5 ms·

I disagree. A lot of people railing against the so called 1% are in fact 1% themselves on a global basis (e.g much of the Guardian readership). They tend to be

by retube 11y ago

I disagree. A lot of people railing against the so called 1% are in fact 1% themselves on a global basis (e.g much of the Guardian readership). They tend to be very keen for people richer than themselves to share their wealth, but despite in fact being richer than most people on earth tend not to be so keen to share their own wealth.

noir_lord 11y ago
Except if you look at the total taxation burden as a percentage the non-super rich already do share more of the burden. I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  since people can't be straightforward about the envy driving their political beliefs we have to put up with lazy emotional hand-wringing in place of a manipulate examination. Is it your contention that this lazy hand-wringing should go unchallenged because it aligns with your personal envies?
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    Do you still beat your wife?
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    It is not envy to note that monetary velocity is down.
- retube 11y ago
  > I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers. Well you absolutely don't know that. And whilst no doubt some people _are_ avoiding tax, many are not. And btw overall the rich pay a far higher portion of their income in tax than the poor. In the UK for example the top 1% of earners account for 30% of the total tax take (up from 20% 10 years ago). The top 3,000 pay more than the 9m bottom.
  - dsharlet 11y ago
    We absolutely do know that. Even without any aggressive tax avoidance schemes, if you have a significant investment income, you probably pay an effective ~15% tax rate [1] [2]. I can pretty much guarantee you that most of the people named are in this bucket. If you earn a salary that puts you in the literal 1%, you probably pay an effective tax rate of 30-50%. I don't know how low your income needs to get to reach a 15% tax rate on income, but it's really low. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-... 2. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Unlocking-the-mystery-of-Romney-s-15-percent-tax-rate.-Yes-it-s-legal http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/U...
    - pc86 11y ago
      Since I graduated college my income has increased from ~$28k to over $100k. My effective tax rate has only increased. When I was earning in the mid $30k's it was about 4%. Last year was 12%. > I don't know how low your income needs to get to reach a 15% tax rate on income, but it's really low. I was below 15% in the low $70k range for sure. We'll see what it is this year.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    The top 3000 also benefit from a much greater percentage of the assets of the national economy than the millions at the bottom, so that seems entirely fair. Some people are so rich they don't even appear on the rich lists. I don't know how much tax they pay, but I suspect it isn't much. Generally, if you can literally fit the people who own most of the economic assets of a country into a small hall, you have a serious democratic deficit.
    - sievebrain 11y ago
      How does that work? What assets are they benefiting from more than others? If you're in the top 3000 people by income in the UK, you get to ride the same crappy trains as everyone else, drive the same crappy roads (unless you try go everywhere by helicopter - hardly practical), get the same government services, have access to the same markets and the same products in those markets; how many companies produce luxury goods these days? Unless you're an idiot and buy diamond encrusted iPhones, the stuff in your house is going to be similar to other people's. You'll be eating similar meat, drinking the same water. You could collect rare art or something, but that's hardly a meaningful part of the national economy. The top 3000 get pretty similar benefits from the economy as everyone else, they just pay a lot more in absolute terms for the privilege.
walshemj 11y ago
And I bet like Tony Benn they also have parents who changed there wills to manage in heritance tax and have ISA's with more in then David Cameron's tiny little offshore holding. You know when your grown up when you have a discussion with your parents about their wills and inheritance tax.
tremon 11y ago
on a global basis But that's a meaningless metric. How is it comforting to know that 99% of people in India or Ethiopia have no voice in US (or UK, in this case) politics either?

by retube 11y ago

noir_lord 11y ago

Except if you look at the total taxation burden as a percentage the non-super rich already do share more of the burden. I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers.

oldmanjay 11y ago
since people can't be straightforward about the envy driving their political beliefs we have to put up with lazy emotional hand-wringing in place of a manipulate examination. Is it your contention that this lazy hand-wringing should go unchallenged because it aligns with your personal envies?
- noir_lord 11y ago
  Do you still beat your wife?
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  It is not envy to note that monetary velocity is down.
retube 11y ago
> I pay a far higher percentage of my income as tax to the society I live in than the people in the panama papers. Well you absolutely don't know that. And whilst no doubt some people _are_ avoiding tax, many are not. And btw overall the rich pay a far higher portion of their income in tax than the poor. In the UK for example the top 1% of earners account for 30% of the total tax take (up from 20% 10 years ago). The top 3,000 pay more than the 9m bottom.
- dsharlet 11y ago
  We absolutely do know that. Even without any aggressive tax avoidance schemes, if you have a significant investment income, you probably pay an effective ~15% tax rate [1] [2]. I can pretty much guarantee you that most of the people named are in this bucket. If you earn a salary that puts you in the literal 1%, you probably pay an effective tax rate of 30-50%. I don't know how low your income needs to get to reach a 15% tax rate on income, but it's really low. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-... 2. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Unlocking-the-mystery-of-Romney-s-15-percent-tax-rate.-Yes-it-s-legal http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/U...
  - pc86 11y ago
    Since I graduated college my income has increased from ~$28k to over $100k. My effective tax rate has only increased. When I was earning in the mid $30k's it was about 4%. Last year was 12%. > I don't know how low your income needs to get to reach a 15% tax rate on income, but it's really low. I was below 15% in the low $70k range for sure. We'll see what it is this year.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The top 3000 also benefit from a much greater percentage of the assets of the national economy than the millions at the bottom, so that seems entirely fair. Some people are so rich they don't even appear on the rich lists. I don't know how much tax they pay, but I suspect it isn't much. Generally, if you can literally fit the people who own most of the economic assets of a country into a small hall, you have a serious democratic deficit.
  - sievebrain 11y ago
    How does that work? What assets are they benefiting from more than others? If you're in the top 3000 people by income in the UK, you get to ride the same crappy trains as everyone else, drive the same crappy roads (unless you try go everywhere by helicopter - hardly practical), get the same government services, have access to the same markets and the same products in those markets; how many companies produce luxury goods these days? Unless you're an idiot and buy diamond encrusted iPhones, the stuff in your house is going to be similar to other people's. You'll be eating similar meat, drinking the same water. You could collect rare art or something, but that's hardly a meaningful part of the national economy. The top 3000 get pretty similar benefits from the economy as everyone else, they just pay a lot more in absolute terms for the privilege.

walshemj 11y ago

And I bet like Tony Benn they also have parents who changed there wills to manage in heritance tax and have ISA's with more in then David Cameron's tiny little offshore holding. You know when your grown up when you have a discussion with your parents about their wills and inheritance tax.

tremon 11y ago

on a global basis But that's a meaningless metric. How is it comforting to know that 99% of people in India or Ethiopia have no voice in US (or UK, in this case) politics either?