Tax The Rich?

[Jimmy Higgins]

A little something for the lurkers. Some data to chew on. Lots of numbers get tossed around in these sorts of threads. The stuff below is from the CBO.

As follows are the average salaries for each quintile and their Total Effective Federal Tax Rate in 2002.

0% to 20% - $14,400 - 4.6%
20% to 40% - $33,600 - 10.8%
40% to 60% - $51,100 - 14.4%
60% to 80% - $75,900 - 18.7%
80% to 100% - $175,000 - 26.1%

top 1% - $938,100 - 32.7%


Flat tax? Yeah. Let's set it at the top 1% rate. Who's for that?

[decoski]

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

All that time. What in the world was I thinking?! People like Decoski don't think. They follow. Why did I bother using numbers and actual sources that trustworthy to argue a point when they weren't going to read it? I'm such a fool.... an idiot!

Dude you are either the best troll or the best follower the right-wing could ever ask for. Consider this my parting post to you.

Run, coward. People are just seeing you for who you are: a left-wing Kool-Aid drinker who has contempt for the wealthy, and refuses to answer direct questions that expose you for the class warfare clown that you are. One last chance: how does soaking the rich make those making less money any more financially secure?

[$cirisme]

Interesting things to think about Jimmy, as usual. Thanks.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Run, coward. People are just seeing you for who you are: a left-wing Kool-Aid drinker who has contempt for the wealthy, and refuses to answer direct questions that expose you for the class warfare clown that you are. One last chance: how does soaking the rich make those making less money any more financially secure?

Dude, you obviously didn't read anything I typed. According to the numbers, the rich aren't getting "soaked".

[zorathruster]

In my opinion taxation is designed toward a society not toward or for specific individuals. Taxation is a method where by a society can accomplish those goals it deems necessary. That society provides for individuals in asymetries. Some get a lot, some get very little comparatively. Some provide a lot, some provide very little. When citizens feel they are not getting a fair quantity for their input they get disheartened at the whole system.

Yes the goose eats too much, but don't kill the goose... erst wise there will be no golden eggs.

[decoski]

Dude, you obviously didn't read anything I typed. According to the numbers, the rich aren't getting "soaked".

Even so, you want to soak them. Why? What purpose would that serve. Answer my questions when you have the courage.

[joel]

Actually, all of that stuff came about from the Representation that our tax dollars lead to.

That does not make it just.

It is not stealing if the elected reps are passing laws the people that elected them wanted to.

The only way it would not be stealing is if it were passed by unanimous vote of the people, and applied only to those who voted. If it is not voluntary on an individual basis it is stealing.
By your logic, if the elected reps were to pass laws the people that elected them wanted to enslave a certain group of people, then that wouldn't really be slavery.

[joel]

I'd like to see how getting the rich to pay more will make those below them better off financially.

And even if that were true, it wouldn't make it just.

[joel]

What do all these scary numbers mean? It means that the top 1%'s income has increased at a substantially higher rate than that of the rest of the country. So the reason why they are paying more in 2000 than in 1980 is not because of the tax rates increasing, but because they have a lot more money now.

Another thing you need to keep in mind is that most people in the "top 1%" are not there because of a regular income, but are only there for that year because they are mostly middle-class individuals who sold a home, sold a business, withdrew their savings from their retirement account, etc. The top 1% consists of irregular spikes, not "because they have a lot more money now" (whoever "they" is). The increase you are speaking of is because the spikes are higher than they used to be (which is a good thing).

No, what this country needs is for people to get their information and education from numbers and books, not AM radio and partisan op-eds.

No need to be insulting.

Flat tax? Yeah. Let's set it at the top 1% rate. Who's for that?

Personally, I'm not as concerned with how we are taxed as in the level of spending/taxation. If taxation/spending is low enough, then it doesn't really matter whether it is a flat rate or a flat fee or what. And if it is high enough (like it is now), then it will be oppressive, no matter how it is distributed.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another thing you need to keep in mind is that most people in the "top 1%" are not there because of a regular income, but are only there for that year because they are mostly middle-class individuals who sold a home, sold a business, withdrew their savings from their retirement account, etc. The top 1% consists of irregular spikes, not "because they have a lot more money now" (whoever "they" is). The increase you are speaking of is because the spikes are higher than they used to be (which is a good thing).

Umm... in 2002, the average salary of a person in the top 1% was almost $1 million. Sold a home, business, savings from retirement? At the rate of $1 million in a year? No... that isn't typical of the middle class person as you seem to be suggesting.

No need to be insulting.

That wasn't an insult. It was a commentary. Calling someone an idiot is an insult. Remarking on how bad some people are at researching is a reflection or a fact.

[joel]

Umm... in 2002, the average salary of a person in the top 1% was almost $1 million. Sold a home, business, savings from retirement? At the rate of $1 million in a year? No... that isn't typical of the middle class person as you seem to be suggesting.

That average is likely skewed, with most of the top 1% being below average. Do you have numbers for the median, minimum and maximum? Besides, if you are talking about the largest cities, then $1 million is not that unusual for the average price of a home, and businesses and retirement savings would be less unusual. And note, I didn't say it was typical of the middle class person, I said it was typical of the top 1% person to be middle class. I have not heard anything about what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%. But, regardless, it is not very meaningful to use income to divide people into "classes", and it is not good to punish people for those spikes in income.

[Jimmy Higgins]

That average is likely skewed, with most of the top 1% being below average.

At $1 million? How in the world can that happen? My parents (lower middle class) saw their home skyrocket in value over 500% in a period of 20 years. They still only sold the home for $300,000. Indeed, that plops them into the top quintile of the nation, well above it... but it puts them no where near the top 1%.

Do you have numbers for the median, minimum and maximum?

I've already supplied a wealth of data via the CBO. Feel free to contribute at any time. Thing is this, you seem pretty sure of yourself (regardless of how mathematically unlikely it is regarding the middle class being propped to the top 1% so often annually) to be asking for data. You should already have it.

Besides, if you are talking about the largest cities, then $1 million is not that unusual for the average price of a home, and businesses and retirement savings would be less unusual.

That doesn't even qualify as allegorical evidence. If your home is worth $1 million, you probably aren't in the middle class. A mortgage of $1,000,000... even assuming 40% down payment (that wouldn't be likely for a middle class family), you'd be looking at a principal of $3500 a month, excluding property tax, insurance, etc...

And note, I didn't say it was typical of the middle class person, I said it was typical of the top 1% person to be middle class. I have not heard anything about what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%.

So you admit all your claims are hollow then? You have no data to support your claim. A claim that I may add is very irrational. I'll give you that people in the middle class can prop up into the top quintile (top 20%) of the country, but top 1%? At $1,000,000 a year, that is not very likely.

But, regardless, it is not very meaningful to use income to divide people into "classes", and it is not good to punish people for those spikes in income.

Funny. Very funny, because this is a strawman. I established, quite thoroughly, that the rich aren't getting taxed at a higher rate than before. I showed, through CBO numbers that the only thing that has really changed is that the top 1% is making 183% more money than it was in 1980. And that is why the tax income has increased since 1980, not because of the huge tax rate increases that people pretend the rich have been subjected to.

As the numbers stand, the rich are taxed quite fairly, seeing their effective tax rate has increased 7% while their income has increased over 180% during that same period.

[joel]

That average is likely skewed, with most of the top 1% being below average.

At $1 million? How in the world can that happen?

What do you mean? You are suggesting that the distribution is not skewed? That as income goes up to the highest, the number of people do not drop off? That the income at the highest of the range is not much greater than the average?

The extremely high incomes at the top of the range will pull the average well above the median--that's how it can happen.

My parents (lower middle class) saw their home skyrocket in value over 500% in a period of 20 years. They still only sold the home for $300,000. Indeed, that plops them into the top quintile of the nation, well above it... but it puts them no where near the top 1%.

Not true. See here, that the threshold for the top 1% was $364,657 in 2005. It was less than $300,000 in 1999, 2001-2003. So that put your parents right around the threshold of the top 1%.

If your home is worth $1 million, you probably aren't in the middle class. A mortgage of $1,000,000...

You just talked about homes increasing in value 500%. That makes the mortgage only $200,000 on the home that is later sold for $1,000,000. But, like I said, most of the top 1% is almost certainly below the average of $1,000,000 income.

I have not heard anything about what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%.

So you admit all your claims are hollow then?

No, what I admitted is that that I do not claim anything about the claim that you claimed I was claiming. It is irrelevant what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%. In fact, what I am saying makes "middle class" not a very meaningful concept.

it is not good to punish people for those spikes in income.

Funny. Very funny, because this is a strawman. I established, quite thoroughly, that the rich aren't getting taxed at a higher rate than before.

I never claimed that they were. I claim that the absolute value of their tax is higher, as the CBO numbers show, and you yourself admit. Those who get a spike in income have to pay a spike in taxes--even without the rate increasing--i.e., people are punished for spikes in income because they have to pay a larger tax amount (not necessarily a higher rate).

As the numbers stand, the rich are taxed quite fairly,

Define fair. Besides, the question is one of fairness but a question of justice.

[uberliber]

In my opinion taxation is designed toward a society not toward or for specific individuals. Taxation is a method where by a society can accomplish those goals it deems necessary. That society provides for individuals in asymetries. Some get a lot, some get very little comparatively. Some provide a lot, some provide very little. When citizens feel they are not getting a fair quantity for their input they get disheartened at the whole system.

Yes the goose eats too much, but don't kill the goose... erst wise there will be no golden eggs.

the market should have nothing to do with fairness. it should simply be voluntary exchanges between 2 consenting beings.

[uberliber]

As the numbers stand, the rich are taxed quite fairly, seeing their effective tax rate has increased 7% while their income has increased over 180% during that same period.

Once again, fairness is irrelevant to economics.