4 ms·

Asking the question what should the 'top 1%' pay is (in my opinion) the wrong question. A better start (for me) is to ask what % of tax the people with the (fo

Asking the question what should the 'top 1%' pay is (in my opinion) the wrong question. A better start (for me) is to ask what % of tax the people with the (for example) top 50% of income, or top 50% of wealth, should pay. If the top 1% has (for example) 90% of the income, then only paying 50% of the tax might be considered unfair.

refurb 11y ago
If the top 1% has (for example) 90% of the income, then only paying 50% of the tax might be considered unfair. The only number I could find is that the top 1% earns 22% of all AGI (adjusted gross income). This is income after all deductions, etc; the amount of income the tax rate is applied to.[1] I'd be interested to see how much of all income is earned by the top 1%. [1]http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0 http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco...
- Retric 11y ago
  AGI is a lie. EX: Calculate bill gates lifetime wealth and lifetime AGI. Hint, that 30 billion he donated never counted as AGI.
  - refurb 11y ago
    AGI is not a lie, it's Adjusted Gross Income, that is the income you actually pay tax on. It's not like it's some super secret formula that no one knows how to calculate.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Income is income, Adjustment is where the lie comes from. Sure, you can pretend it's meaningful number, but ex: charitable donations are not deductible from payroll taxes so they are clearly not going to reduce income. Or for a more obvious example, donate 1 million in appreciated and you get to deduct the full 1 million from income. (see if you can spot the problem with that.) PS: Hypothetically, if they said AGI was income - 95% of income over 10 million per year would you still use it? After all that's just an adjustment.
      - refurb 11y ago
        I have no idea why you are calling it a lie. The AGI is clearly "adjusted" and the formula is public. This might be more interesting... In 2011, households in the top, middle, and bottom quintiles received 52, 14, and 5 percent of the nation's before-tax income, respectively; the shares of federal taxes paid by those households were 69, 9, and 1 percent.[1] So the top quintile earns 52% of the before-tax income and payers 69% of all taxes. The bottom quintile earns 5% of all before-tax income and pays 1% of the taxes. [1]https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440
        Retric 11y ago
        Again with the biased (and federal only) numbers. Market income consists of labor income, business income, capital gains (profits realized from the sale of assets), capital income excluding capita l gains, income received in retirement for past services, and other sources of income. That 30 billion Gates donated would could for 0 on that scale making it BS. Use of a company jet for 1 year, 0. PS: Of course it's also pretending the top 0.01% is the same as the top 1%.

refurb 11y ago

If the top 1% has (for example) 90% of the income, then only paying 50% of the tax might be considered unfair. The only number I could find is that the top 1% earns 22% of all AGI (adjusted gross income). This is income after all deductions, etc; the amount of income the tax rate is applied to.[1] I'd be interested to see how much of all income is earned by the top 1%. [1]http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0 http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-inco...

Retric 11y ago
AGI is a lie. EX: Calculate bill gates lifetime wealth and lifetime AGI. Hint, that 30 billion he donated never counted as AGI.
- refurb 11y ago
  AGI is not a lie, it's Adjusted Gross Income, that is the income you actually pay tax on. It's not like it's some super secret formula that no one knows how to calculate.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Income is income, Adjustment is where the lie comes from. Sure, you can pretend it's meaningful number, but ex: charitable donations are not deductible from payroll taxes so they are clearly not going to reduce income. Or for a more obvious example, donate 1 million in appreciated and you get to deduct the full 1 million from income. (see if you can spot the problem with that.) PS: Hypothetically, if they said AGI was income - 95% of income over 10 million per year would you still use it? After all that's just an adjustment.
    - refurb 11y ago
      I have no idea why you are calling it a lie. The AGI is clearly "adjusted" and the formula is public. This might be more interesting... In 2011, households in the top, middle, and bottom quintiles received 52, 14, and 5 percent of the nation's before-tax income, respectively; the shares of federal taxes paid by those households were 69, 9, and 1 percent.[1] So the top quintile earns 52% of the before-tax income and payers 69% of all taxes. The bottom quintile earns 5% of all before-tax income and pays 1% of the taxes. [1]https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440
      - Retric 11y ago
        Again with the biased (and federal only) numbers. Market income consists of labor income, business income, capital gains (profits realized from the sale of assets), capital income excluding capita l gains, income received in retirement for past services, and other sources of income. That 30 billion Gates donated would could for 0 on that scale making it BS. Use of a company jet for 1 year, 0. PS: Of course it's also pretending the top 0.01% is the same as the top 1%.