The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich In 2021 the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes, up from..

This discussion is about the INCOME tax system which Biden, along with his fellow Dems, the MSM and resident leftist, claimed was not fairly distributed and the highest earners aren't paying their "fair share" of it.

Social Security along with Medicare are defined benefit programs into which you contribute and receive a direct benefit in return. and those at the bottom have those contributions reimbursed through the EITC so not only do they not have to fund them they get the benefits.

Yes this IS about Biden and Trump and the Dems and the Reps and tax policy and Biden's latest.

Do you care to discuss or not?

The are the ones being discussed and upon which Biden spoke and is campaign upon.

Do you care to discuss them?

Well what subsidies are you talking about and be specific. What federal subsidies to business cost more the all the welfare and subsistence and healthcare and education subsidies going to the lower incomes?

Ahhh that's a circular argument. My price is based on the rising price. What you can charge a customer is what they are willing to pay not simply a matter of how much you want to charge. You can own the means of production but first your competitors are going to have a driving force against your price and then ultimately your customers as to whether your product or service returns the value for their dollars spent. THAT can highly affect your pricing.

What money where did it come from?

Unemployment is low but so is the LFPR because Biden has been paying people to not work or not work as much and doing so with inflated dollars. OK choose a bank or a 401k or IRA, personally I choose the latter just like anyone can.

 

Not really.

 

Not converted to income. Wealth is wealth and income is income. We tax one but not the other. That's a fact.

 

I'll address one highlighted of your points now because I think its the most important (and maybe others later). The issue is there are ways of deriving income (a cash flow) from capital that don't require the realization (sale) of the asset. In particular I'll use debt as an example but there are others. If I have say 10 mil in unrealized assets and a 300,000 p.a. USD annual salary? I can easily borrow a small % of this net worth, spend it AND get a tax deduction on the interest payments to offset against that salary. This opportunity is not available to most wage earners. Related to this as you mention is the issue of capital losses. These are of course a reality and need to be taken into account but they are also the exception rather than the rule. Capital losses in one year would need to be offset against gains the following year. The devil of course is in the detail, as is the case with all things tax! But the reality is the vast majority of investors do not of course consistently lose money on their investments (unless of course the 'losses' are artificial constructs for tax purposes). And if someone does? Their not doing it properly! On average from memory investors make gains 5 to 6 years out of 7. So experts on a pay grade far higher than mine would have to do the financial modelling and decide whats the fairest and most consistent mechanism for dealing with capital losses during incurred economic downturns. If not writing them off in their entirety the following year then more likely writing a % of the losses off against asset increases/income over several subsequent years. There has to be quid pro quo.

The thing as a government you want two things from a tax system. The first is consistency in your revenue streams (at least as far as is humanly possible) so that you can forecast trends in revenue and expenditure and plan/implement policy accordingly. Secondly, as far as possible you don't want your tax system distorting investment decisions (real estate bubble anyone/property collapses) anyone. Taxing all forms of revenue and capital at a low rate gives you that. The ones who object the most are the ones who currently gain the most having certain assets and income streams taxed concessionally.

 

We DONT TAX WEALTH AND NEVER WILL.

Does the difference escape you?

What was the EFFECTIVE tax rate after all the deductions and credits? Today companies are far larger managing far more assets for the investors and owners. The CEO pay has NOTHING to do with the value of the labor being provided and it's cost.

False again there were HUGE deductions and write offs and effective tax rates little different from now.

Do you believe the purpose of the tax system should be to satisfy envy and jealousy of the higher earners or to raise the most revenue at the least harm to the economy and growth?

 

makes sense

 

The taxes payed for the year 2020 were not the normal amounts payed, the bottom 50% were receiving a lot more financial relief than usual, while the top 1% incomes were increasing. There were huge revenue loses in 2020 and a $3 trillion deficit.

It's also important to understand how wealth inequality effects the tax revenue percentages. In 2020 the top 10% had a higher income than the bottom 90%. With incomes in those proportions, even under an effective flat tax rate, that top 10% will represent more revenue gained than the bottom 90%. Even under a flat rate of 1% they would still be paying over 50% of the overall tax revenue. 10% of the population would represent over 50% of tax revenue, even under a flat rate

The higher the wealth inequality is, the higher that percentage will grow.

 

Your Medicare premiums are linked to your Social Security. It doesn't come out of your worked income, it's deducted from your social Social Security benefits. They're both welfare programs for senior citizens. Imagine being given a basic income guarantee and healthcare together, and your healthcare premiums are deducted from your basic income guarantee. That's essentially what that is, it's two welfare programs you are receiving that are packaged together

 

The purpose of the tax system is to raise the money that the government has legislated to spend.

 

If you keep earning after 65, your Medicare part B premiums are based on how much you make.

 

wrong. I am not receiving SS benefits yet. I pay 1700 dollars by CC every quarter. and I maxed out on FICA payments. I paid more in and have to pay far more than most people. it's a form of income tax

 

yep I pay that top amount.

 

that is what it should be-but it has been infected with all sorts of social(ist) engineering schemes and vote buying plans

 

It is when you "do well" by taking advantage of privilege: legal entitlements to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation. You just refuse to know the fact that that method of doing well is even possible. But it is not merely possible: it is by far the most common way of doing well for those who have done the best, the richest 1%.

Nope. Not when those others have caused you to fail by exercising their legal entitlements to steal what you have rightfully earned. By contrast, blaming those who "fail" to run the race because they are forced to carry rich, greedy, privileged parasites on their backs is blaming the victims. That is more than unjust; it is pure, naked, smirking, Satanic evil.

 

I am shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that the rich guy is rationalizing and justifying legalized stealing by the rich.

 

you just make stuff up, create new definitions and apply them to others without any factual support. all we see is oozing envy of those more industrious and productive than you

 

see, a bullshit definition'--LEGALIZED STEALING

complete and utter fictional nonsense

 

Classic victim blaming.

"Well, Tom, don't blame others for your own failure. Just work harder, save up your money, buy your right to liberty from your owner, save up a little more, and buy some slaves of your own. Problem solved!"

So, the fact that you were strong enough to run the race while carrying the load of parasites on your back is a reason why everyone else should have to carry them, too?

Run that one by me again.

 

That is a bald falsehood.

It is true that the concepts of neoclassical economics do not permit identification of the relevant facts. Better ones are needed, which I have tried to supply. If you want to debate the accuracy and validity of my definitions, we can do that. I don't claim they are perfect. If you think yours are better than mine, produce an argument to that effect. I won't be holding my breath.

GARBAGE. The facts are indisputable: privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, oil and mineral rights, broadcast spectrum allocations and bank licenses -- and there are many others, those are just the most important ones -- forcibly remove people's natural individual rights to liberty by law, without just compensation, and make those rights into the private property of the privileged.

That is nothing but evil, disingenuous, ad hominem filth. Sadly, you don't seem to have anything else to contribute to the discussion.

 

Nope. Wrong. Read and learn:

"THE BANDIT

Suppose there is a bandit who lurks in the mountain pass between two countries. He robs the merchant caravans as they pass through, but is careful to take only as much as the merchants can afford to lose, so that they will keep using the pass and he will keep getting the loot.

A thief, right?

Now, suppose he has a license to charge tolls of those who use the pass, a "royal patent" issued by the government of one of the countries -- or even both of them. The tolls are by coincidence equal to what he formerly took by force. How has the nature of his enterprise changed, simply through being made legal? He is still just a thief. He is still just demanding payment by threat of force and not contributing anything in return. How can the mere existence of that piece of paper entitling him to rob the caravans alter the fact that what he is doing is in fact robbing them?

But now suppose instead of a license to steal, he has a land title to the pass. He now charges the caravans the exact same amount in "rent" for using the pass, and has become quite a respectable gentleman. But how has the nature of his business really changed? It's all legal now, but he is still just taking money from those who use what nature provided for free, and contributing nothing whatever in return, exactly as he did when he was a lowly bandit. How is his "business" any different now that he is a landowner?

And how is any other landowner charging rent for what nature provided for free any different?

Do the merchants, by using the pass when they know the bandit is there, agree to be robbed?

If there were two, or three, or 300 passes, each with its own bandit, would the merchants' being at liberty to choose which bandit robs them make the bandits' enterprise a productive, competitive industry in a free market?"

 

translation-you abhor the concept of private property and property rights.

 

changing normal definitions to suit your form of anarchy. rejected by 95% of the citizens of the USA.

 

I like your story, but the issue I see is that collecting tolls and owning land comes with responsibilities for their upkeep, and regulations to ensure that the amounts are actually appropriate. Some of the money would go to the government, which maintains the roads and arrests the bandits. Unregulated banditry could not be assumed to me taking only what can be afforded. And if fees were more than could be afforded, governments have mechanisms to address such problems while a freelance bandit does not.

 

Nope, he's right.

 

No it isn't. Look at the thread title. This is about whether the US already soaks the rich. Claiming that income tax soaks the rich is just a bald falsehood, a disingenuous attempt to change the subject.

It was retained by every country whose government was not controlled by the rich.

That is kinda the point, and proves the US does not already soak the rich.

That's just objectively false, much as you wish it were true. Every state in the union has a property tax, and none has ever been ruled unconstitutional.

Right. It is designed to steal the wages of working people, not to soak the rich.