In My View, The Wealthiest Should Pay At Least 90% of Our Taxes.

[grahamhgreen]

According to the New York Times, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent".

Therefore, I believe, they should be paying 90% of taxes.

Agree or Disagree?

If you disagree, what percent should they pay (or you if your one of them, lol)?

[Stargazer99]

1. Since the military is keeping other countries from taking their wealth away from them

They ought to be responsible for the cost of protecting them....no free lunch

[Newest Reality]

2. Well, the upkeep

of carrying them around on our backs is exorbitant. At least horses get rest and water and meal comprised of more than crumbs.

If they can't pay their way for all the services our covert socialism provides, then they could at least move out of our attic and get their own place.

It seems that, historically, cultures that go to the extreme this wipe themselves out, so we all go together as the wealthy create more scarcity in order to preserve their freedoms and the Serfs end up with no more energy, resources or motivation to continue carrying their water and serving their citadels of lush safety.

If we can't get the golden, fattened parasites off of our collective backs, we all go together, so it seems.

[flamin lib]

3. The tax rate in the '50 on income over $5 mil was 92% after many brackets below that level.

Adjusted for inflation that would be $44 mil today. There was a truly graduated progressive tax structure that allowed us to build the best, bar none the best, highway system in the world. It allowed us to completely eliminate one disease from the face of the earth and virtually eliminate measles, mumps, rubella, tuberculosis and polio from the US. It allowed us to export vaccines and doctors instead of guns.

Today the tax structure only taxes "earned income" with only 2 brackets and "unearned income" at one constant 15%.

Not everything about the '50s was great, but the truly progressive income tax worked for everybody and everybody paid a fair share.

[former9thward]

21. You want to go to the 1950s size of government?

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Federal budget in 1951 was 45,000,000,000. In 2015 it was 3,759,000,000,000. 1950s government was 1.2% the size of present federal government. You can't have one without the other.

[flamin lib]

27. Adjust that for inflation.

Then come back and we can talk.

[former9thward]

28. The White House says they did adjust it.

To the extent feasible, the data have been adjusted to provide consistency with the 2016 Budget and to provide comparability over time.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I used the data from their Table 1.1

[flamin lib]

30. Hmmm, appears you're right. I wonder what it looks like when compared to GDP. I'll have a look and

compare income v expenditures as a % of GDP and get back to ya'. I anticipate a different perspective.

[Nye Bevan]

29. No, please try to get your facts right.

The top rate of tax on capital gains and qualified dividends is 23.8% (20% plus a 3.8% Obamacare surcharge). Significantly higher than "one constant 15%".

[Doctor_J]

4. welcome back, ghg

Haven't seen you in awhile. I'm right with you

[grahamhgreen]

7. Thanks Doc!

Been a crazy busy year!

[hunter]

5. They get most of the perks of this society...

... they should pay most of the bills.

Anyone making a minimum living wage or less probably shouldn't be paying any taxes.

[hifiguy]

6. I am strongly for bringing back the marginal rates of the Ike Age,

adjusted for inflationand with the most egregious loopholes closed, and getting corporations to pay the share they paid in those days - 30%+ of federal income takes

The top marginal rate for individuals under the General was 90%. That sounds about right.

[former9thward]

22. Do you like the size of federal government in the Ike Age?

[hifiguy]

23. What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

The tax burden was apportioned FAIRLY under FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK and LBJ. Even Nixon, Ford and Carter it was far more fair than it is now. You do remember Zombie King Reagan and his voodoo economics, don't you? Let the rich have all they want, to hell with everyone else.

There's no reason MORE revenue could not be collected under FAIR tax policies than is now being realized. In fact I'd bet that fair taxation, strongly enforced, would leave the government rolling in money and a significant rate cut for working people could be had. Combine that with a reduction of military expenditures to sane levels and this country would be prosperous and a far better place.

See Krugman, Piketty, Stiglitz, Galbraith, Chang.

[former9thward]

26. Almost no one paid those rates.

It did not kick in until $4 million in today's dollars. There were extensive deductions and loopholes. Politically Congress lowered tax rates and closed those loopholes. We will not see the 50s again. In the 50s the U.S. produced 60% of the world's industrial production. When that is happening you can do alot of stuff. We will never see anything close to that in the future.

[grahamhgreen]

34. What will we see? What will you fight for?

[former9thward]

51. I am a realist.

Scores of nations can now do what only we could 50 years ago. We will not stop jobs from going overseas. We need to greatly expand our social safety net to deal with our increasingly stagnant economy. That will not happen with some war on the rich. We need to drastically reduce our military operations to pay for it. That will result in a major recession but that will come to an end eventually.

[clarice]

8. I actually think that they already do. could be wrong. nt

[taught_me_patience]

9. "Now own more wealth than bottom 90%" does not equal "own 90% of the wealth"

The 1% own 40% of the wealth in the United States.

But, in the United States, we do not tax wealth directly, so the notion that the %of wealth should equate to the %in taxes is a moot notion.

The top 1% share of income is about 20% and share of income tax is about 45%. Seems pretty fair to me.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Why tax income instead of wealth? Seems arbitrary to me. In fact, it seems regressive.

Since the poor have more income than wealth. Income tax unfairly burdens the poor, it seems to me.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

42. Which countries tax wealth instead of income?

Wealth includes things you own

You have a $300,000 house and it's taxed at a rate of 10%. That's $30,000 every year. Pretty soon, you won't own that house.

No, income should be taxed, but ALL income should be taxed at progressive rates. The problem now is too much income isn't taxed because of loopholes in the tax law or because the income is hidden offshore.

[Lurker Deluxe]

49. Yea .. that'll help

Taxing wealth is crazy.

So I bust my ass, live below my means, save so I can retire .... you take some percentage of that.

Someone else spends every dime they ever make and never owns anything ... he pays no wealth tax.

Uhhh, no.

Income tax on low wages should be eliminated, I would push that threshold to 15k before any income tax kicks in.

[grahamhgreen]

50. How bout taxing wealth over 1 billion? Just to help pay for the wars

[Lurker Deluxe]

52. So ...

Wealth.

Corporate wealth? If not, everyone will just be a corporation.

If so, corporations just pass along costs to consumers. Tax what wealth? Over a billion? That will hit any large corporation, hell some drilling rigs cost 750 million ... each. You will simply pay that cost at the pump. Football team? Pay it at the ticket window.

There is very little that you can tax when it comes to wealth that will not just be directly passed on to the consumer, so you may as well just do a VAT and get on with it.

Instead of taxing to pay for wars, how about we just stop fighting wars.

[grahamhgreen]

54. In that case, why not eliminate worker income tax and only tax corps?

[stevenleser]

10. Here is the funny thing. I had that conversation once with a Republican and it was great...

... I said the same thing, the rich should pay 90% of taxes if they have 90% of the income.

The Republican said all kinds of stuff about how bad my suggestion was. It would kill the economy, etc.

I smiled and said, do you think we should have a flat tax?

He said "Yes".

I said, OK, lets assume all income in the US amounts to one million dollars.
And that the wealthiest earn 900,000 and the rest earn 100,000, that's 90% for the wealthiest and 10% for everyone else, just like the reports say the current ratio is.

He said "OK, yes, I see that".

I said OK, now apply a 10% flat tax to those amounts. So the wealthy together would pay 90,000 and everyone else 10,000.
Guess what percentage of the overall taxes it means the wealthy pay?

He got this funny look at his face and he said, "OK Steve, you got me."

[Munificence]

13. We do

not pay taxes on "wealth" and that is where he could have torn you apart for being ignorant to that fact.

[stevenleser]

15. If you read what I wrote, I said income. So no, there was nothing for him to tear me apart on. nt

[hack89]

11. The top 2.5% of tax filers payed 50% of all income taxes

the bottom 63% of tax filers paid 6.2% of all income taxes.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/24/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

We don't tax wealth in America. Nor do we want to start.

[stevenleser]

14. Not enough. Not if the top 1% earned 90% of the income. nt

[hack89]

16. So how much is enough? nt

[stevenleser]

17. At the very least, a flat ratio which we don't get now primarily because

investment income is taxed at a lower rate than salary.

[taught_me_patience]

19. Completely wrong. see my post below.

[stevenleser]

20. Not completely wrong. I'll respond when I get back to a computer. nt

[hifiguy]

24. Yet the reichwingers always talk about the "dignity of work"

while making sure their dividends and capital gains are taxed at a fraction of the rate the working man/woman's wages are taxed at. i hear you.

[taught_me_patience]

18. The top 1% earn 22% of income

http://inequality.org/income-inequality/

Nowhere near 90%. Also, they pay 45% of income tax. Double your ratio. Seems pretty fair.

[Recursion]

32. They didn't. The top 1% have wealth that exceeds the bottom 90%

Note that the top 1% by wealth are not necessarily the top 1% by income, either.

[grahamhgreen]

36. Seems to me that wealth is exactly what we should be taxing. Taxing wealth would encourage spending.

[hack89]

41. So we punish those that save

Every year I would pay a tax on my savings, house and retirement accounts? Because that is where my wealth is.

[RadiationTherapy]

43. Taxes are a mutual investment. If you see them as "punishment" or "theft"

then there is no percentage you would likely feel comfortable with.

[hack89]

44. I willingly pay a lot of taxes

I just question the wisdom of a policy that steers people towards spending instead of saving.

[RadiationTherapy]

45. I suppose. You used the word "punish" which I found to be anti-tax in general.

Either way, thank you for your willingness to pay taxes and congratulations on having assets enough to qualify.

[hack89]

46. I am not rich if that is what you are implying

is that going to be the front lines of this particular battle - those who have any assets vs those who have none? We have wandered far from making the 1% pay their fair share don't you think?

[RadiationTherapy]

47. My congratulations aren't implying anything except a bit of childish envy on my part.

I admit to wishing I earned and owned enough to complain about taxes or worry about their increase. As it is, I continue to work hard and do the best I can for my family. Good luck to all.

[hack89]

48. Ok. Good luck in return. nt

[lpbk2713]

12. Several Fortune 500 Corps pay no taxes at all.

And this scam should stop right now. WE are paying their freight.

[1939]

25. Changing the subject of personal income taxes to corporate income taxes NT

[grahamhgreen]

37. Corporations are people, my freind.

[Recursion]

31. Taxing wealth rather than income is difficult

And can have a lot of unintended consequences.

[Recursion]

33. The top quintile pays 70% of personal income taxes and receives 50% of personal income

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604

[grahamhgreen]

38. But does that include capital gains income?

[Recursion]

39. Yes, both in the income and the tax categories

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

(This is 2011's where they make that more explicit. 2012's report should be out in a couple of months. I have no idea why it takes CBO this long.)

[ileus]

40. That would work for two or three days...

Then they'd be poor, and Uncle Sam would buy another 23 jet fighters and a black SUV, and we'd be back to paying our regular tax rates.

[questionseverything]

53. i do not think the govt should ever tax more than 50% while the taxpayer is alive

estate taxes are a whole different story

there is no fairer way to tax than the "death tax"

the heirs have already enjoyed a lifetime of privilege, plus there is already a 10 million buck exemption and the dead don't miss the money