4 ms·

Most commenters here seem to have a false impression of the distribution of taxation. "The rich pay little taxes" is disinfo. The truth is more like "the rich p

by 00ff 3y ago

Most commenters here seem to have a false impression of the distribution of taxation. "The rich pay little taxes" is disinfo. The truth is more like "the rich pay most of the taxes." The US has had progressive taxation since 1913. Today, taxes on the top 1% of earners comprise 40% of federal income tax revenue, top 5% comprise 60%, while the bottom 50% comprise 2% (however note income taxes are only half of federal revenue). Per CBO, the US gini coefficient falls by 0.17 (a third) when you account for taxes and transfers. Our legislators have created tons of complexity in our tax codes which people use to reduce their tax burdens. I mainly blame congress and the electorate. Donors are only culpable for funding congressional campaigns' appeals to voters.

mahogany 3y ago
> The truth is more like "the rich pay most of the taxes." By itself, this doesn't really mean much; it certainly doesn't address "fairness". For example, even in an inverted regressive tax system, the rich could still pay the most in taxes. This is simply because they earn the most money. And the larger the ratio between rich and poor, the easier it is for the rich to pay the most in taxes, yet still not be affected as substantially by taxation. Take an extreme example to illustrate: there are 9 earners making $100 per year and 1 earner making $10,000 per year. If the tax rate were 90% for the low-earners and 10% for the high-earner, the high-earner would still pay the most in taxes (more than 50% of total revenue), but few would call this system "fair".
sesuximo 3y ago
I think “top income earners” might be misleading? For the people in the article who donate say 40mil to their foundation and write off that 40mil from their income… if they earned 30mil that year, would they still be counted as a top 1% earner for the year in your metrics? I think you’re right overall about top 50% and top 1%, but I think as you consider ultra wealthy people it might not be as simple (or at least i wonder about more edge cases; maybe I’m wrong)
jhp123 3y ago
"the rich" and "top income earners" are not at all the same group. Many of the richest people make their money through untaxed capital gains.

by 00ff 3y ago

mahogany 3y ago

> The truth is more like "the rich pay most of the taxes." By itself, this doesn't really mean much; it certainly doesn't address "fairness". For example, even in an inverted regressive tax system, the rich could still pay the most in taxes. This is simply because they earn the most money. And the larger the ratio between rich and poor, the easier it is for the rich to pay the most in taxes, yet still not be affected as substantially by taxation. Take an extreme example to illustrate: there are 9 earners making $100 per year and 1 earner making $10,000 per year. If the tax rate were 90% for the low-earners and 10% for the high-earner, the high-earner would still pay the most in taxes (more than 50% of total revenue), but few would call this system "fair".

sesuximo 3y ago

I think “top income earners” might be misleading? For the people in the article who donate say 40mil to their foundation and write off that 40mil from their income… if they earned 30mil that year, would they still be counted as a top 1% earner for the year in your metrics? I think you’re right overall about top 50% and top 1%, but I think as you consider ultra wealthy people it might not be as simple (or at least i wonder about more edge cases; maybe I’m wrong)

jhp123 3y ago

"the rich" and "top income earners" are not at all the same group. Many of the richest people make their money through untaxed capital gains.