6 ms·

The top 10% of the wealthiest Americans already pay 68% of the total income tax. What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not th

The top 10% of the wealthiest Americans already pay 68% of the total income tax. What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not throwing more money at the problem to be mismanaged. Other countries manage to education their children well at all sorts of tax levels.

gerbal 12y ago
That's not an especially compelling argument. The Top 10% hold more than 77% of the wealth in the United States [1, 2]. And are much more efficient at converting short-term income into long term wealth than the lower 90% [2]. [1] http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf [2] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf
- thatswrong0 12y ago
  I don't see how that's a rebuttal to his actual point: > What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not throwing more money at the problem to be mismanaged. His point: the top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. That's a lot of money that could be used to improve the lives of the 90%, but it's being mismanaged by the government. He's saying, instead of increasing the amount of money that is going to be mismanaged by the government at the expense of the 10%, why not do more with what we already have?
  - cpursley 12y ago
    Exactly. I don't understand why we apply different rules to government. They are just a large human institution. If the Red Cross was struggling and asking for additional money when they already took in more than competing institutions, would we not look at their books and operations first before sending them more money?
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
68% of the income tax is not nearly enough, considering that the rich own the vast majority of the wealth, and benefit disproportionately from it. >Other countries manage to education their children well at all sorts of tax levels. I think you'll find that - coincidentally - those countries have much higher tax rates, and the disparity between high and low incomes is smaller than it is in the US. Education is always a good thing, and not just for the obvious reasons. But poor education is as much a symptom of damaged political belief systems as it is a cause. Fixing education will only fix the political pathologies up to a point.
- thatswrong0 12y ago
  We spend more per student than other countries. http://rossieronline.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/us-schools-vs-international3.jpg http://rossieronline.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/us-schools-v... Also: > 68% of the income tax is not nearly enough, considering that the rich own the vast majority of the wealth, and benefit disproportionately from it. Income is not the same as wealth. The top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. How much higher would be "fair" to you?
  - carlob 12y ago
    (45/10)/(55/90) == 7.4 That's how much more the average person in the top decile makes compared to the rest. (68/10)/(32/90) == 19 That's how much higher the tax the top decile's taxes are. That means that they are paying 2.6 times as much taxes per dollar. Is it too high? Too low? I guess it really depends on what the baseline is. You can't really tell from these numbers. If the bottom 90% pays 10% of their income in taxes and the top 10% 26% I think it would sound acceptable, if not a bit low. These numbers don't really tell much of a story. I guess my point is that as long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer, the tax delta is not high enough.
cpursley 12y ago
In response to the down votes: I don't understand the objective here. Are we interested in punishing the rich or fixing the education system?

gerbal 12y ago

That's not an especially compelling argument. The Top 10% hold more than 77% of the wealth in the United States [1, 2]. And are much more efficient at converting short-term income into long term wealth than the lower 90% [2]. [1] http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf [2] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014Slides.pdf

thatswrong0 12y ago
I don't see how that's a rebuttal to his actual point: > What's needed is better management and allocation of the existing money, not throwing more money at the problem to be mismanaged. His point: the top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. That's a lot of money that could be used to improve the lives of the 90%, but it's being mismanaged by the government. He's saying, instead of increasing the amount of money that is going to be mismanaged by the government at the expense of the 10%, why not do more with what we already have?
- cpursley 12y ago
  Exactly. I don't understand why we apply different rules to government. They are just a large human institution. If the Red Cross was struggling and asking for additional money when they already took in more than competing institutions, would we not look at their books and operations first before sending them more money?

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

68% of the income tax is not nearly enough, considering that the rich own the vast majority of the wealth, and benefit disproportionately from it. >Other countries manage to education their children well at all sorts of tax levels. I think you'll find that - coincidentally - those countries have much higher tax rates, and the disparity between high and low incomes is smaller than it is in the US. Education is always a good thing, and not just for the obvious reasons. But poor education is as much a symptom of damaged political belief systems as it is a cause. Fixing education will only fix the political pathologies up to a point.

thatswrong0 12y ago
We spend more per student than other countries. http://rossieronline.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/us-schools-vs-international3.jpg http://rossieronline.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/us-schools-v... Also: > 68% of the income tax is not nearly enough, considering that the rich own the vast majority of the wealth, and benefit disproportionately from it. Income is not the same as wealth. The top 10% earn 45% of the income and pay 68% of federal income taxes. How much higher would be "fair" to you?
- carlob 12y ago
  (45/10)/(55/90) == 7.4 That's how much more the average person in the top decile makes compared to the rest. (68/10)/(32/90) == 19 That's how much higher the tax the top decile's taxes are. That means that they are paying 2.6 times as much taxes per dollar. Is it too high? Too low? I guess it really depends on what the baseline is. You can't really tell from these numbers. If the bottom 90% pays 10% of their income in taxes and the top 10% 26% I think it would sound acceptable, if not a bit low. These numbers don't really tell much of a story. I guess my point is that as long as the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer, the tax delta is not high enough.

cpursley 12y ago

In response to the down votes: I don't understand the objective here. Are we interested in punishing the rich or fixing the education system?