4 ms·

Has the percentage of the government's revenue that comes from the rich changed in the period he talks about? That would seem to be the most important statisti

by pg 15y ago

Has the percentage of the government's revenue that comes from the rich changed in the period he talks about? That would seem to be the most important statistic, and yet he doesn't include it.

zdw 15y ago
Lots of variables in that statement (the number of people in the "rich" % bracket, do we take into account taxation method or inflation changes to the value of money, etc.) His point is less about the government taxation, and more the concentration of capital into a very small, very monetarily powerful group of people as a consequence of the tax system.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Yes, it has, and it has increased. This article is either terribly disingenuous or merely ignorant.
- jeromec 15y ago
  I would argue it hasn't increased nearly enough in proportion to the benefits rich people get from our now heavily inflationary monetary system. In other words, turning on the printing presses is a boon for the wealthy (cheap money to fuel stock market (mal)investment, govt. spending on things like war, appreciation of assets, etc.), but it's a hidden tax on the poor. Then, the rich whose income has risen over the last several years while all incomes below have flat lined (or even dropped) balk at the prospect of higher taxes while our crippling debt now elicits unthinkable political talk of U.S. govt. default. Edit: I would appreciate a response rather than a downvote. I don't mind disagreement, but at least give me the chance to address it.
  - netcan 15y ago
    Not sure I understand were you're coming from. I'm sure you can find more complex arguments either way but as I understand it the basic effect of printing money is devaluing that existing money - a tax on anyone holding the currency. Wouldn't the rich be the ones holding a disproportionate amount of cash?
    - jeromec 15y ago
      Yes, the rich certainly do hold a disproportionate amount of cash, but they don't just stick it all in a simple savings account (often the only option for the poor). The rich put their money to work (in money markets, the stock market, property and investments abroad as the article mentions, etc.) so that it earns a return. And they often buy items before the effects of inflation set in.
- tomsaffell 15y ago
  <Not questioning your claim> Can you link to the source? </not questioning your claim>
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=558&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc... Over the last 30 years the amount of federal tax revenues from the top income quintile has increased substantially while the amount contributed by all other quintiles has fallen. Today the top quintile contributes 2.2x as much tax revenue as all other quintiles combined. And the top 1% contributes nearly as much taxes as the bottom 80%.
    - jeromec 15y ago
      the amount of federal tax revenues from the top income quintile has increased substantially Yes, but that chart doesn't say anything about the number of rich people over that range of years. I expect a lot more millionaires exist today than in 1979. However, the historical top tax rate has decreased from 70% to 35% over the period from 1979 to present (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...).
      - InclinedPlane 15y ago
        I'm not sure I understand your point. The data is normalized to population, it's in quintiles and percentiles. It doesn't matter how many millionaires there are, the top 1% is still the top 1%. What is your contention exactly? That there is some sort of ultra-rich top 0.1% or 0.01% who are shirking their tax liability and leaving the rest of the top 1% to carry it? Or that the top 1% is not large enough of a grouping of high-income folks and that somehow they're paying too much and the top 5% or so should be paying more? Regardless of the tax rate the actual tax revenues from the top 20, 10, and 1% has increased substantially in the last several decades, to the degree such that only 40% of households are contributing fully 85% of federal tax revenues today.
- tankenmate 15y ago
  In absolute terms? Real terms? Relative terms (i.e. per capita and/or share of wealth)? and others have said; source?
1off 15y ago
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/01/14/taxes-at-the-top/ http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/01/14/taxes-at-the-top/

by pg 15y ago

Has the percentage of the government's revenue that comes from the rich changed in the period he talks about? That would seem to be the most important statistic, and yet he doesn't include it.

zdw 15y ago

Lots of variables in that statement (the number of people in the "rich" % bracket, do we take into account taxation method or inflation changes to the value of money, etc.) His point is less about the government taxation, and more the concentration of capital into a very small, very monetarily powerful group of people as a consequence of the tax system.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Yes, it has, and it has increased. This article is either terribly disingenuous or merely ignorant.

jeromec 15y ago
I would argue it hasn't increased nearly enough in proportion to the benefits rich people get from our now heavily inflationary monetary system. In other words, turning on the printing presses is a boon for the wealthy (cheap money to fuel stock market (mal)investment, govt. spending on things like war, appreciation of assets, etc.), but it's a hidden tax on the poor. Then, the rich whose income has risen over the last several years while all incomes below have flat lined (or even dropped) balk at the prospect of higher taxes while our crippling debt now elicits unthinkable political talk of U.S. govt. default. Edit: I would appreciate a response rather than a downvote. I don't mind disagreement, but at least give me the chance to address it.
- netcan 15y ago
  Not sure I understand were you're coming from. I'm sure you can find more complex arguments either way but as I understand it the basic effect of printing money is devaluing that existing money - a tax on anyone holding the currency. Wouldn't the rich be the ones holding a disproportionate amount of cash?
  - jeromec 15y ago
    Yes, the rich certainly do hold a disproportionate amount of cash, but they don't just stick it all in a simple savings account (often the only option for the poor). The rich put their money to work (in money markets, the stock market, property and investments abroad as the article mentions, etc.) so that it earns a return. And they often buy items before the effects of inflation set in.
tomsaffell 15y ago
<Not questioning your claim> Can you link to the source? </not questioning your claim>
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=558&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc... Over the last 30 years the amount of federal tax revenues from the top income quintile has increased substantially while the amount contributed by all other quintiles has fallen. Today the top quintile contributes 2.2x as much tax revenue as all other quintiles combined. And the top 1% contributes nearly as much taxes as the bottom 80%.
  - jeromec 15y ago
    the amount of federal tax revenues from the top income quintile has increased substantially Yes, but that chart doesn't say anything about the number of rich people over that range of years. I expect a lot more millionaires exist today than in 1979. However, the historical top tax rate has decreased from 70% to 35% over the period from 1979 to present (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...).
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your point. The data is normalized to population, it's in quintiles and percentiles. It doesn't matter how many millionaires there are, the top 1% is still the top 1%. What is your contention exactly? That there is some sort of ultra-rich top 0.1% or 0.01% who are shirking their tax liability and leaving the rest of the top 1% to carry it? Or that the top 1% is not large enough of a grouping of high-income folks and that somehow they're paying too much and the top 5% or so should be paying more? Regardless of the tax rate the actual tax revenues from the top 20, 10, and 1% has increased substantially in the last several decades, to the degree such that only 40% of households are contributing fully 85% of federal tax revenues today.
tankenmate 15y ago
In absolute terms? Real terms? Relative terms (i.e. per capita and/or share of wealth)? and others have said; source?

1off 15y ago

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/01/14/taxes-at-the-top/ http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/01/14/taxes-at-the-top/