Do rich people work harder?

[Andre Marc]

Actually the US Tax system is highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.

The richest 400 families paid nearly as much income tax as the bottom 50%...Stunning:

I admire Buffett and am a long time Berkshire owner but he's a hypocrite here. If he were serious, he'd send his estate to the IRS instead of the Gates' Foundation.

Sorry, jazzdoc, but this is simply RUBBISH.

COLLECTIVELY the richest may have paid 70% of the taxes, but individually they BARELY FEEL THE PINCH.

Not to mention that a HUGE chunk of the wealthiest tax payers income are from passive pursuits, and more importantly, a legacy
of ill gotten gains, and rules put into place to serve them, and billions in tax shelters. Please, enough of the distortions.

The salaried class gets SLAUGHTERED..especially with payroll taxes, which are utterly meaningless to the top 1%.

Secondly, that is utter nonsense about Buffet.

 

[Andre Marc]

Yeah, there's a huge tax liability gap between the top 10 percent and the top 1%. Mostly due to the massive one between the salaried class, even at the highest levels, and the investment class. And when you get all the way down to splitting it 50/50, the numbers are even more dramatic; they can make it look like half the country is getting a free ride. The percentage of working poor in America is much higher than most of us in the middle class ever imagine, and huge numbers of them make so little that they have no federal income tax liability at all.

This, of course, is why those in favor of progressive taxes always find their anecdotes in the top 1%, those opposed always find theirs further down where the numbers suit their story, and never frame them in % of income paid. Can't blame them; we all tell our stories from the best perspective, but the bottom line is America's income tax system is much less progressive than it was a few decades ago and most of the rest of America's tax system is not progressive at all. As a result many of the working poor actually paying a greater % of their income into taxes than even the middle class. Now, they make so little that even a high % made up of payroll, state, local, sales, etc., doesn't look like much compared to the small % of income tax paid by the very wealthy, so the anecdotes are still easy to weave. But what are you going to do? Civilization costs money, and you can't get it from those who have nothing more to give. We can bitch about it all we like, but if we think we're going to reduce the deficit and fund the nation by raising income taxes on the bottom 50% we're smoking crack.

We already tried to raise money by lowering taxes on the top, thinking their investments would trickle down to fuel a great economic engine that would enrich us all. Watch where you step; there are 30 years worth of crack pipes on the floor.

Tim

The country is not buying trickle down VOODOO economics anymore..this election proved it...the the fantasy that Romney and Ryan were selling was
insulting to even the intelligence of the average American, it was flushed down the toiled like a giant turd.

 

[edorr]

Actually the US Tax system is highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.

The richest 400 families paid nearly as much income tax as the bottom 50%...Stunning:

Obviously, you don't understand the basic idea of progressive tax rates. High earners pay as much as they do because of their income level, not because of the high rates. The USA has one of the least progressive tax rates in the developed world. It is indeed stunning income distribution in the USA is as skewed as it is.

 

[rockitman]

Actually the US Tax system is highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.

The richest 400 families paid nearly as much income tax as the bottom 50%...Stunning:

I admire Buffett and am a long time Berkshire owner but he's a hypocrite here. If he were serious, he'd send his estate to the IRS instead of the Gates' Foundation.

+1..Buffet also pays little in tax as he is a billionaire on paper but never realizes most of his capital gains.

 

[FrantzM]

+1..Buffet also pays little in tax as he is a billionaire on paper but never realizes most of his capital gains.

Which he acknowledge as being unfair. Do watch the interview it is on Hulu.. Edifying I would say

The graph from jazdoc can be interpreted this way: Rich people contribute more to tax revenues than poor people .. Well .. isn't this fair , even normal? Simple arithmetic, isn't it ? Since they enjoy more shouldn't they pay more? Just asking?

 

[rockitman]

.. Well .. isn't this fair , even normal? Simple arithmetic, isn't it ? Since they enjoy more shouldn't they pay more? Just asking?

Our progessive tax system is unfair, especially estate taxes. Why should money already fairly taxed get another 55% tax upon estate probate ? That's how farms and buisnesses end as the next generation usually has to sell off assets (The biz) just to pay the tax. What good does that do ? Lost jobs are a result. You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor. Without the rich & the high taxes they pay, the poor are phucked !

Envy of th rich is as old as mankind itself.

 

[edorr]

Which he acknowledge as being unfair. Do watch the interview it is on Hulu.. Edifying I would say

The graph from jazdoc can be interpreted this way: Rich people contribute more to tax revenues than poor people .. Well .. isn't this fair , even normal? Simple arithmetic, isn't it ? Since they enjoy more shouldn't they pay more? Just asking?

The real shocker is this. The top 400 pay federal income tax of 16Bn. on 80Bn. worth of income, amounting to a whopping 20%. Breaks your heart for the plight of the rich in the USA doesn't it?

The bottom 50% is everyone making less than the $50K median family income. The pay little to no federal income taxes, but most pay 12% payroll taxes, they consume all of their income so they also pay a high sales tax rates as percentage of income. So many of these folks pay about the same 20% effective tax rate as the billionaires in this country, which is indeed a complete outrage.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The country is not buying trickle down VOODOO economics anymore..this election proved it...the the fantasy that Romney and Ryan were selling was
insulting to even the intelligence of the average American, it was flushed down the toiled like a giant turd.

I agree. I think in this last election, the American people clearly rejected what has become of the American conservative movement that began in the Reagan years and has dominated American politics, even through the Clinton years, for decades. What happens next is up to the GOP. They can turn to the remaining moderates in their ranks for leadership and move toward the center, where the electorate clearly lies, or they can keep their promises to Grover Norquist, continue to be intimidated by the Tea Party, keep running people for Congress and worshiping people in the media who stand in front of cameras and microphones and say things so outrageous that even the great unengaged, reality-show addled America wakes up and asks WTF? And they can fade into obscurity.

The Grand Old Party that I once respected is standing at the crossroads. They can sign another contract with the devil or they can endeavor to represent the American people. Interesting choice, interesting times.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

+1..Buffet also pays little in tax as he is a billionaire on paper but never realizes most of his capital gains.

Mr. Buffett popularized the idea of "look through earnings and taxes". Since he owns ~40% of Berkshire Hathaway which paid $5.6B in corporate taxes in 2011...his personal share of tax was ~ $2.24B. Granted that's only enough to pay for 5 hours of Federal spending, but its still a lot of money.

 

[rockitman]

Now this is rich !!

Obama 20 day taxpayer funded vacation

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/residents-alerted-to-obamas-hawaiian-holiday-plans/123

With the staff, special forces, local police presence and equipment, the President's visit adds up annually to at least a $4 million vacation courtesy of the Hawaii and federal taxpayers.
While the President and his friends pay for their own rental homes, taxpayers pick up the cost of security and waterfront housing for the Secret Service, Navy Seals and Coast Guard as well as staff accommodations at a plush beachfront Waikiki hotel.

I wonder if he will be in Hawaii as we Thelma and louise off the financial cliff ? That's real leadership....lol

 

[edorr]

Now this is rich !!

Obama 20 day taxpayer funded vacation

I wonder if he will be in Hawaii as we Thelma and louise off the financial cliff ? That's real leadership....lol

So what do you suggest? Send him without security? Shack up the security forces in a local $30/night motel? Have him pay for his own security?

 

[rockitman]

So what do you suggest? Send him without security? Shack up the security forces in a local $30/night motel? Have him pay for his own security?

Nope, but if he is in Hawaii when the cliff approaches with no deal, what does that say about his leadership ?

 

[edorr]

Nope, but if he is in Hawaii when the cliff approaches with no deal, what does that say about his leadership ?

Minor detail. If there is no deal on the cliff by the time of his planned departure (Dec 17th) he will not go on vacation. Nice soundbite though, right from the Foxnews playbook....

http://whitehouse.gov1.info/blog/blog_post/agenda-hawaii.html

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Now this is rich !!

Obama 20 day taxpayer funded vacation

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/residents-alerted-to-obamas-hawaiian-holiday-plans/123



I wonder if he will be in Hawaii as we Thelma and louise off the financial cliff ? That's real leadership....lol

Didn't read the article. Does it actually say that the trip's schedule coincides with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the implementation of the Budget Control Act of 2011, or did you just throw that in there to make an othewise unremarkable Presidential vacation sound like an abdication of responsibility?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Minor detail. If there is no deal on the cliff by the time of his planned departure (Dec 17th) he will not go on vacation. Nice soundbite though, right from the Foxnews playbook....

http://whitehouse.gov1.info/blog/blog_post/agenda-hawaii.html

Ah, nevermind.

Tim

 

[edorr]

Didn't read the article. Does it actually say that the trip's schedule coincides with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the implementation of the Budget Control Act of 2011, or did you just throw that in there to make an othewise unremarkable Presidential vacation sound like an abdication of responsibility?

Tim

It is just his annual Xmas vacation, which will be cancelled if their is no deal on the fiscal cliff. Much ado about nothing.

 

[jazdoc]

Yeah, there's a huge tax liability gap between the top 10 percent and the top 1%. Mostly due to the massive one between the salaried class, even at the highest levels, and the investment class. And when you get all the way down to splitting it 50/50, the numbers are even more dramatic; they can make it look like half the country is getting a free ride. The percentage of working poor in America is much higher than most of us in the middle class ever imagine, and huge numbers of them make so little that they have no federal income tax liability at all.

This, of course, is why those in favor of progressive taxes always find their anecdotes in the top 1%, those opposed always find theirs further down where the numbers suit their story, and never frame them in % of income paid. Can't blame them; we all tell our stories from the best perspective, but the bottom line is America's income tax system is much less progressive than it was a few decades ago and most of the rest of America's tax system is not progressive at all. As a result many of the working poor actually paying a greater % of their income into taxes than even the middle class. Now, they make so little that even a high % made up of payroll, state, local, sales, etc., doesn't look like much compared to the small % of income tax paid by the very wealthy, so the anecdotes are still easy to weave. But what are you going to do? Civilization costs money, and you can't get it from those who have nothing more to give. We can bitch about it all we like, but if we think we're going to reduce the deficit and fund the nation by raising income taxes on the bottom 50% we're smoking crack.

We already tried to raise money by lowering taxes on the top, thinking their investments would trickle down to fuel a great economic engine that would enrich us all. Watch where you step; there are 30 years worth of crack pipes on the floor.

Tim

Tim,

Your points are well taken.

That said, in the halcyon days of 91% marginal tax rates that Progressives wistfully pine for, Federal receipts ranged from 14.4%-19.0% of GDP while in the previous decade of lower tax rates for the rapacious rich, Federal receipts ranged from 15.1-20.6% of GDP (the 15.1% was the post Crash 2009). By the way, nobody paid 91% in taxes in the 1950's...high earners took advantage of a myriad of tax shelters. I think you would enjoy the thoughtful, civil discussion about tax rates and income inequality between William Voegeli and Timothy Noah prompted by Voegeli's review of Noah's book "The Great Divergence" which makes for fascinating reading (http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/pageid.2752/default.asp.). Both sides lay out their arguments very well. I found this snippet quite thought provoking:

Brink Lindsey says that those on the Left and Right are both nostalgic for the 1950s. "The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there." It's seems, as well, that liberals want to tax and organize there while conservatives want to spend and regulate the way we did back then. Given the complicated ways that a long list of public policies and economic realities contributed to the Great Compression, you'll agree, I'm sure, that it simply won't do for either of us to cherry-pick a few of our favorites and declare them to be the keys to recreating what Americans like best about those days.

Pending irrefutable evidence that this and only this X caused that Y, I suggest a package deal: Let's bring back the entire mid-century policy regime, not just the bits of it either one of us likes best. We'll have the Eisenhower-era tax rates, but also the tax loopholes. I won't insist that we double defense spending—the Cold War is over—but federal domestic spending will have to shrink dramatically. The Great Society programs were part of the landscape during the final 8 years of the Great Compression, so we'll keep but constrain them. Human Resources spending, adjusted for inflation, amounted to 31.4% of federal spending from fiscal years 1946 through 1973, as opposed to 67% in 2011. There's no need to quibble over loose change; let's just cut federal Human Resources spending in half, from $2.4 to $1.2 trillion, nearly enough to wipe out 2011's $1.3 trillion deficit. Privatization, aggressive means testing, and voucherization will all be indispensible to making the 50% reduction work. On labor unions, I'll propose that we go back to the private-sector unionization rates that prevailed during the Great Compression, while reinstating the laws that prevented government workers from joining unions or striking, which were in effect during most of it.

Civilization does cost money but government can not solve of all of societies programs and I think you would agree that it shouldn't try.

Back to the OT...My life experience leads me to conclude human virtues and flaws are distributed randomly including without regard to race, sexual orientation or income level. That includes willingness to work hard, envy, empathy, etc.

 

[Andre Marc]

I agree. I think in this last election, the American people clearly rejected what has become of the American conservative movement that began in the Reagan years and has dominated American politics, even through the Clinton years, for decades. What happens next is up to the GOP. They can turn to the remaining moderates in their ranks for leadership and move toward the center, where the electorate clearly lies, or they can keep their promises to Grover Norquist, continue to be intimidated by the Tea Party, keep running people for Congress and worshiping people in the media who stand in front of cameras and microphones and say things so outrageous that even the great unengaged, reality-show addled America wakes up and asks WTF? And they can fade into obscurity.

The Grand Old Party that I once respected is standing at the crossroads. They can sign another contract with the devil or they can endeavor to represent the American people. Interesting choice, interesting times.

Tim

Tim, you are absolutely correct on all counts.

 

[Mosin]

Sorry, jazzdoc, but this is simply RUBBISH.

...blah, blah, blah...

Secondly, that is utter nonsense about Buffet.

About Buffet...

He is more than a bit disingenuous. The bastard owes IRS one billion dollars that he refuses to pay. They are suing him, and his legal team is doing whatever they need to do to stall all efforts to collect. Still, Ol' Warren has the poor at heart, I'm sure. Speaking of, did he ever give that poverty stricken secretary of his a raise?

 

[Andre Marc]

About Buffet...

He is more than a bit disingenuous. The bastard owes IRS one billion dollars that he refuses to pay. They are suing him, and his legal team is doing whatever they need to do to stall all efforts to collect. Still, Ol' Warren has the poor at heart, I'm sure. Speaking of, did he ever give that poverty stricken secretary of his a raise?

The fact is, NO billionaire, NOT one. NADA, ZIP..that made their fortunes playing by ANY kind of rules that the lower classes were to taught to adhere to.

They have a totally different mind set. The standard rules of society DO NOT APPLY.

Case in point.

Buffet for DECADES has been filling his SEC papers late...not caring a damn about fines or being chastised..

A small firm or minor player giving the finger to the SEC would be shut down.