Hillary's tax plan - Page 2 - Political Forum

Caltex · #11 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicodinz

Well the majority of tax money is paid by the middle-class, have no misconceptions about that. Further, the rich practically do run the government, whether it be through politics or lobbying. I feel that everyone who has stood to benefit from the American system owes the system taxes proportional to the success they've enjoyed. When the class-system of America has been reformed such that the division between the richest and poorest is less than 100 million dollars and that the poorest can provide for themselves and/or their families without needing social programs.

That is so wrong you have no idea. The top 20% of income earners pay over 80% of income taxes.

If the "middle class" is the middle 60% of income earners, then in total the entire middle class bears 22.2% of the tax burden.

The "Lower class" (bottom 20% bear NEGATIVE 2.3% of the tax burden, and the "upper class (top 20%) bear 80% of the burden.

Poor people already don't pay any net Federal income taxes. Look at the chart which also shows what it was like in 2001, and 2002 before the Bush tax cuts. It was roughly the same as it has been 2003-2007. The Bush tax cuts, cut taxes for everyone.

Now we look at the total income distribution:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/...gateIncome.jpg

The top 20% earns 50% of all the income, and pays 80% of the taxes of all income. The middle 3 quintiles get around 45% of all income in total, and pay about 22% of all income taxes. This proves that the top 20% of income earners pay over 3 times higher a percentage of their income in taxes than does the middle class.

prrriiide · #12 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

That is so wrong you have no idea. The top 20% of income earners pay over 80% of income taxes.

If the "middle class" is the middle 60% of income earners, then in total the entire middle class bears 22.2% of the tax burden.

The "Lower class" (bottom 20% bear NEGATIVE 2.3% of the tax burden, and the "upper class (top 20%) bear 80% of the burden.

Poor people already don't pay any net Federal income taxes. Look at the chart which also shows what it was like in 2001, and 2002 before the Bush tax cuts. It was roughly the same as it has been 2003-2007. The Bush tax cuts, cut taxes for everyone.

I've seen that chart before. I think these are more telling:

Quote:

Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2001

Total Net Worth
Top 1 Next 19 Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.4%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.3%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.5%

Financial Wealth
Top 1 Next 19 Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.8%

Figure 1: Net worth and financial wealth distribution in the U.S. in 2001

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).

SOURCE

Prof. Domhoff does a very thorough and detailed, yet easy to understand analysis of income distribution in the US, and how concentrated it really is.

IMO, if the top 5% owns 68% of the aggregate wealth, then the top 5% needs to provide 68% of the aggregate tax revenues. Seems fair to me. I mean, when average CEO pay is 411 times that of the average salaried worker's pay, I think they can afford it.

Caltex · #13 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 04:23 PM

Look at the link I provide with the distribution of INCOME. You cannot tax people on the wealth they currently hold, we only tax them on the income they receive.

So yeah, the top 20% has 84% of the total wealth, but they only have 50% of the total income each year. Thus means that they accumulate and save much more of their money than does everyone else.

We don't tax people based on how much money they have, we tax them based on how much money they earn each year.

The tax rates are more than good for the bottom 80% right now. We shouldn't lower their taxes and raise them on the top 20%. I think we should work towards lowering spending and cutting everyone's taxes.

Anyways the data shows that the Bush tax cuts didn't really change who pays what percentage of all taxes, thus they were tax cuts for everyone, not just tax cuts for the wealthy.

prrriiide · #14 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

Look at the link I provide with the distribution of INCOME.

Quote:

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Open the The Monthly Review Home Page home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.

HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer

vicodinz · #15 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 04:59 PM

I'm referring the actual income tax rates of Americans. On average the lowest wage earners DO get money back from the government but from tax-credits. They don't have a -2.3% income tax rate. One of the inequalities of the tax system is that the income tax stops increasing after one earns more than about $350,000 dollars. As you can see here, these high-income earners pay 35% on income of over $350,000 dollars.
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2007 and 2008

While the top 25% do pay around 86% of the total amount of income taxes this is because of how top-heavy our class system is. When the top 5% are making 35% of the wealth of course they're going to pay more taxes than the bottom 50% who are making 13% of the wealth.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Yes, through sheer numbers. Also, the majority of tax money is received by the middle class. That is a well balanced tax system.

I don't think that the middle class should receive any money, but that their spending power should be increased in-order to bolster the economy and stop the widening gap between the middle and upper class. The actual tax money should be invested in the lower-class (i.e job creation, primary education and college)in-order to promote balance as you've stated.

If we switch to a system where the wealthy pay for almost everything and the middle class receives almost everything, our democracy won't survive, nor will our economy.

Well as you can see above the wealthy do pay for alot. The real problem isn't the tax system(aside from its quirky and illogical nature) but the allocation of funds. We spend a large chunk of the taxpayer's money on faux national security and military. Then when we do come around to investing money in education, programs such as No Child Left Behind misallocate it, giving money to school districts that are performing well and denying money to those who aren't.

The tax rates are more than good for the bottom 80% right now. We shouldn't lower their taxes and raise them on the top 20%. I think we should work towards lowering spending and cutting everyone's taxes.

Anyways the data shows that the Bush tax cuts didn't really change who pays what percentage of all taxes, thus they were tax cuts for everyone, not just tax cuts for the wealthy.

The difference between percentage and the actual amount of money owed to the IRS is staggering. Yes everyone pays 2% less, but %2 of 100 million dollars is alot more than 2% of a 100,000 dollars. The rich do not need tax cuts. As you pointed out they SAVE the majority of there income. Middle/Low income Americans do not have that luxury. The divide in income and the divide in net wealth are both issues which need to be addressed, through reduced military spending and increased investment in the less fortunate.

Caltex · #16 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prrriiide

Hate when that happens, can't seem to link to the thing on that site, well here's another one with similar data.

The distribution of income is much more even than is the wealth. And as we are talking about taxing income, the top 20% more than pay their fair share.

The people in the top 20% just save a whole lot more of their money, and thus accumulate much more wealth.

Caltex · #17 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicodinz

I'm referring the actual income tax rates of Americans. On average the lowest wage earners DO get money back from the government but from tax-credits. They don't have a -2.3% income tax rate. One of the inequalities of the tax system is that the income tax stops increasing after one earns more than about $350,000 dollars. As you can see here, these high-income earners pay 35% on income of over $350,000 dollars.
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2007 and 2008

While the top 25% do pay around 86% of the total amount of income taxes this is because of how top-heavy our class system is. When the top 5% are making 35% of the wealth of course they're going to pay more taxes than the bottom 50% who are making 13% of the wealth.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Yes, through sheer numbers. Also, the majority of tax money is received by the middle class. That is a well balanced tax system.

I don't think that the middle class should receive any money, but that their spending power should be increased in-order to bolster the economy and stop the widening gap between the middle and upper class. The actual tax money should be invested in the lower-class (i.e job creation, primary education and college)in-order to promote balance as you've stated.

If we switch to a system where the wealthy pay for almost everything and the middle class receives almost everything, our democracy won't survive, nor will our economy.

Well as you can see above the wealthy do pay for alot. The real problem isn't the tax system(aside from its quirky and illogical nature) but the allocation of funds. We spend a large chunk of the taxpayer's money on faux national security and military. Then when we do come around to investing money in education, programs such as No Child Left Behind misallocate it, giving money to school districts that are performing well and denying money to those who aren't.

The tax rates are more than good for the bottom 80% right now. We shouldn't lower their taxes and raise them on the top 20%. I think we should work towards lowering spending and cutting everyone's taxes.

Anyways the data shows that the Bush tax cuts didn't really change who pays what percentage of all taxes, thus they were tax cuts for everyone, not just tax cuts for the wealthy.

The difference between percentage and the actual amount of money owed to the IRS is staggering. Yes everyone pays 2% less, but %2 of 100 million dollars is alot more than 2% of a 100,000 dollars. The rich do not need tax cuts. As you pointed out they SAVE the majority of there income. Middle/Low income Americans do not have that luxury. The divide in income and the divide in net wealth are both issues which need to be addressed, through reduced military spending and increased investment in the less fortunate.

You're confusing wealth with income. The income tax, taxes income, that is money earned over a given period of time. Wealth is the total amount of money one has.

The top 5% earn 22.4% of the income.

Tax cuts that cut taxes for everyone are fair. 2% of any amount of money is still a 2% cut.

People should have a right to money they work for and earn, its not the governments place to take from them because "they don't need it anyways".

The top 20% compose the most productive members of society from an economic standpoint, they're the ones who create the wealth for everyone else to enjoy. Tax them too highly, the entire economic pie shrinks, and everyone is worse off.

The top 5% are probably responsible for the job creation that that bottom 40% is employed by.

vicodinz · #18 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 07:19 PM

I'm well aware of the difference between wealth and income, and the two were not in any wya confused in my post. The economic well-being of the rich and successful is not incumbent upon the tax system, nor has it ever been. The money they "earn" is mostly gained from investment. If you think that a CEO works any harder than a burger-flipper you have a big misconception about what "work" is. The upper-echelon of society has gotten a bigger piece of the American pie, and the more you eat the more you pay. As for your argument on the economy, corporations employ people. Corporations are often owned by the public, and very few Americans pay salaries out of their own pocket. Once again, the rich invest and save the majority of their money, and thus this money doesn't fuel the economy. Raising taxes on the rich has no true economic repercussions because, once again, they don't spend the vast majority of their income.

Caltex · #19 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicodinz

I'm well aware of the difference between wealth and income, and the two were not in any wya confused in my post. The economic well-being of the rich and successful is not incumbent upon the tax system, nor has it ever been. The money they "earn" is mostly gained from investment. If you think that a CEO works any harder than a burger-flipper you have a big misconception about what "work" is. The upper-echelon of society has gotten a bigger piece of the American pie, and the more you eat the more you pay. As for your argument on the economy, corporations employ people. Corporations are often owned by the public, and very few Americans pay salaries out of their own pocket. Once again, the rich invest and save the majority of their money, and thus this money doesn't fuel the economy. Raising taxes on the rich has no true economic repercussions because, once again, they don't spend the vast majority of their income.

If you think a burger flipper does more real work than a CEO you are mistaken. The total productivity of upper level employees vastly out does that of lower level ones, not only in the hours worked, but also the stress involved, the amount of knowledge needed to do the job, the total amount of economic productivity they accomplish, and the amount that their work bleeds over into your free time.

I work in an office making copies, filing papers, etc. right now for money to help pay for school. I don't put out even close to the total productivity that someone in the upper levels does in one hour of work, and am paid lower as a result. They are also paid for the knowledge they possess.

Yes, CEO's are probably over payed, but that's the nature of them getting to decide how much they get paid. Underestimating how much work they do, and how much work middle management does is done so unwisely.

Raising taxes on people does have economic repercussions, especially for small business's. 5% higher taxes can be the difference in a small business going bust or never starting up, or it flourishing.

Troianii · #20 (**permalink**) 02-02-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by francois60

The simple fact that McCain Feingold passed makes it hard for anyone to beleive that the rich ever ran the government,

Actually, McCain-Feingold inhibits grassroots efforts far more than it inhibits the efforts of rich individuals. In fact, McCain-Feingold opened the way for people like George Soros to have huge influence in the 2004 election.

I don't think that you're getting the point. I'm say that if the rich ever really controlled Washington McCain-Feingold would never have passed into law - and it wouldn't have passed into law if people understood Constitutional rights.