4 ms·

The top 1% of America pays 40% of the federal income taxes. Getting rid of the rich is probably a pretty bad idea for the rest of us.

wewtyflakes 4mo ago
This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government.
- blanched 4mo ago
  Right - and iirc the bottom of the 1% is somewhere around 700k. Still a ton of money, but very very far off from a billion.
  - fsckboy 4mo ago
    >700k. Still a ton of money, but very very far off from a billion that 700K is income, but the billion is assets. earning 700K is the income from $10 million in the stock market (although working to earn $700K is in exchange for you time while the income from $10 mil is passive. OTOH people with the work ethic to earn like that tend to like what they do. a billion in the stock market is $70 million a year, a large number but far from a billion. TLDR: 700K compares to a billion 1 in 1000, but the truth is closer to 1 in 100
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  And if you take away their money, then who is going to fund the government and all those wealth redistribution programs?
  - laughing_man 4mo ago
    There are US state governments discovering this right now. I would have thought it was obvious.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      It is obvious, it is also the result of willful blindness.
  - wewtyflakes 4mo ago
    That is a strawman argument. Nobody is seriously arguing to take all the money. I called out extreme wealth disparity, and implied it was a problem. You can disagree at the latter, but you cannot disagree with the former.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      > Nobody is seriously arguing to take all the money. They are arguing to take enough to destroy the businesses they create. Remember Bernie Sanders saying billionaires should not exist? That's taking away 99.9% of Musk's wealth.
      - wewtyflakes 4mo ago
        Fine by me.
- fsckboy 4mo ago
  >a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government you're overcorrecting WAY too far. Tax rate percentages are much higher on high income people, and THAT is why they pay most of the federal budget, it's forced generosity paying the government. and it's actually the top 20% who dominate income and taxes, but including that extra 19% is important because that is the class of people ("coastal elites") who have a (all too human) tendency to rig the system in favor of their children in terms of good schools, universities, learning high status pasttimes, "internships" at prestigious institutions, rent paid in high value/opportunity areas after university etc. These high income people basically earn their livings from the 1%. (that should not be interpreted as a pure sign of oligopoly, capitalist markets measure productivity, and that's how it works out, production in these industries is highly valued by the populace, but turnover of these people is high, where the top of the list is almost invariably new people each generation.)
  - wewtyflakes 4mo ago
    I do not understand what you mean by "overcorrecting WAY too far". I have not posited anything aside from wealth disparity existing and that the wealthy do not have a tendency to just give money to the government for the fun of it. If they are paying most the taxes, it is because they have most of the money. Seems self-evident to me.
    - fsckboy 4mo ago
      >I do not understand what you mean by "overcorrecting WAY too far". you wrote this, and I would call this "attempting to correct any misconception": >This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government. I'm saying that your formulation is not much better than what you are arguing against because you neglect graduated income tax. It's not because rich people have more money, it's because they are taxed at much higher rates, and lower income people are hardly taxed at all.
      - wewtyflakes 4mo ago
        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-warren-buffett-calls-outrageous-173016060.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-warren-buffett-ca...
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
overfeed 4mo ago
The 1% hold more than 40% of the wealth, and therefore should be paying much more than 40% of income taxes, based on proportion alone - nevermind historic precedence before trickle-down Reaganomics. When the top 1% are not in the top tax bracket, something is horribly wrong.
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  They are in the top tax bracket. The federal income tax is based on income, not wealth.
  - overfeed 4mo ago
    > They are in the top tax bracket They are not in the top bracket by choice - a luxury option unavailable to non-wealthy people in the working middle-class who actually are in the top tax bracket. As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income. 0. Taxable events need be overhauled to cover loopholes, including removing tax-advantages of borrowing against securities. The legal fiction that allows rich people to spend money not recognized as income is deleterious. 1. Warren Buffet, IIRC, noted his assistant was in a higher tax bracket than him.
    - latency-guy2 4mo ago
      > As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income. There is no optimization for anything actually, its just income. There's lots of different forms of taxes that the US government takes part in as you know. Quitting your day job removes the income part until distribution/settlement for any owned assets. You can argue for a wealth tax, but conflating two separate concepts is not how you do it.
      - overfeed 4mo ago
hnav 4mo ago
The top %1 is a strawman invented by the top 0.01%.

wewtyflakes 4mo ago

This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government.

blanched 4mo ago
Right - and iirc the bottom of the 1% is somewhere around 700k. Still a ton of money, but very very far off from a billion.
- fsckboy 4mo ago
  >700k. Still a ton of money, but very very far off from a billion that 700K is income, but the billion is assets. earning 700K is the income from $10 million in the stock market (although working to earn $700K is in exchange for you time while the income from $10 mil is passive. OTOH people with the work ethic to earn like that tend to like what they do. a billion in the stock market is $70 million a year, a large number but far from a billion. TLDR: 700K compares to a billion 1 in 1000, but the truth is closer to 1 in 100
WalterBright 4mo ago
And if you take away their money, then who is going to fund the government and all those wealth redistribution programs?
- laughing_man 4mo ago
  There are US state governments discovering this right now. I would have thought it was obvious.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    It is obvious, it is also the result of willful blindness.
- wewtyflakes 4mo ago
  That is a strawman argument. Nobody is seriously arguing to take all the money. I called out extreme wealth disparity, and implied it was a problem. You can disagree at the latter, but you cannot disagree with the former.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    > Nobody is seriously arguing to take all the money. They are arguing to take enough to destroy the businesses they create. Remember Bernie Sanders saying billionaires should not exist? That's taking away 99.9% of Musk's wealth.
    - wewtyflakes 4mo ago
      Fine by me.
fsckboy 4mo ago
>a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government you're overcorrecting WAY too far. Tax rate percentages are much higher on high income people, and THAT is why they pay most of the federal budget, it's forced generosity paying the government. and it's actually the top 20% who dominate income and taxes, but including that extra 19% is important because that is the class of people ("coastal elites") who have a (all too human) tendency to rig the system in favor of their children in terms of good schools, universities, learning high status pasttimes, "internships" at prestigious institutions, rent paid in high value/opportunity areas after university etc. These high income people basically earn their livings from the 1%. (that should not be interpreted as a pure sign of oligopoly, capitalist markets measure productivity, and that's how it works out, production in these industries is highly valued by the populace, but turnover of these people is high, where the top of the list is almost invariably new people each generation.)
- wewtyflakes 4mo ago
  I do not understand what you mean by "overcorrecting WAY too far". I have not posited anything aside from wealth disparity existing and that the wealthy do not have a tendency to just give money to the government for the fun of it. If they are paying most the taxes, it is because they have most of the money. Seems self-evident to me.
  - fsckboy 4mo ago
    >I do not understand what you mean by "overcorrecting WAY too far". you wrote this, and I would call this "attempting to correct any misconception": >This is a byproduct of wild wealth disparity, not because the rich are so generous with paying the government. I'm saying that your formulation is not much better than what you are arguing against because you neglect graduated income tax. It's not because rich people have more money, it's because they are taxed at much higher rates, and lower income people are hardly taxed at all.
    - wewtyflakes 4mo ago
      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-warren-buffett-calls-outrageous-173016060.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/billionaire-warren-buffett-ca...

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

overfeed 4mo ago

The 1% hold more than 40% of the wealth, and therefore should be paying much more than 40% of income taxes, based on proportion alone - nevermind historic precedence before trickle-down Reaganomics. When the top 1% are not in the top tax bracket, something is horribly wrong.

WalterBright 4mo ago
They are in the top tax bracket. The federal income tax is based on income, not wealth.
- overfeed 4mo ago
  > They are in the top tax bracket They are not in the top bracket by choice - a luxury option unavailable to non-wealthy people in the working middle-class who actually are in the top tax bracket. As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income. 0. Taxable events need be overhauled to cover loopholes, including removing tax-advantages of borrowing against securities. The legal fiction that allows rich people to spend money not recognized as income is deleterious. 1. Warren Buffet, IIRC, noted his assistant was in a higher tax bracket than him.
  - latency-guy2 4mo ago
    > As you helpfully noted in your second half of your comment, high wealth, deliberately low income[0] means they are not in the top tax bracket[1] on the basis of their carefully calculated, tax-optimized income. There is no optimization for anything actually, its just income. There's lots of different forms of taxes that the US government takes part in as you know. Quitting your day job removes the income part until distribution/settlement for any owned assets. You can argue for a wealth tax, but conflating two separate concepts is not how you do it.
    - overfeed 4mo ago

hnav 4mo ago

The top %1 is a strawman invented by the top 0.01%.