Latest data is from 2021 and indicates top 1% pay 46% of federal income tax and top 5% pay 66% Dems always talk about rich should be paying their fair share but never give specific numbers.Maybe one of the Dems on this board will give me the secret number.Should it be 60% for top 1% and 80% for top 5%?
The Never Defined Fair Share
- Thread starter ed odowd
- Start date
It's just a meaningless talking point meant to stir up jealousy, bitterness, and division.
Maybe the ultra-wealthy should turn the tables and demand that the poor get off their butts and do their "fair share" for society. Get a job, stop playing victim by relying on government. Stop having children when you can't afford them. Learn some basic financial skills. It's not that difficult.
Maybe the ultra-wealthy should turn the tables and demand that the poor get off their butts and do their "fair share" for society. Get a job, stop playing victim by relying on government. Stop having children when you can't afford them. Learn some basic financial skills. It's not that difficult.
If you think that ultra wealthy non W-2 people are paying their fair share, you are wrong. There are two classes of very wealthy people. Aaron Judge can represent the W-2 wealthy and Warren Buffett the non w-2.
Judge pays enormous amount of taxes. He is at the highest tax bracket in State and federal taxes. So 37% federally and 10% in NY. I am probably missing city tax as well. His effective tax rate is very high. Close to 50%
But Buffet makes his money of stocks which are taxed at capital gains rates. His effective rate is under 20% even though he makes more money than Judge. Some years under 1%. This should not happen.
Loopholes should be closed like the carried interest loophole. I am sure there are a ton of other loopholes but I am not tax expert that should be closed. Corporate rate tax should be increased. When we had surpluses that rate was at 35%. Now it’s 21%. I don’t think raising it to 25-28% is unreasonable.
People do work hard. Unemployment is under 4%. They just don’t make a lot of money. Median household income is like $70k a year.
Judge pays enormous amount of taxes. He is at the highest tax bracket in State and federal taxes. So 37% federally and 10% in NY. I am probably missing city tax as well. His effective tax rate is very high. Close to 50%
But Buffet makes his money of stocks which are taxed at capital gains rates. His effective rate is under 20% even though he makes more money than Judge. Some years under 1%. This should not happen.
Loopholes should be closed like the carried interest loophole. I am sure there are a ton of other loopholes but I am not tax expert that should be closed. Corporate rate tax should be increased. When we had surpluses that rate was at 35%. Now it’s 21%. I don’t think raising it to 25-28% is unreasonable.
People do work hard. Unemployment is under 4%. They just don’t make a lot of money. Median household income is like $70k a year.
That’s fine but you are ignoring two points:
- The OP’s stats that the top 5% (that includes Buffet, Judge and others) account for over 2/3 of tax revenue already.
- No suggestions for cutting costs?
exactly. and there are indeed loopholes. maybe a crackdown on shell companies. a lot of these people pretend they make no money at all whether expenses or other ways
When it comes to companies do you really think these companies are staying in America if they raise corporate tax rates 7%? You also disregard the amount of payroll taxes, sales tax, litter tax and the many other taxes these companies pay.
And FYI I'm sure Mr. Judge is using those capital gains rates to his advantage as well.
So raising capital gains tax is the solution and will not result in less investmentCern I think you are a lawyer not an economist,the purpose of lower capital gains tax was to encourage investment and provide more jobs.I kinda hope the proposal 40% tax on capital gains is passed and when investment falls Dems will say I didn’t know that was going to happen.By the way no criticism of lawyers intended,my son is a former Federal prosecutor and he often asks me to clarify economic and tax policy issues.
That’s not my point. I don’t think cap gains should be 40%. But over a certain amount I think 30% is reasonable. Is the ant 1 million or 3 million or 5. I am not sure. Also, that won’t matter to the super wealthy anyway. They can borrow off their portfolio and pay no taxes and not even sell any of their stocks.
If you have a stock like Apple your interest charged from borrowing is maybe 6%. Meanwhile you have been averaging 23% a year for the past 15 years on the stock. There are tons of tax avoidance maneuvers for the super wealthy.
Sure costs should be reduced. But during the Clinton years taxes were much higher and the economy was booming. Probably the best ever economy this country has seen with surplus budgets for 4 years. Why not go back to something that actually worked.
Why are you fixated on Marxist progressive tax rates instead of the actual taxes someone pays?
Loopholes is an interesting and misleading word. Those "loopholes" are actually parts of the tax code that politicians, under intense pressure from special interest lobbyists, voted for. Another bipartisan effort.
The lowered corporate tax rate (which includes taxes now on repatriated overseas income) has raised more in tax revenue than projected under the old corporate tax rates. Raising it a few percentage points would not result in much additional revenue but could result in lower revenues due to the laws of economics. Also, their is the competitive effect of lower corporate tax rates around the world. As of 2022, the US has the 81st highest tax rate out of 225 countries.
Loopholes could be avoided by a flat tax, that is why politicians don’t want one because they got a lot of campaign financing from lobbyists fir new tax breaks.
And that was after Reagen's trickle-down economics. Remember how well that worked.
Yes the great Marxist leader, Abraham Lincoln was the first to propose a progressive tax with the Revenue Act in this country. lol.
Somehow during the Clinton years the US had one of the top corporate tax rate around the world and yet we had surplus for 4 years.
2021 is going to be a bit of an outlier year. Capital gains revenue was unusually high representing about 14% of all tax revenue where it is usually around 5%.
I don't know how to define "fair share" but we should have a tax (and spending) policy which offers the best opportunity for economic growth and closes the deficit. As far as the rates, a progressive tax system is the best option in my opinion since our economy is driven by consumption. The people who spend most of their money keeping less will hurt growth.
The rates themselves might be fine, but our tax policy is ultimately written by people who have an influence in DC because they are incredibly wealthy and want the loopholes.
I don't know how to define "fair share" but we should have a tax (and spending) policy which offers the best opportunity for economic growth and closes the deficit. As far as the rates, a progressive tax system is the best option in my opinion since our economy is driven by consumption. The people who spend most of their money keeping less will hurt growth.
The rates themselves might be fine, but our tax policy is ultimately written by people who have an influence in DC because they are incredibly wealthy and want the loopholes.
That’s not correct. Revenue would have been higher with the old rates. 2020 and 2021 revenue came in higher than the original projections because of the Covid stimulus.
I'm of the opinion that capital gains rates on stocks should be zero, whether you're Warren Buffett or the average Joe with a modest 401k. Not even the 15% that it is on long term gains. Why do we punish people for making money through investing to begin with?
Get rid of capital gains taxes and tax-loss harvesting. You either make money or lose it with zero tax implications.
Should be a consumption-based national sales tax to raise funds for government services. The more you spend/use, the more you pay. The less you spend/use, the less you pay.
This completely simplifies the tax code. Of course, those who make money off the tax industry (politicians, accountants, IRS, etc.) would be against it. But the country would be better off and people would be happier not having a decent chunk of their income confiscated by the government, only for the government to waste it.
When you look at what countries have a flat tax and who do you see:
1) Russia
2) Bolivia
3) Mongolia
4) Georgia
5)Estonia
6) Hungary
7) Ukraine
These are the countries you want to emulate? Most of what was part of the former Soviet Bloc?
Yeah I do because some people pay no tax because of unfair loopholes,current system needs overhaul.Let me clarify there would be different % at at few levels maybe 3or4 You can solve for the rates to get portion of GDP that should be collected.For example first 40k of income no tax,then 10% to 100k etc.You can also reduce debt level over a period of years by agreeing that prior year GDP growth % less 1% is the maximum increase % in the government spending ( agreeing to this is hardest part ) for the next year.If you still want charitable contributions and mortgage interest to be deductible you adjust the brackets to get amount of tax collected.Debt problem will long range be reduced if we adopted this system.
But you don't have any issues emulating other countries in a list like this on abortion. Funny.
When you got crushed on your post, you look to change the subject completely. lol. Come on you are better than that weak ploy.
But I’ll play. This article lists the countries that have banned abortion. Great group isn’t it. https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...tion-legal-illegal-countries-list/9672276002/
You keep bringing up the Clinton surplus years. Would you agree to raise revenue to 19% of GDP and reduce spending to 19% of GDP?
