5 ms·

The wealthy pay the vast majority of all the income tax already. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-inc

The wealthy pay the vast majority of all the income tax already. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-u-s-taxpayers-paid-majority-of-income-taxes-in-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/top-3-of-...

crooked-v 8y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-r... > The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Wolff.
- lordlimecat 8y ago
  There's probably some good discussion to be had around that, but whenever anyone in the US talks about the injustice of the top 1%, I can't help but wonder: if we calculated how much of the world's wealth the 99% in America owned, would they feel contrition for their injustice? Given that the US has 25% of the world's wealth, and the lower 99% of the US population has 60% of the US's wealth, it stands to reason that "the 99%" have a full 15% of the world's total wealth. Given that the US has ~4% of the world's population, surely resolving "the wealth disparity" is more likely to lower their position than raise it.
  - Brockenstein 8y ago
    This is pretty disingenuous and I'll explain why. The next 1% after the top 1% owns a pretty sizable chunk too. And the next 1% after that a large chunk, and so on. The top 10% has 75% of U.S. wealth, the top 20% has 87% of U.S. wealth. So carrying on about the 99% as if wealth is distributed in anyway evenly within that group is more than a bit silly. Especially when you look at the bottom 50% having a pittance, somewhere between 1-2% of U.S. wealth. The next natural group after discussing the 1%'s wealth, isn't the other 99% just because 100-1=99... So really your argument falls apart for me because most of the 99%, the bottom 70%, end up owning just about 1% of the world's wealth. And that's a fairly small slice of pie to be split between 227 million people. And before you show me the math that it's actually quite a bit per person. Don't forget that in reality the bottom 60% only has almost as much wealth as the whole next 10% and that most of the population isn't seeing the wealth you're describing.
    - lordlimecat 8y ago
      For starters, "disingenuous" implies bad faith on my part and that's pretty uncharitable. This isn't shilling, or paid posting, or social commentating-- nor even is it me stating facts (beyond those contained in others' references). It's just a thought I've had in the past. It'd be nice if common civility meant you didn't jump out the gate assuming bad intent on my part. In any event, I was not aware of that purported wealth distribution, but the median income in the US is $59k and the median income of the world is 9k. We can argue cost of living and so forth, but it is no exaggeration to say that nearly everyone in the US today is living on the upper crust of humanity in terms of wealth and lifestyle. Across the political spectrum people tend to agree that keeping jobs in the US is a good thing while ignoring that that perpetuates the very form of wealth inequality they decry when talking about national politics. Not that I think they're wrong to argue that the government should favor its own citizens over others internationally, but it does seem rather hypocritical to me.
      - spiralx 8y ago
        You might be interested in this article about how wealth is divided in the US, even if you don't agree with all of its conclusions: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...
        lordlimecat 8y ago
        I will / am reading it, but if as its title and first few paragraphs suggest its discussion is on the top 10%, it doesn't really change my statement. $59k median income means literally half the country-- 2.5% of the world's population-- is making at least 6 times as much money as literally half of the world. It is not until you get to some US income percentile around the 15th that incomes drop below the world's 50th percentile income bracket. I do not deny that there is wealth inequality in the US nor do I have any elegant solutions to it, but I perceive a lot of self-interested hypocrisy around the issue. Surely fighting wealth inequality means cheering when manufacturing jobs are sent overseas, and the corporation's US base means that we can use economic leverage to enforce safety / wage standards on these new jobs in India / China / Mexico. This brings up the global median income, surely a good thing for anyone concerned with income equality.
hedvig 8y ago
I don't get why this is always trotted out? If you have the lion's share of wealth (and the continuous compounding passive income that comes with) then this should be expected. And then its just a matter of negotiating the amount, with the society you participate in.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kodablah 8y ago
  >>> a wealth tax is very much needed >> The wealthy pay the vast majority [...] already > I don't get why this is always trotted out? Surely the context of the conversation explains why.
dmm 8y ago
Regressive federal payroll taxes are almost equal to income taxes.
- Latteland 8y ago
  Yes, this is an important point. I don't even notice my social security and other taxes really, and some of the charges like for workman's comp insurance don't even show up on your paycheck, but those payroll taxes are a huge issue for low wage workers. Plus they max out - so if I make 150k, my higher income basically leads to a tax cut for high wage workers.
  - zlynx 8y ago
    They max out because the benefits max out. IN THEORY, your SS and worker's comp payments pay for your own benefits, as if an insurance company was calculating odds and investing the money. In practice of course it is politically easier for government to borrow the money and spend more than income, until Greece happens. Anyway, charging high-income employees more for SS and then paying them less on retirement would ruin the illusion that it is a retirement plan and not simple theft from the future.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      Well, by that standpoint all taxation is simple theft from the future, because you might die and get no benefit from it. Social security and medicare serve a social good. I knew that the idea behind not taxing me past the max was because I couldn't get more benefits. But I already have exposure to many other tax credits that poor people don't get, because they aren't able to make investments. I agree with your comment that it's easier to borrow the money. Look at our current government, that was supposedly fixated on budget deficits then when Obama is gone they pass a giant tax cut, increase the deficit (with the wish and a prayer that the deficit would go away), and now that there's clearly going to be a much larger deficit their answer is not cancel or reduce the unneeded tax cut for rich people - they want to cut benefits - this was all predicated before the tax cut.
briffle 8y ago
That entire article seems to avoid saying how much INCOME each of those groups are. Yes, the top 3% pay 37.5% of income taxes. But is their total income less than or greater than 37.5% of the total? Without the numbers, its kind of meaningless.. that is like saying bill gates moves to a town of 50 people, and suddenly pays 99.999% of the taxes.. its expected, unless you give the mean, median, etc, of income.. not just of how much he paid.
romwell 8y ago
It is disingenuous to say this in the context of the conversation: that little qualifier -- income in income taxes - matters. I am paying 0 (none, nada, nothing) income tax. But I am a taxpayer. This[1] source paints a better picture, and I didn't even bother verifying the data - at least it considers other kinds of taxes. [1]https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf
ionised 8y ago
That's because most of the money goes to them in the first place. So they pay the majority. Good. They can pay more too.

crooked-v 8y ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-r... > The wealthiest 1 percent of American households own 40 percent of the country's wealth, according to a new paper by economist Edward N. Wolff.

lordlimecat 8y ago
There's probably some good discussion to be had around that, but whenever anyone in the US talks about the injustice of the top 1%, I can't help but wonder: if we calculated how much of the world's wealth the 99% in America owned, would they feel contrition for their injustice? Given that the US has 25% of the world's wealth, and the lower 99% of the US population has 60% of the US's wealth, it stands to reason that "the 99%" have a full 15% of the world's total wealth. Given that the US has ~4% of the world's population, surely resolving "the wealth disparity" is more likely to lower their position than raise it.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  This is pretty disingenuous and I'll explain why. The next 1% after the top 1% owns a pretty sizable chunk too. And the next 1% after that a large chunk, and so on. The top 10% has 75% of U.S. wealth, the top 20% has 87% of U.S. wealth. So carrying on about the 99% as if wealth is distributed in anyway evenly within that group is more than a bit silly. Especially when you look at the bottom 50% having a pittance, somewhere between 1-2% of U.S. wealth. The next natural group after discussing the 1%'s wealth, isn't the other 99% just because 100-1=99... So really your argument falls apart for me because most of the 99%, the bottom 70%, end up owning just about 1% of the world's wealth. And that's a fairly small slice of pie to be split between 227 million people. And before you show me the math that it's actually quite a bit per person. Don't forget that in reality the bottom 60% only has almost as much wealth as the whole next 10% and that most of the population isn't seeing the wealth you're describing.
  - lordlimecat 8y ago
    For starters, "disingenuous" implies bad faith on my part and that's pretty uncharitable. This isn't shilling, or paid posting, or social commentating-- nor even is it me stating facts (beyond those contained in others' references). It's just a thought I've had in the past. It'd be nice if common civility meant you didn't jump out the gate assuming bad intent on my part. In any event, I was not aware of that purported wealth distribution, but the median income in the US is $59k and the median income of the world is 9k. We can argue cost of living and so forth, but it is no exaggeration to say that nearly everyone in the US today is living on the upper crust of humanity in terms of wealth and lifestyle. Across the political spectrum people tend to agree that keeping jobs in the US is a good thing while ignoring that that perpetuates the very form of wealth inequality they decry when talking about national politics. Not that I think they're wrong to argue that the government should favor its own citizens over others internationally, but it does seem rather hypocritical to me.
    - spiralx 8y ago
      You might be interested in this article about how wealth is divided in the US, even if you don't agree with all of its conclusions: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-bir...
      - lordlimecat 8y ago
        I will / am reading it, but if as its title and first few paragraphs suggest its discussion is on the top 10%, it doesn't really change my statement. $59k median income means literally half the country-- 2.5% of the world's population-- is making at least 6 times as much money as literally half of the world. It is not until you get to some US income percentile around the 15th that incomes drop below the world's 50th percentile income bracket. I do not deny that there is wealth inequality in the US nor do I have any elegant solutions to it, but I perceive a lot of self-interested hypocrisy around the issue. Surely fighting wealth inequality means cheering when manufacturing jobs are sent overseas, and the corporation's US base means that we can use economic leverage to enforce safety / wage standards on these new jobs in India / China / Mexico. This brings up the global median income, surely a good thing for anyone concerned with income equality.

hedvig 8y ago

I don't get why this is always trotted out? If you have the lion's share of wealth (and the continuous compounding passive income that comes with) then this should be expected. And then its just a matter of negotiating the amount, with the society you participate in.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kodablah 8y ago
>>> a wealth tax is very much needed >> The wealthy pay the vast majority [...] already > I don't get why this is always trotted out? Surely the context of the conversation explains why.

dmm 8y ago

Regressive federal payroll taxes are almost equal to income taxes.

Latteland 8y ago
Yes, this is an important point. I don't even notice my social security and other taxes really, and some of the charges like for workman's comp insurance don't even show up on your paycheck, but those payroll taxes are a huge issue for low wage workers. Plus they max out - so if I make 150k, my higher income basically leads to a tax cut for high wage workers.
- zlynx 8y ago
  They max out because the benefits max out. IN THEORY, your SS and worker's comp payments pay for your own benefits, as if an insurance company was calculating odds and investing the money. In practice of course it is politically easier for government to borrow the money and spend more than income, until Greece happens. Anyway, charging high-income employees more for SS and then paying them less on retirement would ruin the illusion that it is a retirement plan and not simple theft from the future.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    Well, by that standpoint all taxation is simple theft from the future, because you might die and get no benefit from it. Social security and medicare serve a social good. I knew that the idea behind not taxing me past the max was because I couldn't get more benefits. But I already have exposure to many other tax credits that poor people don't get, because they aren't able to make investments. I agree with your comment that it's easier to borrow the money. Look at our current government, that was supposedly fixated on budget deficits then when Obama is gone they pass a giant tax cut, increase the deficit (with the wish and a prayer that the deficit would go away), and now that there's clearly going to be a much larger deficit their answer is not cancel or reduce the unneeded tax cut for rich people - they want to cut benefits - this was all predicated before the tax cut.

briffle 8y ago

That entire article seems to avoid saying how much INCOME each of those groups are. Yes, the top 3% pay 37.5% of income taxes. But is their total income less than or greater than 37.5% of the total? Without the numbers, its kind of meaningless.. that is like saying bill gates moves to a town of 50 people, and suddenly pays 99.999% of the taxes.. its expected, unless you give the mean, median, etc, of income.. not just of how much he paid.

romwell 8y ago

It is disingenuous to say this in the context of the conversation: that little qualifier -- income in income taxes - matters. I am paying 0 (none, nada, nothing) income tax. But I am a taxpayer. This[1] source paints a better picture, and I didn't even bother verifying the data - at least it considers other kinds of taxes. [1]https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/taxday2017.pdf

ionised 8y ago

That's because most of the money goes to them in the first place. So they pay the majority. Good. They can pay more too.