4 ms·

There is a difference between wealth and income. The top income earners pay a majority of the income taxes. The lower income earners pay a much smaller part of

by mfer 7y ago

There is a difference between wealth and income. The top income earners pay a majority of the income taxes. The lower income earners pay a much smaller part of the taxes. A bunch of the super rich deal in wealth rather than income. Remember reading about tech execs with $1 annual paychecks? They earn their money differently and pay taxes differently. I wish there was more online showing this in a simple form.

Analemma_ 7y ago
> The top income earners pay a majority of the income taxes. The lower income earners pay a much smaller part of the taxes. This is a technically true but extremely disingenuous and misleading argument, which is probably why I hear talking heads on Fox use it all the time. Imagine the world consisted of a flat income tax, one multi-trillionaire and 8 billion people living on a dollar a day. That person would probably be paying the vast majority of income taxes, yet this is clearly not an equitable system and it would be absurd to suggest that person is somehow being wronged. Note also that if the incomes of top earners increase while everyone else's remains stagnant (which is what has been happening since the 1970's), then mathematically the share of total income tax paid by them must increase. Again, it is ridiculous to claim that this is evidence that they are being treated unfairly. Not increasing the top marginal tax rate in this case would be a regressive tax pretty much by definition.
- mfer 7y ago
  I tried to make a simple observation rather than an argument. Sorry it didn't come across that way. There are many different forms of taxes. Income is the one we tend to look at. There are other methods to pay taxes. Most income taxes is paid by the wealthy but I'm not sure about the super wealthy. They end up with other forms of taxes such as what Zuckerberg was reported as paying several years ago (billions in more than one year). There's a difference between looking at the overall tax picture and a small segment of it. In many cases the details of the high level and breakdowns are not easily available for people to read.

by mfer 7y ago

Analemma_ 7y ago

> The top income earners pay a majority of the income taxes. The lower income earners pay a much smaller part of the taxes. This is a technically true but extremely disingenuous and misleading argument, which is probably why I hear talking heads on Fox use it all the time. Imagine the world consisted of a flat income tax, one multi-trillionaire and 8 billion people living on a dollar a day. That person would probably be paying the vast majority of income taxes, yet this is clearly not an equitable system and it would be absurd to suggest that person is somehow being wronged. Note also that if the incomes of top earners increase while everyone else's remains stagnant (which is what has been happening since the 1970's), then mathematically the share of total income tax paid by them must increase. Again, it is ridiculous to claim that this is evidence that they are being treated unfairly. Not increasing the top marginal tax rate in this case would be a regressive tax pretty much by definition.

mfer 7y ago
I tried to make a simple observation rather than an argument. Sorry it didn't come across that way. There are many different forms of taxes. Income is the one we tend to look at. There are other methods to pay taxes. Most income taxes is paid by the wealthy but I'm not sure about the super wealthy. They end up with other forms of taxes such as what Zuckerberg was reported as paying several years ago (billions in more than one year). There's a difference between looking at the overall tax picture and a small segment of it. In many cases the details of the high level and breakdowns are not easily available for people to read.