stratification have not only lead to increased stratification but to a static class structure instead of the dynamic class structure in a more free market society.
SO how many jobs are the wealthy creating now? The rich are getting richer while people are out of work and out of homes.
You want tax relief? Make it Property Tax Relief.
You want tax relief? Make it Property Tax Relief.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
If there are fewer producers, there are fewer jobs created, and less consumption.
How do you do a tax cut while spending trillions on pork.
Bush spent billions to free 30 million people. Obama is spending trillions to enslave 300 million people.
When the One was elected to Congress, the unemployment rate was 5.7%. When the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 the unemployment rate was 4.7%. When they took entire control of the legislative and executive branches with a larger majority than Republicans have had since at least the 1930s the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
The wealthy cannot create jobs to sell goods to anyone if those people aren't buying goods. I know you have taken economics before. Demand always comes before supply in any stable economic environment. As long as there is a demand, and a profit to be made, there will always be supply. If these people are making 23.5% of the income in the US, they are obviously making profits.
Think about this. Lets say everyone in the country had some additional income. The wealthy are far more likely to save that windfall to shore up in case of future shortfalls, whereas the poor and middle-class are more likely to spend that money to catch up or to purchase things they don't have. This is simple economics and can be observed anywhere. Tax cuts to the middle and lower class have always resulted in more economic growth and jobs than tax cuts to the upper class. Not that tax cuts really have a GREAT effect, but, what effect they do have is generally seen among the bottom 98%.
And what factors cause the economy to work this way? hmmm? From what you are saying it sounds like you are trying to suggest that it is natural that there would be an incredibly powerful and rich upper class, a huge and very poor lower class, and a nearly non-existent middle class. Regulatory changes, tax cuts, and a host of other things since the Reagan years are what have made it possible for the upper class to separate themselves in such an extreme way from the majority.
If you get a chance and find it in the library, read the new book "Third World America"
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
You've given a good description of communism. What you're displaying, with your comments, is what is usually called 'class envy'. But a somewhat perverted type, because you don't seek to emulate those you envy, but to simply destroy their way of life whether it gives you any benefit or doesn't.
KS
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Where are you getting that from? Where is the description of communism? Where did I demonstrate class envy? Where did I advocate the destruction of the upper class? Really getting tired of hearing the standard conservative dismissals. Talk bad about a conservative politician and you are brainwashed by the media, mention the income disparity and you are guilty of class envy, mention the positive benefits of welfare and you are a socialist. Seriously.... getting old.
Besides, what is with you and shag taking bits and pieces of posts and then arguing them entirely out of context?
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
You punish people struggling to make ends meet, they end up homeless. Why do you want more homeless welfare "sucklings" trying to steal your (and my) hard earned wealth?
Seriously foss, you are driving a 17-year old Lincoln, and you talk like your income is in the top 1 percentile. Does writing other people's resume's REALLY pay that well?
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag, did Cal give you his PW for LvC so you could play "moderator" too?
That's the kind of knee-jerk denial, dismissive, condencending remark that I can count on from you. It must really suck when the facts don't fit your distorted view of reality.
bingo!
Interesting that the closer we come to elections, the more nasty, invidious and unhinged the leftist trolls get.
If we can't get away from the emotionally charged class envy rhetoric there is no chance of any objective discussion of these issues.
Do you agree that there is an inherent boom and bust cycle in the economy?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Then how about you get back to the effects of tax cuts on the economy? Or maybe you can discuss the effects of the difference in income levels and how that effects the economy? You guys are the ones claiming people are going on with class envy rhetoric and engaging in ad hominem instead of discussing the topic?
How about you address the information I provided you in the other thread? Would you prefer I reposted that here since the topic in this thread also involves taxation and tax cuts? Heck, maybe you would care to even address the points I put forth in this thread instead of just jumping on the "flame the liberal troll" bandwagon. Try keeping it on economics instead of ad hominem.