6 ms·

It's probably different in the UK where The Guardian is, but in the USA the bottom 45% of wage earners pay $0 federal income tax while the top 20% pay 87% of it

by skrowl 7y ago

It's probably different in the UK where The Guardian is, but in the USA the bottom 45% of wage earners pay $0 federal income tax while the top 20% pay 87% of it. I'm not sure how much more you should slap on the "evil" job-creating rich before it's "proper", but 87% already seems pretty high to me. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-fed...

rootusrootus 7y ago
I think it's safe to say that the top 20% is almost entirely made up of people who are definitely not super-rich.
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  This! Top are doctors, engineers, small business owners, etc., and usually, they are the ones who get hit with the highest taxes (atleast around here in europe). The super rich have ways to move their money, the ones above usually don't.
geggam 7y ago
You do realize it wasnt too long ago the rich in the US DID pay high taxes ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_R... little note about how much the rich are actually paying here https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-tim...
falcolas 7y ago
Well, 2% of 100 million dollars is more than 30% of $40,000. However, it’s fairly easy to argue that to the earner of that $40,000, that 30% has an impact on their life significantly greater than the millionaire’s 2%. And, if we set everyone at a flat (for example) 3%, it’s not as if the government would lose money. That additional 1% against all the super-rich would more than cover the missing contributions of those who need the money more.
DanTheManPR 7y ago
What would you propose, squeeze more water from the stone? The bottom 45% of wage earnes are broke as hell, they hardly have any income to tax. Meanwhile, the top 20% have so much more money that you can raise 87% of income tax revenue even with today's more flattened tax brackets.
- jazzyk 7y ago
  But in the supposedly socialist Europe, even lower income people pay SOME amount in taxes. For example, in Spain, you pay 19% on the first 12,450E, and the rate quickly goes up to 45% for anything over 60,000E (average income is ~30K) There are some personal allowances and deductions, but most people pay at least some tax.
lurcio 7y ago
The Guardian is operationally in the UK, but its ownership is sited in an offshore trust.
akhosravian 7y ago
“The top 20% pay 87% of [federal income tax]” is only a meaningful statement in context of percentage of income they make. What’s that number? OTOH the top 400 households in the US paid a lower tax rate than any other group who owed anything last year: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/incom...

by skrowl 7y ago

rootusrootus 7y ago

I think it's safe to say that the top 20% is almost entirely made up of people who are definitely not super-rich.

ajsnigrutin 7y ago
This! Top are doctors, engineers, small business owners, etc., and usually, they are the ones who get hit with the highest taxes (atleast around here in europe). The super rich have ways to move their money, the ones above usually don't.

geggam 7y ago

You do realize it wasnt too long ago the rich in the US DID pay high taxes ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_Marginal_Tax_R... little note about how much the rich are actually paying here https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-tim...

falcolas 7y ago

Well, 2% of 100 million dollars is more than 30% of $40,000. However, it’s fairly easy to argue that to the earner of that $40,000, that 30% has an impact on their life significantly greater than the millionaire’s 2%. And, if we set everyone at a flat (for example) 3%, it’s not as if the government would lose money. That additional 1% against all the super-rich would more than cover the missing contributions of those who need the money more.

DanTheManPR 7y ago

What would you propose, squeeze more water from the stone? The bottom 45% of wage earnes are broke as hell, they hardly have any income to tax. Meanwhile, the top 20% have so much more money that you can raise 87% of income tax revenue even with today's more flattened tax brackets.

jazzyk 7y ago
But in the supposedly socialist Europe, even lower income people pay SOME amount in taxes. For example, in Spain, you pay 19% on the first 12,450E, and the rate quickly goes up to 45% for anything over 60,000E (average income is ~30K) There are some personal allowances and deductions, but most people pay at least some tax.

lurcio 7y ago

The Guardian is operationally in the UK, but its ownership is sited in an offshore trust.

akhosravian 7y ago

“The top 20% pay 87% of [federal income tax]” is only a meaningful statement in context of percentage of income they make. What’s that number? OTOH the top 400 households in the US paid a lower tax rate than any other group who owed anything last year: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/incom...