4 ms·

I agree, but the parent is responding to the article’s claim that the rich pay less. This isn’t in support of the parent’s comment, just trying to clarify the c

I agree, but the parent is responding to the article’s claim that the rich pay less. This isn’t in support of the parent’s comment, just trying to clarify the conversation and root out accidental straw men.

danans 7y ago
> the parent is responding to the article’s claim that the rich pay less. The article appears to be discussing the individual tax rates paid by the wealthiest, not the percentage of total tax paid. Those are two different things. The GP appears to have introduced the latter statistic, as often happens in this debate, to distract from the actual statistic under discussion.
- refurb 7y ago
  I stated tax rate too. The bottom 50% effective tax rate is almost 1/10th of what the top 1%’s is. Therefore, the headline of the article “the rich pay less than than you” is pretty clearly false.
  - danans 7y ago
    I agree the title is click baity, but the ultra wealthy do pay a lower effective tax rate than me, and I'm probably in the top 10% of income percentile. But the observations of the article itself check out. The tax system has gotten radically less progressive over the last 50 years. The argument is over whether or not it should be made more or less progressive given current realities. People can differ in their opinions on that, but the historical trend is clear as day.
    - refurb 7y ago
      It’s gotten less progressive? 2nd graph here [1] shows the top 1% has steady increased their share of all taxes since 1986. I have no idea what it looks like before 1986. [1]https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rate/
      - danans 7y ago
        You are switching stats again, and I can't tell whether you're doing it on purpose, or are unaware that you are doing it. The stat under discussion in the article is not "share of all taxes", it's effective individual income tax rate by income percentile. The latter has definitely become less progressive over time, as the article makes clear with data. If "share of all taxes" since taxes is a statistic you think is illustrative of something relevant, notice that since 1980, real family income for the top 5% has dramatically outpaced the median real family income, so it only makes sense that their "share of all taxes" would go up: https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-2 https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-pos...
      - ranie93 7y ago
        I'd look for other sources to back your claims-- not just the tax foundation https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/the-tax-foundation-has-some-explaining-to-do https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/the-tax-foundat... https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/the-greek-menac.html https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/th... https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-foundation-figures-do-not-represent-typical-households-tax-burdens-2 https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-foundation-fig...
      - mcv 7y ago
        The top 1% have also dramatically increased their share of income since 1986, while other incomes have stagnated. The increase in tax paid is entirely due to that larger income, as the effective tax rate they pay has gone down, sometimes even lower than what high middle class pays.
  - sbochins 7y ago
    To understand why that doesn’t matter, try seeing how much the bottom 10% pay. This would include the homeless, etc. Should we expect them to be paying the same tax rate as the richest Americans?

danans 7y ago

> the parent is responding to the article’s claim that the rich pay less. The article appears to be discussing the individual tax rates paid by the wealthiest, not the percentage of total tax paid. Those are two different things. The GP appears to have introduced the latter statistic, as often happens in this debate, to distract from the actual statistic under discussion.

refurb 7y ago
I stated tax rate too. The bottom 50% effective tax rate is almost 1/10th of what the top 1%’s is. Therefore, the headline of the article “the rich pay less than than you” is pretty clearly false.
- danans 7y ago
  I agree the title is click baity, but the ultra wealthy do pay a lower effective tax rate than me, and I'm probably in the top 10% of income percentile. But the observations of the article itself check out. The tax system has gotten radically less progressive over the last 50 years. The argument is over whether or not it should be made more or less progressive given current realities. People can differ in their opinions on that, but the historical trend is clear as day.
  - refurb 7y ago
    It’s gotten less progressive? 2nd graph here [1] shows the top 1% has steady increased their share of all taxes since 1986. I have no idea what it looks like before 1986. [1]https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-tax-rate/
    - danans 7y ago
      You are switching stats again, and I can't tell whether you're doing it on purpose, or are unaware that you are doing it. The stat under discussion in the article is not "share of all taxes", it's effective individual income tax rate by income percentile. The latter has definitely become less progressive over time, as the article makes clear with data. If "share of all taxes" since taxes is a statistic you think is illustrative of something relevant, notice that since 1980, real family income for the top 5% has dramatically outpaced the median real family income, so it only makes sense that their "share of all taxes" would go up: https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-2 https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-pos...
    - ranie93 7y ago
      I'd look for other sources to back your claims-- not just the tax foundation https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/the-tax-foundation-has-some-explaining-to-do https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/the-tax-foundat... https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/the-greek-menac.html https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/th... https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-foundation-figures-do-not-represent-typical-households-tax-burdens-2 https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/tax-foundation-fig...
    - mcv 7y ago
      The top 1% have also dramatically increased their share of income since 1986, while other incomes have stagnated. The increase in tax paid is entirely due to that larger income, as the effective tax rate they pay has gone down, sometimes even lower than what high middle class pays.
- sbochins 7y ago
  To understand why that doesn’t matter, try seeing how much the bottom 10% pay. This would include the homeless, etc. Should we expect them to be paying the same tax rate as the richest Americans?