This Just In - Top 10% Paid 70% of 2010 Federal Taxes

[TPS]

While globalization has probably been the most important cause of increased inequality, tax policy may be second on the list. The recent changes will probably help slow stem the tide a bit.

[GG]

While globalization has probably been the most important cause of increased inequality, tax policy may be second on the list. The recent changes will probably help slow stem the tide a bit.

 

Only by the superwealthy deferring discretionary income. Then we all win right?

 

Yeay progressives.

[TPS]

Only by the superwealthy deferring discretionary income. Then we all win right?

 

Yeay progressives.

When will the Bills sign another free agent? Nix needs to fill another hole.

[Magox]

The net aggregate income inequality has increased, but it has very very little to do with the tax code. Much more so with Globalization.

 

The progressiveness of the US tax code has increased virtually every year since 1980, according to data from the IRS. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have not only increased the aggregate amount of total taxes paid, which is to be expected, but have paid more as a % of revenues collected in the U.S and have paid a higher % of their income to taxes relative to the bottom 50%.

 

In other words, the tax code has almost nothing to do with this development, and the numbers are here for everyone to see. Which debunks what the professor claims regarding US tax policy contributing to the aggregate income inequality.

 

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

[GG]

The net aggregate income inequality has increased, but it has very very little to do with the tax code. Much more so with Globalization.

 

The progressiveness of the US tax code has increased virtually every year since 1980, according to data from the IRS. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have not only increased the aggregate amount of total taxes paid, which is to be expected, but have paid more as a % of revenues collected in the U.S and have paid a higher % of their income to taxes relative to the bottom 50%.

 

In other words, the tax code has almost nothing to do with this development, and the numbers are here for everyone to see. Which debunks what the professor claims regarding US tax policy contributing to the aggregate income inequality.

 

http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0

 

And if people look at the data, they will see that while income inequality has risen, the share of taxes paid by the wealthy has increased by a larger amount...

[Magox]

And if people look at the data, they will see that while income inequality has risen, the share of taxes paid by the wealthy has increased by a larger amount...

 

It's right there for everyone to see. The progressivity (sp)? of the US tax code has increased in virtually every metric you can possibly conclude from the data collected by the IRS.

[Dean Cain]

I have never seen so much "stupid" expressed in so few words.

 

37,654 posts do not qualify you as a market expert.

[TPS]

The net aggregate income inequality has increased, but it has very very little to do with the tax code. Much more so with Globalization.

 

The progressiveness of the US tax code has increased virtually every year since 1980, according to data from the IRS. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have not only increased the aggregate amount of total taxes paid, which is to be expected, but have paid more as a % of revenues collected in the U.S and have paid a higher % of their income to taxes relative to the bottom 50%.

 

In other words, the tax code has almost nothing to do with this development, and the numbers are here for everyone to see. Which debunks what the professor claims regarding US tax policy contributing to the aggregate income inequality.

 

http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0

Not quite brainiac. Marginal rates in the US tax code have declined, so there is less progressivity in the TAX CODE.

You are claiming that actual taxes paid are a measure of progressivity in the tax code; it's not.

The rich pay more because of rising inequality; which means that the poor will pay less, because they have even less. Of course the rich pay a greater share over time, duh!

 

Lower marginal tax rates since 1981 influence inequality because the rich now keep a greater share of their income, and the power of compound interest does the rest. Someone with your financial genius should be able to understand that earning 10% on a million dollars generates a hell of a lot more than 10% on a hundred dollars...

[Chef Jim]

37,654 posts do not qualify you as a market expert.

 

No but it sure as hell qualifies him as a stupid post expert.

[Magox]

Not quite brainiac. Marginal rates in the US tax code have declined, so there is less progressivity in the TAX CODE.

You are claiming that actual taxes paid are a measure of progressivity in the tax code; it's not.

The rich pay more because of rising inequality; which means that the poor will pay less, because they have even less. Of course the rich pay a greater share over time, duh!

 

Lower marginal tax rates since 1981 influence inequality because the rich now keep a greater share of their income, and the power of compound interest does the rest. Someone with your financial genius should be able to understand that earning 10% on a million dollars generates a hell of a lot more than 10% on a hundred dollars...

 

Nope, wrong again.

 

That's not what I'm claiming. Look at the tax data I provided. The % that the "rich" are paying is higher relative to the bottom 50%, as a percentage.

 

I'm not talking just about the total % of total revenues collected, but what they are paying as a % relative to the bottom 50%.

 

Back in 1980, the top 1% paid 600% higher than the bottom 50%, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.

 

Now, that number has soared to 1300% higher than the bottom 50%.

 

 

Check the data

 

Here is a recap of post #25 in this thread

 

According to the tax foundation which compiled data directly from the IRS, the average rate paid by the top 1% in 2008 paid Adjusted Gross Income of 20% of the total revenues collected. In 1980, the top 1% paid 8.46% of total revenues collected. Since 1980, the total share of revenues from the top 1% has been steadily increasing, with the exceptions of down years caused by recessions.

 

Also, speaking of the progressivity of the US tax code, the top 1% pay after deductions 24.01%, the bottom 50% pay 1.85%. As income rises, the level of taxes paid as a percentage increases.

 

Also at the bottom of the page, if you look at the progressiveness of the tax code, you will see that ever since 1980, the US tax code has steadily gotten more progressive.

 

In 1980 the top 1% paid a rate of 34.47%... The bottom 50% paid a rate of 6.1%, which means that the 1% paid a little less than 600% higher rates than the bottom 50%.

 

In 2009, the top 1% paid a rate of 24.28% and the bottom 50% paid a rate of 1.85%, which means that the 1% paid more than 1300% higher rates than the bottom 50%.

 

In other words the US tax code has exponentially increased the progressiveness of taxes paid.

 

http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0

Edited March 14, 2013 by Magox

[DC Tom]

37,654 posts do not qualify you as a market expert.

 

And ironically, with one post you qualified yourself as decisively NOT being one.

[GG]

Not quite brainiac. Marginal rates in the US tax code have declined, so there is less progressivity in the TAX CODE.

You are claiming that actual taxes paid are a measure of progressivity in the tax code; it's not.

The rich pay more because of rising inequality; which means that the poor will pay less, because they have even less. Of course the rich pay a greater share over time, duh!

 

Lower marginal tax rates since 1981 influence inequality because the rich now keep a greater share of their income, and the power of compound interest does the rest. Someone with your financial genius should be able to understand that earning 10% on a million dollars generates a hell of a lot more than 10% on a hundred dollars...

 

And this is why progressives will always win the arguments with the simpleminded. Is the ultimate goal tax revenue collection or saying the rich aren't paying their fair share because some income is taxed at lower rates than other income. Talking about marginal rates to people who understand how taxation works is like saying Trent Edwards was a great QB because he had a very high completion percentage. Who gives a crap about marginal rates when you don't know what the allowable deductions are against AGI.

 

Just like wins & losses are the ultimate arbiters of sports success, tax policy should be judged on revenues collected and effects on the economy. A big reason for rising income inequality is because the rich were incentivized to monetize income at their discretion due to advantageous tax rates. A big part of the superwealthy incomes is fully discretionary and tax policies play a huge role in the decision where & when to recognize that income. If rates were too high that income wouldn't have been generated and Treasury would get less tax dollars. But the redistributionists would be ecstatic because income inequality would go down. Whoopie for progress.

 

The same argument goes for taxing foreign earnings. No company in its right mind will repatriate overseas cash due to high taxes. So Treasury is missing out on a tax windfall because nobody wants to be seen giving "tax breaks" to greedy corporations. So the result is $000000 in collected tax, when the number could go into billions.

 

So you can tell your sob story about the rich soaking the poor to someone who doesn't understand the issues. When in reality, stupid tax codes cheat the Treasury of a lot more tax revenues.

[TPS]

Nope, wrong again.

 

That's not what I'm claiming. Look at the tax data I provided. The % that the "rich" are paying is higher relative to the bottom 50%, as a percentage.

 

I'm not talking just about the total % of total revenues collected, but what they are paying as a % relative to the bottom 50%.

 

Back in 1980, the top 1% paid 600% higher than the bottom 50%, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.

 

Now, that number has soared to 1300% higher than the bottom 50%.

 

 

Check the data

 

Here is a recap of post #25 in this thread

 

 

 

http://taxfoundation...come-tax-data-0

Again, same answer. They pay relatively more now because they have relatively so much more income. Christ! The shares at the bottom are so low, of course their taxes paid relative to the rich is lower (and vice versa). This is what rising inequality means.

 

You are also missing the fact that total personal income taxes paid in relative terms is significantly lower as a result of the recession in the last couple years, which means the rich are OF COURSE paying a greater relative share. The working poor got laid off. That's not progressivity pal. It's like what willie sutton purportedly said, "I rob banks becuase that's where the money is." The rich pay relatively more, because that's where all the money is!!!!!

[Magox]

Again, same answer. They pay relatively more now because they have relatively so much more income. Christ! The shares at the bottom are so low, of course their taxes paid relative to the rich is lower (and vice versa). This is what rising inequality means.

 

You are also missing the fact that total personal income taxes paid in relative terms is significantly lower as a result of the recession in the last couple years, which means the rich are OF COURSE paying a greater relative share. The working poor got laid off. That's not progressivity pal. It's like what willie sutton purportedly said, "I rob banks becuase that's where the money is." The rich pay relatively more, because that's where all the money is!!!!!

 

Again, same answer. They pay relatively more now because they have relatively so much more income. Christ!

 

What the hell are you talking about? You aren't making any sense, all this is is a bunch of gibberish.

 

 

We are talking about the progressivity of the US tax code. Who cares that they make more? We are talking about the progressiveness of the US tax code. The top 1%, 5% and 10% have been paying a higher % of their income than the bottom 50% and that number is continuing to climb. Seriously, are you this dense that you don't understand? Did you check out the link?

 

If you were talking about the aggregate total, then you would have a point, of course they pay more because they make more. But that isn't what we are talking about. Seriously, I don't get how you don't understand this point.

 

Also to your second point, again more gibberish. Fine, go back to before the recession, check out the numbers from 2001-2007... The findings are the same.

 

It's right there, anyone who decides to click on the link will see it for themselves, the US tax code is becoming more progressive by the day.

 

I guess this is how it is like to talk to a brick wall.

 

Edited March 14, 2013 by Magox

[Dean Cain]

 

 

And ironically, with one post you qualified yourself as decisively NOT being one.

 

I understand why you are so grumpy old man. Times must be hard for you with all that austerity in DC, you are losing your spot on the government tit.

[TakeYouToTasker]

When a company becomes so large that it is too big to fail and government is required to print trillions of dollars to keep them afloat than you have socialism. You liberals love socialism so I suppose your Wall Street campaign contributors are too important than Main Street small businesses.

First of all, government is not required to do any of those things. Self-serving politicians elect to.

 

Second of all, that's not what socialism is.

[Magox]

First of all, government is not required to do any of those things. Self-serving politicians elect to.

 

Second of all, that's not what socialism is.

 

You do know that you are talking to a troll?

[TakeYouToTasker]

You do know that you are talking to a troll?

I was blissfully unaware.

[Dean Cain]

 

First of all, government is not required to do any of those things. Self-serving politicians elect to.

 

Second of all, that's not what socialism is.

 

Politicians who are bought and paid for by investment bankers.

 

It certainly isn't the god damn free market. Adam Smith is rolling in his grave you moron.

[birdog1960]

What would be your plan for making everything right?

well, since you asked....i'd first mandate a minimum wage that provided for income for a full work week higher than the federal poverty level. then i'd mandate basic health insurance coverage either through employers or the gov't -preferably the govt via single payer. i'm sure you're happy that i'm not omnipotent.

 

No ****. And you keep voting for them.

i almost always choose to vote for the candidate who i perceive to place the most relative import here, all other issues being equal.