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

I did explain the why…..scroll up.

 

Voila!

 

No. I am addressing the actual subject, which is whether US federal income tax "soaks the rich" just because it obtains the bulk of its revenue from honest working people with the highest earned incomes.

And you don't care that the 1% you are talking about is not actually the rich, just people with high reported incomes. Check.

No, I already corrected your false claim on that score.

You can stop puffing up your chest over literally nothing.

 

For future reference, it is important to note that you quoted yourself, so your post did not alert me to your response. At any rate thank you for that response...

In regards to why is the top 1% earning 26.3% of income and paying 46% of taxes is fair, I realize that you are trying to delineate that 2021 was an unusual year. For my purposes I do not see this as all that relevant, but we can look at the latest numbers if it makes you feel better.

FWIW, here is a source claiming this information for 2023. It says...
"The top 1 percent earned 22.2 percent of total AGI and paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes.

In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $723 billion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $450 billion.
that the top 1% earned 22.2% of income and paid 42.3% of income taxes.
Who Pays Federal Income Taxes? | IRS Federal Income Tax Data, 2023 (taxfoundation.org)"




In truth, this is a larger percentage in relation to share of income than 2021, but this distinction in my mind is irrelevant. We are basically talking about the same level of "fairness". This number I am sure will vary slightly from one year to the next, and these slight variations in my mind do not impact this debate one way or the other. This creates a progressivity multiplier of 1.9 (42.3/22.2)

Your basic premise is that in Canada the 1% earns 10.7% of income while paying 17.1% of income taxes which is a multiplier of 1.59 (17.1/10.7)
You also mention Europe but do not provide any numbers. The prgressivity multiplier of 1.9 in the US is a larger share of tax burden to income than the prgressivity multiplier of 1.59 in Canada. If Canada is your comparator of fairness, the US number is undeniably significantly more "unfair" than Canada.

For me, I dont look elsewhere for justification as to what I see as fair. My question was not really related to other countries. I have no doubt that there are more progressive countries in this world than the United States, and to be honest with you, I am surprised that there is more progressivity in this number with the United States versus the far more liberal Canada.

Stepping away from the comparison above which I am surprised skews significantly more progressive than Canada, WHY do you see it as fair that the 1% earns 22.2% of income but pays 42.3% of all income taxes? In other words, why do you think that the 1% should pay such an outsized share of the tax burden in comparison to how much of the pie they earn?

 

Folks, in addition to the above, here’s a cross-reference.

Individual Income tax receipts, excluding withheld, thus, OTHER individual tax receipts, month of April, and traditionally, a huge tax owed month;

April 2018…..$278 billion
April 2019…..$283 billion
July 2020……$292 billion, and July due to an extension
April 2021…..$117 billion
April 2022…..$514 billion….abnormally high, and according to the above average intelligent members on this site…..mainly due to a 40-year record high of capital gains realization, and according to the IRS, in 2021, realized capital gains amounted to over $2 trillion.

 

No, I have identified the relevant facts of objective physical reality using the most accurate available terms. You just don't want anyone to be able to identify those facts because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

You mean my clear and valid definitions that are useful for identifying the relevant facts?

The legal system does not talk about "the rich" at all.

 

I reject your bizarre terminology

 

The bridge only touches land on two sides you said

Well theirs only two that had to sell their land to the government which is not much benefit and only one or two that abut the bridge land.

What about people passing through the town do they benefit from the bridge? How about people who rent apartments on one side and work on the other do they benefit? How about the person in cardiac arrest and the hospital is on the other side of the river do they benefit?

OH now it's EVERYONE gets to benefit................so what's your beef?

Oh I'll take your word on the fallacious premise of the theorem. Just read above.

You do realize we are the United STATES and STATES also have taxing authority and in fact were designed to be the primary spenders of taxpayer money and provider of services.

Do you believe with the current rates it is progressive enough or needs to be even more progressive?

 

I have told you in great detail why I am not interested.

Sorry.

Please move along. You cannot make someone interested in what you have to say. I have no interest whatsoever in going off on a land rights tangent that has no chance whatsoever of ever being a reality.

 

But that is the picture we are dealing with here especially with the campaign in progress and this "make the rich and corporations pay their fair share" Biden just repeated it in his campaign speech yesterday. What you do in your state and your county and your cite I could care less, set those rate where you want them. This is about FEDERAL taxation and whether the top 1% is paying their "fair share" of IT.

Yep a ridiculous amount the government is taking out of the economy. The goal should be to grow the government slower than we grow the economy. A PRO-growth agenda. The goal is to keep LOWERING the amount of GDP, the amount of capital the government takes out of the free market economy. The government doesn't have a claim to a certain amount of it.

Just wait until hyperinflation hits and your debt is not good any longer cause no one will buy it.

Inflation hits the higher earners too and at the same rate you know. Their dollars don't decline less in value. What makes up this 30% on the backs of the poor? Excise taxes, use taxes? Hey pay up if you are going to drive on the roads then pay the gas tax

That is just all a bunch of twisted and folded gobbly-gook trying to find some way to say the poor pay for the government. They MAKE MONEY off the government, they pay a negative income tax which includes reimbursement of FICA contributions under the EITC.

Because it is free to them and they don't care that someone else had to earn the money first and have it taken from them. Want to get people off welfare then do like Gingrich and Kasich and then Bush43 and Rep Congress did and enforce strict work requirements and cut people off. Amazing how the find work.

The methods don't fail when the people who are deciding the methods don't have an inherent self interest on those methods not ending it. Dems want to help more people with more government spending on wasteful, useless programs, HeadStart being a prime example, while Reps want the most people to be independently self sufficient and providing a strong middle class life for themselves in a productive endeavor and get government out of the way.

 

Quote; Why do see it as fair that the 1% earns 22.2% of income

If you go back the my original question and clarification, both yours and bluesguy, I never said that the top 1% share of total income earned represent fairness.

You see, you’ve often told me that I put words in your mouth, and you just did that.

However, reference to the top 1% share of total earned income……Compared to most 1st world countries, we have a greater income disparity among several income groups, and to the Democrats, and some Republicans, that’s unfair.

Me, I don’t really care, but in my next post, I will explain why I was seeking a simple YES answer from you, and the other guy.

 

Wow, you have cut off mid sentence in your quote, which effectively wholly changes the meaning of my sentence. My entire sentence was..."WHY do you see it as fair that the 1% earns 22.2% of income but pays 42.3% of all income taxes?"

...and I never asked you why you think the 1% share of income is fair. (See above)

I sincerely do not actually remember you one way or the other, but I will take your word that I have pointed out you putting words into my mouth at some point in the past. Now that you mention this, it does seem vaguely familiar that there was someone doing this with regularity in a discussion in the last month or so.

Ironically, you have taken words OUT of my mouth here. That is disingenuous. I had thought you were better than such a tactic, but you live and learn I suppose. It is not that I am trying to control everything that comes out of your mouth, but putting words into the other persons mouth or taking half a sentence with a quote to 100% change the meaning accomplishes nothing.

You truly have not responded even slightly to what I had just said....Lets try again...

For future reference, it is important to note that you quoted yourself, so your post did not alert me to your response. At any rate thank you for that response...



In regards to why is the top 1% earning 26.3% of income and paying 46% of taxes is fair, I realize that you are trying to delineate that 2021 was an unusual year. For my purposes I do not see this as all that relevant, but we can look at the latest numbers if it makes you feel better.

FWIW, here is a source claiming this information for 2023. It says...
"The top 1 percent earned 22.2 percent of total AGI and paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes.

In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $723 billion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $450 billion.
that the top 1% earned 22.2% of income and paid 42.3% of income taxes.
Who Pays Federal Income Taxes? | IRS Federal Income Tax Data, 2023 (taxfoundation.org)"




In truth, this is a larger percentage in relation to share of income than 2021, but this distinction in my mind is irrelevant. We are basically talking about the same level of "fairness". This number I am sure will vary slightly from one year to the next, and these slight variations in my mind do not impact this debate one way or the other. This creates a progressivity multiplier of 1.9 (42.3/22.2)

Your basic premise is that in Canada the 1% earns 10.7% of income while paying 17.1% of income taxes which is a multiplier of 1.59 (17.1/10.7)
You also mention Europe but do not provide any numbers. The prgressivity multiplier of 1.9 in the US is a larger share of tax burden to income than the prgressivity multiplier of 1.59 in Canada. If Canada is your comparator of fairness, the US number is undeniably significantly more "unfair" than Canada.

For me, I dont look elsewhere for justification as to what I see as fair. My question was not really related to other countries. I have no doubt that there are more progressive countries in this world than the United States, and to be honest with you, I am surprised that there is more progressivity in this number with the United States versus the far more liberal Canada.

Stepping away from the comparison above which I am surprised skews significantly more progressive than Canada, WHY do you see it as fair that the 1% earns 22.2% of income but pays 42.3% of all income taxes? In other words, why do you think that the 1% should pay such an outsized share of the tax burden in comparison to how much of the pie they earn?

 

No I didn't, but so what? An airport only touches the ground. Does that mean the planes don't use it to fly through the air?

Give your head a shake.

What an absurd and disingenuous attempt to evade the fact that all the owners of all the land that is made more desirable by the bridge are getting a subsidy paid for by the taxes that funded the bridge.

No, because they are still paying landowners in their own area for permission to access the whole road network, including the bridge, and the farther they are from the bridge, the less likely they are to use it.

Nope. They pay their landlords full market value for permission to use the bridge, and so do their employers.

Nope. They pay full market value for permission to access it. The fact that they need it more urgently is not a benefit.

No, I said every landowner, not everyone, and you know it.

Massive, systematic, institutionalized, and wholly gratuitous injustice.

While the assumptions are not met perfectly, in jurisdictions with democratically accountable governments, they are almost always close enough as makes little difference, just as we use approximations of mathematical theorems in surveying even though we can't have measurements of actual land that are equal to irrational square roots.

I would prefer a much smaller US federal government. That would make it easier to see the results of state policies, such as the relationship between more affordable housing and higher property tax rates.

Oh, I would definitely make it more progressive. It was originally passed on the basis that only a single-digit percent of Americans with the highest incomes would pay it at all.

 

Try bothering to read the OP next time.

 

I know: you won't engage with anyone who proves your claims false.

Sure I can: by making it interesting, entertaining, and informative. Which I think I am doing pretty well at.

<yawn> Is constant, unreasoning nay-saying how you think you can prevent it from becoming reality?

 

I will now explain why I was seeking a YES…..

So far in this thread, there isn’t a general consensus about what’s fair/unfair, thus, in the spirit of unity, let’s all agree that 20201’s top1% share of income tax of 46%, and/or an average rate of 26% are FAIR.

Now, let’s assume that in tax year 2023, said 46% would come down to 42%, then here’s my rationale; If 46% is fair, then it would also be fair to raise 2023’s 42% back to 46%, and in so many ways, both front and back door.

Also, if we were to poll this thread with a “do you believe” question, such as; Is our Top 1%

a. Overtaxed
b. Fairly taxed
c. Undertaxed

How many would choose (b)?

Myself, and maybe one more.

 

I am not sure just how many times you are going to insist on having the same exchange.

I learned long ago not to engage with the village idiot lest no one can tell us apart. I can and will repeat it or any of the other similar descriptions I have already provided if you insist, but hopefully, you will just move on.

 

Why would I assume that it is "fair", when I decidedly see it as not fair and have unequivocally said so?

Why should we assume tax year 2023 when I have already provided the actual numbers along with a credible link?

When forming my opinion, I dont personally care what anyone on this board outside of our conversation does or does not think is fair. I certainly have no interest in guessing their beliefs. I am capable of forming my own opinions. I fundamentally do not believe it is "fair" for the 1% to earn 22.2% of income while paying 44.3% of tax revenue.

 

According to several Gallup polls, 65% of Republicans believed that they are taxed fairly, and 25% of Republicans didn’t opposed to raising taxes on the rich, thus, obviously, the level of sincerity on the site isn’t the same, as my effort to recruit at least one YES, has been a waste of time.

 

Did you miss the part where I very clearly stated that I do not care what other people think in regard to fairness?

We are not discussing opinion polls, we are discussing OUR opinion, at least that is what was being masqueraded as the subject.

If opinion polling results is your desire, you dont need this board, just go to Pew or Gallup etc.

 

Look, on several sites such as this one, nothing has changed since I started posting from a hotel in Tripoli, Libya, 2007. Often confined to our hotel, I joined several sites, and back then, 6,000 miles west of my offshore platform, both Democrats and Republicans were at each others throats as to which party/what policies led to a financial crisis, and here are the reason why I became an independent, formerly Republican;

COMMON SENSE # 1. Had we kept qualifying applicants with a good credit score, 10% down payment, 20/25 years amortization, a pile of manure would had never hit the fan.

2. Who should be responsible to contain systemic risk? Back in the 2000’s, a Federal Reserve sole responsibility….Yeah, right, “let’s blame the Fed, and wash our hands”. COMMON SENSE # 2; The Fed, Congress, and WH.

3. Bush’s drive for homeownership…..WTF was he doing, seeking minority votes?

4. Several more reasons.

One day, and federally, I may go back to be a Republican, but certainly not before the foolishness stops.

Last, opinions fall into two groups;

a. Biased

b. Unbiased

And one day, our grandkids will pay a huge price because group (a), mainly Dems and Repubs grew further apart.

 

I read this post 3 times to be sure I was not overlooking something.

LOL...What the f**k does this have to do with the topic being discussed?

This has gotten truly bizarre.

 

OPINIONS!

“We are discussing opinion”

 

We were supposedly discussing your opinion about why you think that the current top 1% tax burden is fair. Nobody asked your opinion as to what is your favorite color or your opinion on any other topic for that matter.

You cant just provide an opinion about ANYTHING and then act like you are therefore on topic just because the word opinion is consistent between the posts.

Sincerely, are you being serious? This feels like it must be sarcasm or something.