[Hooligan Harry]

Given the stance of many on this forum, I thought this might be of interest. Came as a bit of a surprise, although given recent events maybe not as big a surprise as it should have been.

Quote:

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore has just come out with a new book titled Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America and he reveals some interesting information about how much the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. Moore explains:

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."

From the same article

Quote:

1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928.

1960s: President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In the ensuing three years, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise by 57 percent, and their share of the tax burden climbed from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988.

Not only did lower taxes increase overall tax revenue, it increased tax collected from that specific group too.

Basically, dropping taxes on the wealthy led to higher levels of investment, which in turn led to higher tax revenues overall, which in turn led to the wealthy paying a larger share of the countries overall taxes.

Not quite sure how you can justify higher taxes for the group that not only pays the most tax in the USA, but when compared to other countries around the world, is the most highly taxed demographic on the planet already.

[Cincinnatus]

Does the study at hand take into account wealth inequality in the United States? The income disparity here should be considered. A wealthy guy here earning $100,000,000.00 and paying 35% taxes contributes as much as almost 5,000 guys earning $50,000 paying 15%.

If the average guy vs. the guy at the top didn't had incomes which weren't so astoundingly polarized

[Therapsid]

Yes, this is a fact that's well known among economists and public policy wonks. Social democratic countries in Europe are funded by broad-based tax regimes, including for example value-added taxes. In other words, progressive social welfare programs aren't necessarily funded principally by very progressive tax systems. American liberals don't want to hear this.

But, perhaps this is a chicken and egg problem. You could potentially view this from a left-wing perspective. That is, if a center-left political system fosters a robust middle class and relatively low GINI coefficient and levels of inequality, it follows that the same broad middle should be able to support funding that social democratic system.

[Excelsior]

(10-10-2012 10:31 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Given the stance of many on this forum, I thought this might be of interest. Came as a bit of a surprise, although given recent events maybe not as big a surprise as it should have been.

Quote:

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore has just come out with a new book titled Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America and he reveals some interesting information about how much the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

According to Moore, these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. Moore explains:

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."

What about the top 1-2%? This discusses the share paid by the top 10% in each nation, but the discussion here in the USA seems to usually focus on taxing (or not taxing) a smaller, even more "elite" group than that. $250,000+ (arguably the most commonly cited "rich" range for proposed tax increases/cuts here) puts you in the top 2% of household incomes in the USA, and only 6.6% of Americans earn $100,000 or more (an individual earning $250k+ is in the 99th percentile for individual earners).

I'd like to see a comparison using that more narrow focus, just to find out if we'd have the same conclusion. Do the 1-2% that are the focus of the discussion here pay more than they do elsewhere?
I'd genuinely like to know the answer to this question.

[bacon]

its high for sure but the new france tax law puts it to shame

[Menace]

What is the share of income earned by the top 10% in each of those countries ?

[scotian]

Glad to see you`re back Harry.

Doesn`t the USA also have a very high corporate tax rate in comparison to other industrialized nations? I remember a couple of years ago when the Canadian donut chain Tim Hortons relocated its corporate office from Delaware back to Canada to take advantage of the recently lowered corporate taxes up here, times have certainly changed over the past few years.

[Hooligan Harry]

The fact that when taxes were lowered on your most productive people, yet they ended up producing so much they contributed more in tax despite the cuts, speaks volumes. (not to mention blows the argument for higher taxes out of the water)

Think about that. What it says is that the reason why you have income inequality is not because of systematic problems. You simply have a smaller percentage of people who are producing the vast majority of your wealth. Which means that the demands of more from this group is entitlement mentality in overdrive. Its a cultural problem, not a systemic one. O

The simple fact here is that your top 10% pay 45% of the countries total taxes. This is the highest in the developed world. Only 10% of the entire country carries almost half your entire tax burden. And those are direct taxes, this does not even take into account the taxes of the staff many would employ.

The reason why its lower in place like Sweden is because everyone pays tax there, most people almost 60% of their income. In a place like the USA, I hear stories of almost 50% not paying federal income tax, even though unemployment is not even double digit.

It seems like Americans want the best of both worlds. They want the socialist utopias like Sweden and Norway, but they want the tax rates they enjoy as the lower and middle class of America.

[Enigma]

So, you're saying the percentage of Americans that controls the majority of the nation's wealth pays the majority of the nation's taxes?

[Excelsior]

(10-10-2012 11:02 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

The simple fact here is that your top 10% pay 45% of the countries total taxes. This is the highest in the developed world. Only 10% of the entire country carries almost half your entire tax burden. And those are direct taxes, this does not even take into account the taxes of the staff many would employ.

Yes, but who here in the USA is proposing an increase on the burden of that 10% (as opposed to the 1-2%)? Is there a real proposition to that end here (higher taxes for the 10%), or are we debating a fight against a strawman?

And if we are in fact debating a strawman (not saying we are, merely proposing the hypothetical), then shouldn't we be talking about the ratios for that 1-2% instead of the 10% that is being discussed instead?

[Tuthmosis]

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-10-2012 11:27 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Yes, but who here in the USA is proposing an increase on the burden of that 10% (as opposed to the 1-2%)? Is there a real proposition to that end here (higher taxes for the 10%), or are we debating a fight against a strawman?

And if we are in fact debating a strawman (not saying we are, merely proposing the hypothetical), then shouldn't we be talking about the ratios for that 1-2% instead of the 10% that is being discussed instead?

Well, if I understand your post correctly, there is a reason the bush tax cuts are not being renewed. Congress is fighting among themselves because one party doesn't want tax cuts for the 10% while the other party wants them across the board for everyone.

Dividends will be increased and have a obamacare tax added to them. There is a point when the risk of investing is not worth the reward.

Companies will have to pay health care depending on how many employees they have.

The entitlement mentality is getting crazy here. Apparently, the people who sacrifice and risked their futures to reach success owes people. For some reason, these are the people who get missed when many talk about the elite wealthy.

[Hooligan Harry]

(10-10-2012 10:51 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

What about the top 1-2%? This discusses the share paid by the top 10% in each nation, but the discussion here in the USA seems to usually focus on taxing (or not taxing) a smaller, even more "elite" group than that. $250,000+ (arguably the most commonly cited "rich" range for proposed tax increases/cuts here) puts you in the top 2% of household incomes in the USA, and only 6.6% of Americans earn $100,000 or more (an individual earning $250k+ is in the 99th percentile for individual earners).

I'd like to see a comparison using that more narrow focus, just to find out if we'd have the same conclusion. Do the 1-2% that are the focus of the discussion here pay more than they do elsewhere?
I'd genuinely like to know the answer to this question.

The top 1% are basically the top 10% of the 10%. Now I know that sounds kind of retarded in its obviousness, but bare with me for a sec.

Just like the top 10% are the most productive in the country, you have a group within that group that is most productive too. In any country, you have this thin layer on the top that literally outstrips everyone. Does not matter where you go, and they are made up of all sorts. Some are old money, but even more are first generation and self made.

This is the same as your best scientists. You have a few guys making breakthroughs and everyone moves forward off them. Its the same with athletes, they break records or change the way a game is played. Artists, who create entire genres of music, fiction or film. Its exactly the same with business and wealth, the only difference being that with business wealth can be passed on. (one can argue the same for sporting ability and fame too)

With the USA, you have the wealthiest, most productive nation on earth. As a result of this, your top 1% is not the top 1% just in the USA, most of them are the top 1% in the world. This needs to be put into perspective.

This is why the USA has the LUXURY of seeing only 10% of the country prop up half its tax base. What this means is that your lower and middle classes are having to pay far less in taxes as a result of having that level of wealth at the top.

This is not a case of income inequality creating an imbalance in the taxes paid, its a genuine case of the average American being fortunate enough to live in a country where its wealthy pay so much in tax that his taxes can remain lower.

Its a cultural shift, and its a bad one. People are moving further left in the USA, and with that their views on wealth and tax move further left too. Its a downward spiral, and given the fact that the USA is not the prom queen anymore, these sorts of shifts will see decline accelerate.

(10-10-2012 10:58 PM)scotian Wrote:  

Glad to see you`re back Harry.

Doesn`t the USA also have a very high corporate tax rate in comparison to other industrialized nations? I remember a couple of years ago when the Canadian donut chain Tim Hortons relocated its corporate office from Delaware back to Canada to take advantage of the recently lowered corporate taxes up here, times have certainly changed over the past few years.

Not just corporate taxes, all taxes. I was shocked, and as I mentioned in that post I linked to, I could not believe the levels of taxation across the board. Its not like we did not conduct any due diligence either, and when all was said and done the USA makes zero sense for multinationals.

Corporate taxes, personal income taxes, property laws, state and federal regulation, legal requirements and privacy invasion. And thats just the start of it.

I dont blame companies for packing up and going abroad. Everyone thinks its the lure of slave level wages that are driving people abroad and thats not the whole story. It may be the case in some instances, but its not the sole reason. Most people know the quality of work and higher levels of productivity justify the higher wage, but when it comes with all the other bullshit its really not worth it.

[megatron]

Back in the 50's when taxes were around 20% on average and before sweeping welfare reforms and massive government spending, there was a lot less income disparity between the middle class and the top 5%.

That suggests that taxing people like crazy and inflating the dollar like crazy (a second tax, because things keep getting more and more expensive every year) barries the middle class and gets them further from attaining wealth.

[Hooligan Harry]

(10-10-2012 11:27 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 11:02 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

The simple fact here is that your top 10% pay 45% of the countries total taxes. This is the highest in the developed world. Only 10% of the entire country carries almost half your entire tax burden. And those are direct taxes, this does not even take into account the taxes of the staff many would employ.

Yes, but who here in the USA is proposing an increase on the burden of that 10% (as opposed to the 1-2%)? Is there a real proposition to that end here (higher taxes for the 10%), or are we debating a fight against a strawman?

And if we are in fact debating a strawman (not saying we are, merely proposing the hypothetical), then shouldn't we be talking about the ratios for that 1-2% instead of the 10% that is being discussed instead?

Dude, you cant decide that the debate is specific to the top 1% or 2% only because thats the way you would like frame things.

Besides, its actually makes it sound a far lot worse. Off the top of my head, I think your top 1% account for 36% or 37% of all taxes paid.

[el mechanico]

I really do not understand two things. One is why do people who do not live here in the care about our politics and why do you think anything you read could explain our book work (cook) in business here.

HH please post something about your prime ministry or queen with hover over links so some of us may get to see it.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-11-2012 12:02 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  

I really do not understand two things. One is why do people who do not live here in the care about our politics and why do you think anything you read could explain our book work (cook) in business here.

HH please post something about your prime ministry or queen with hover over links so some of us may get to see it.

The world is impacted by what happens in the US.

[Hooligan Harry]

If you clicked the link in my original post, you may see a little more to this than simply reading a book.

[el mechanico]

(10-11-2012 12:07 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 12:02 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  

I really do not understand two things. One is why do people who do not live here in the care about our politics and why do you think anything you read could explain our book work (cook) in business here.

HH please post something about your prime ministry or queen with hover over links so some of us may get to see it.

The world is impacted by what happens in the US.

Well then the world will just have to stay tuned. Be warned though because we will cook the worlds books before we fail. In god you can trust that!

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-11-2012 12:12 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Well then the world will just have to stay tuned. Be warned though because we will cook the worlds books before we fail. In god you can trust that!

Haha, I think the federal reserve is already ahead of you.

[Kickb]

Does this take into account the loopholes the rich use to pay less than 35%?

[Tuthmosis]

The greatest trick the American ultra-rich ever pulled off was convincing everyone they're being taxed too much and, then, somehow getting people who don't belong to their club, even from other countries, to fight tooth and nail on their behalf--mostly by releasing half-truth and smoke-screen statistics. Genius. The coup-de-grace is the ultra-rich somehow hiding behind the slightly well-off and pretending that they're the same.

The ultra-rich complaining about being taxed too much reminds me of the fatties saying that "fat shaming needs to end," precisely when fat shaming is probably at its lowest.

Watch this documentary when you have some time. Not only is it amazingly interesting, it shows you behind-the-scenes in the reality of the growing wealth-gap.

[Hooligan Harry]

(10-11-2012 12:18 AM)kickboxer Wrote:  

Does this take into account the loopholes the rich use to pay less than 35%?

What "loopholes"?

[chochemonger1]

(10-11-2012 12:01 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 11:27 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 11:02 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

The simple fact here is that your top 10% pay 45% of the countries total taxes. This is the highest in the developed world. Only 10% of the entire country carries almost half your entire tax burden. And those are direct taxes, this does not even take into account the taxes of the staff many would employ.

Yes, but who here in the USA is proposing an increase on the burden of that 10% (as opposed to the 1-2%)? Is there a real proposition to that end here (higher taxes for the 10%), or are we debating a fight against a strawman
And if we are in fact debating a strawman (not saying we are, merely proposing the hypothetical), then shouldn't we be talking about the ratios for that 1-2% instead of the 10% that is being discussed instead?

Dude, you cant decide that the debate is specific to the top 1% or 2% only because thats the way you would like frame things.

Besides, its actually makes it sound a far lot worse. Off the top of my head, I think your top 1% account for 36% or 37% of all taxes paid.

Hooligan they own way more of the percentage of wealth in this country than the percentage they pay in taxes. The top 1 or 2 percent mostly pays taxes on investment income....capital gains at around 16 percent. That is why Warren Buffet said he pays less taxes than his secretary. In the end it is the middle class that is getting squeazed. The poor and the rich have more than their fair share of subsidies in one form or the other.

[worldwidetraveler]

(10-11-2012 12:18 AM)kickboxer Wrote:  

Does this take into account the loopholes the rich use to pay less than 35%?

As a business owner, my company has to pay corporate taxes, then payroll taxes. When the money gets to me I have to pay my share of FICA, Federal, City and state taxes.

I also get taxed on Dividends that my company disburses.