4 ms·

Honestly CEO's getting paid a ton isn't really much of a problem as opposed to the US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy. Not to mention capital ga

by zajd 11y ago

Honestly CEO's getting paid a ton isn't really much of a problem as opposed to the US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy. Not to mention capital gains... estate taxes... etc

brandonmenc 11y ago
> US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy The top 20% of earners pay over 80% of the income taxes. That's low?
- pvnick 11y ago
  As long as there are rich people there will be folks complaining that the rich don't pay enough taxes.
  - zajd 11y ago
    Well honestly the concentration of wealth that we see today is a new thing in society. Pretty sure the only time you're going to find the type of inequality you see today is going back to feudal times. And honestly, I doubt it would even be as bad as it is today.
  - ch4s3 11y ago
    Not really. You don't read news and magazine articles from the 50s 60s and 70s decrying the contribution of the wealthy to the common good. You see people complaining about the taxation of the wealthy during periods of high income inequality. You see the same thing in other countries as well. Presently we tax wages heavily for middle income levels and tax capital gains at a much much lower rate. People are pissed that the wealthy, wielding their outsized political influence have pulled up the ladder of opportunity behind themselves.
- zajd 11y ago
  Yawn, what percentage of total income in the US is earned by the top 20%?
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    The top 25% earn 67% of the income and pay 86% of the taxes. How many of the taxes do you think they should be paying?
    - zajd 11y ago
      Top 25% =/= "the rich" But to answer your question, I think income after $1m/yr should be taxed at close to 90% and that capital gains should also be considered part of that income. We can start there.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The top 25% earn 67% of the income and pay 86% of the taxes. That may be about right if you mean "the top 25% of people in terms of income subject to income tax" and "of the taxes" you mean "of income taxes", which aren't even the only tax on labor income (or even the most significant tax on labor income for a large proportion of the workforce.) OTOH, the top 25% of income-subject-to-income-tax earners aren't even approximately what most people mean when they say "the rich", and the issues raised with the fairness of the tax system aren't limited to income tax, but to the structure of the tax system and what taxes things are subject to at all.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  How much of the income they get?
- syncopatience 11y ago
  Not as high as it sounds when you consider that the top 20% of earners collect 50% of the income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Aggregate_income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
- zajd 11y ago
  The top 20% of earners tax rates isn't the problem, it's the tax rates on the .01%, which starts at around 1.9mm/yr Even better, the .001%, which starts at around 10.2mm/yr Not that people making $150k couldn't afford to pay more taxes (I'm one of them), but the issue really isn't with the top 20%. Even worse, the fact that capital gains aren't treated as income and the fact that we let parents pass billions on to their children (for no societal benefit) is a much larger problem. Cute statistic though, spoken like a true facebook comment
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    2000 people earn over $10M a year. Let's say you take $100M from each of them. That's $200B. The Federal budget is $3.8T. So you increased the budget by just 5%. It seems that the desire to tax the rich is simply to bleed them down to a normal level, not because we really need their money. I get that it's a desire to get back to 1950s level income equality, but that time seems to be an historical accident due to the US economy being the only one left standing after WW2. Sure, white guys in the United States were all earning at relative parity, but global poverty was far, far worse than it is today, women here weren't allowed to work, etc. And are the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer? Doesn't seem so. Rockefeller's net worth was $400-$600 billion in today's dollars, while our current richest person, Bill Gates, is worth a paltry $80B. Globally, the poor are earning more than ever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. > Cute statistic though, spoken like a true facebook comment Was this comment facebook-ey enough for you?
    - zajd 11y ago
      2000 people earn over $10m a year because capital gains aren't considered income. If you consider capital gains income, that number changes significantly. Also, why would you use $100m per person? It should be 90% of earnings over $1m and 95% of earnings over $4m. Your comments are typical drivel that go on top of a meme. You should consider applying to work in Fox News' statistic department > Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. You are wrong. I'm not talking about restoring anything back to the 1950s. I'm talking about real solutions to the problems we face today, like ensuring education is affordable and available to everyone. Ensuring that every citizen has the right to have access to our healthcare system. etc. etc. It's not about having the middle class earn more, it's about the poor not being treated like complete shit in the US. The proper measure for a society is how we treat those who cannot provide for themselves. We're failing bigtime in America.
- drauh 11y ago
  Did you know that people who earn less than $10k per year pay no taxes at all? How is that fair? We should see that beggars get taxed on all the loose change they get from people on the street. http://www.efile.com/tax/do-i-need-to-file-a-tax-return/#income-requirements http://www.efile.com/tax/do-i-need-to-file-a-tax-return/#inc...
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  That particular statistic is useless without further context, and thus is a favorite of Fox News and other right wing ideologues. If 80% of earners earn one dollar a year then obviously it's low. If 80% of earners earn 1% less than the other 20% then it isn't. A better statistic is to actually look at the tax rate paid by the top earners compared to lower earners. Top marginal rates on employment income including state tax is often over 50%, which is probably plenty.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > > US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy > The top 20% of earners pay over 80% of the income taxes. That's low? The wealthy aren't so because of earnings (wages subject to income and payroll taxes), so its not so much low or high as a non-sequitur.
ojbyrne 11y ago
I can see a case for capital gains and estate taxes but the top marginal income tax rates in NY and California (where I'd guess most CEOs reside) are over 50%. Not sure how that would be called "absurdly low."

by zajd 11y ago

Honestly CEO's getting paid a ton isn't really much of a problem as opposed to the US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy. Not to mention capital gains... estate taxes... etc

brandonmenc 11y ago

> US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy The top 20% of earners pay over 80% of the income taxes. That's low?

pvnick 11y ago
As long as there are rich people there will be folks complaining that the rich don't pay enough taxes.
- zajd 11y ago
  Well honestly the concentration of wealth that we see today is a new thing in society. Pretty sure the only time you're going to find the type of inequality you see today is going back to feudal times. And honestly, I doubt it would even be as bad as it is today.
- ch4s3 11y ago
  Not really. You don't read news and magazine articles from the 50s 60s and 70s decrying the contribution of the wealthy to the common good. You see people complaining about the taxation of the wealthy during periods of high income inequality. You see the same thing in other countries as well. Presently we tax wages heavily for middle income levels and tax capital gains at a much much lower rate. People are pissed that the wealthy, wielding their outsized political influence have pulled up the ladder of opportunity behind themselves.
zajd 11y ago
Yawn, what percentage of total income in the US is earned by the top 20%?
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  The top 25% earn 67% of the income and pay 86% of the taxes. How many of the taxes do you think they should be paying?
  - zajd 11y ago
    Top 25% =/= "the rich" But to answer your question, I think income after $1m/yr should be taxed at close to 90% and that capital gains should also be considered part of that income. We can start there.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The top 25% earn 67% of the income and pay 86% of the taxes. That may be about right if you mean "the top 25% of people in terms of income subject to income tax" and "of the taxes" you mean "of income taxes", which aren't even the only tax on labor income (or even the most significant tax on labor income for a large proportion of the workforce.) OTOH, the top 25% of income-subject-to-income-tax earners aren't even approximately what most people mean when they say "the rich", and the issues raised with the fairness of the tax system aren't limited to income tax, but to the structure of the tax system and what taxes things are subject to at all.
marcosdumay 11y ago
How much of the income they get?
syncopatience 11y ago
Not as high as it sounds when you consider that the top 20% of earners collect 50% of the income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Aggregate_income_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
zajd 11y ago
The top 20% of earners tax rates isn't the problem, it's the tax rates on the .01%, which starts at around 1.9mm/yr Even better, the .001%, which starts at around 10.2mm/yr Not that people making $150k couldn't afford to pay more taxes (I'm one of them), but the issue really isn't with the top 20%. Even worse, the fact that capital gains aren't treated as income and the fact that we let parents pass billions on to their children (for no societal benefit) is a much larger problem. Cute statistic though, spoken like a true facebook comment
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  2000 people earn over $10M a year. Let's say you take $100M from each of them. That's $200B. The Federal budget is $3.8T. So you increased the budget by just 5%. It seems that the desire to tax the rich is simply to bleed them down to a normal level, not because we really need their money. I get that it's a desire to get back to 1950s level income equality, but that time seems to be an historical accident due to the US economy being the only one left standing after WW2. Sure, white guys in the United States were all earning at relative parity, but global poverty was far, far worse than it is today, women here weren't allowed to work, etc. And are the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer? Doesn't seem so. Rockefeller's net worth was $400-$600 billion in today's dollars, while our current richest person, Bill Gates, is worth a paltry $80B. Globally, the poor are earning more than ever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. > Cute statistic though, spoken like a true facebook comment Was this comment facebook-ey enough for you?
  - zajd 11y ago
    2000 people earn over $10m a year because capital gains aren't considered income. If you consider capital gains income, that number changes significantly. Also, why would you use $100m per person? It should be 90% of earnings over $1m and 95% of earnings over $4m. Your comments are typical drivel that go on top of a meme. You should consider applying to work in Fox News' statistic department > Correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about restoring income equality, at least in this country, they're unintentionally pining for the days when the United States middle class earned more, at the expense of the rest of the working world. You are wrong. I'm not talking about restoring anything back to the 1950s. I'm talking about real solutions to the problems we face today, like ensuring education is affordable and available to everyone. Ensuring that every citizen has the right to have access to our healthcare system. etc. etc. It's not about having the middle class earn more, it's about the poor not being treated like complete shit in the US. The proper measure for a society is how we treat those who cannot provide for themselves. We're failing bigtime in America.
drauh 11y ago
Did you know that people who earn less than $10k per year pay no taxes at all? How is that fair? We should see that beggars get taxed on all the loose change they get from people on the street. http://www.efile.com/tax/do-i-need-to-file-a-tax-return/#income-requirements http://www.efile.com/tax/do-i-need-to-file-a-tax-return/#inc...
ojbyrne 11y ago
That particular statistic is useless without further context, and thus is a favorite of Fox News and other right wing ideologues. If 80% of earners earn one dollar a year then obviously it's low. If 80% of earners earn 1% less than the other 20% then it isn't. A better statistic is to actually look at the tax rate paid by the top earners compared to lower earners. Top marginal rates on employment income including state tax is often over 50%, which is probably plenty.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> > US's absurdly low income tax rates for the wealthy > The top 20% of earners pay over 80% of the income taxes. That's low? The wealthy aren't so because of earnings (wages subject to income and payroll taxes), so its not so much low or high as a non-sequitur.

ojbyrne 11y ago

I can see a case for capital gains and estate taxes but the top marginal income tax rates in NY and California (where I'd guess most CEOs reside) are over 50%. Not sure how that would be called "absurdly low."