The 400 Richest Americans Pay An 18% Tax Rate

[Trader666]

Not sure what you mean by "inequality" but here are a few links that document what I wrote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3236367&highlight=Gayfly#post3236367

Quote from Ricter:

I need a link to that claim. If it's true, one would expect that inequality in America should be shrinking. Is it?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from bugscoe:

The Wall Street Journal researched this in 2009, using data from 2006, at the peak of the last expansion, when everyone was doing well:

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% — about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 — paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income. …

But let’s not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

I don't disagree with any of this, though I will point out that you're quoting the WSJ, who I'm told (elsewhere, when I use them) are just more of the leftist MSM. ; )

You're right, complete redistribution cannot cover all of our expenditures (unadjusted), but masses of data from the social sciences do indicate that our expenses for social remediation would probably be dramatically lower if there were less inequality here. By most measures life is better in more equal societies, even if their GDP is not as high as ours (this assumes it's better than subsistence of course), this is a psychological trait of Man. Would we be able to lower our military expenditures much? I'm not so sure, in fact I don't think we should.

(This needs editing, but I'll put it out as-is to keep things flowing.)

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Trader666:

Not sure what you mean by "inequality" but here are a few links that document what I wrote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3236367&highlight=Gayfly#post3236367

Good links, thank you, but in my opinion they support my general worldview. The majority of those who pay no income taxes are the poor and the elderly. So, don't have so many poor, and don't get old! Also mentioned is support for the claim that we're a low-tax nation (on average).

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from Ricter:

Good links, thank you, but in my opinion they support my general worldview. The majority of those who pay no income taxes are the poor and the elderly. So, don't have so many poor, and don't get old! Also mentioned is support for the claim that we're a low-tax nation (on average).

When you account for the mass amount of cash that has been payed out in the 'war on poverty' in the last 40-45 years, it becomes clear that simply giving them money from another class of people isn't the solution.

If it was we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from denner:

Do you ever have a fucking point?

You started this thread implying that it was all the fault of Bush. Lucrum informs you that your idol has been in office for two and half years and your retort is that he is a "closet Republican"?

And all of this somehow ties into your support for Ron Paul?

You are batshit crazy.

Your limited brainpower would be better spent trying to figure out why your mother thinks its ok to fuck farm animals

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Your limited brainpower would be better spent trying to figure out why your mother thinks its ok to fuck farm animals

Say hi to mom and dad for us!

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from bugscoe:



But AK will tell us that is because he is a moderate republican, who he will vote for again, unless Ron Paul is running.

I'd vote for any democrat who ran against him in a primary as well


There was articles yesterday with idiot republicans threatening impeachment,personally I'd love that if it was done in time to put a liberal democrat on the ticket

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from bugscoe:

Say hi to mom and dad for us!

Mom and dad is also brother and sister in your neck of the woods

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from denner:

Do you (AK Forty Seven)ever have a fucking point?

You started this thread implying that it was all the fault of Bush. Lucrum informs you that your idol has been in office for two and half years and your retort is that he is a "closet Republican"?

And all of this somehow ties into your support for Ron Paul?

You are batshit crazy.

 

[Big Kahuna]

Classic Pareto Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

The rule is 20 percent of the population is responsible for 80% of the results. It is remarkably consistent throughout nature.

Quote from bugscoe:

The Wall Street Journal researched this in 2009, using data from 2006, at the peak of the last expansion, when everyone was doing well:

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and “the wealthiest 2%.” Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That’s about 7% of all returns; the data aren’t broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% — about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 — paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income. …

But let’s not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.