Current Events > OMB: Top 20% pay 95% of all income taxes

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/omb-top-20-pay-95-of-taxes-middle-class-single-digits/article/2638746

Any tax cut for middle income earners will also provide a benefit for those further up the income scale, including the top 20 percent who pay 95 percent of all income taxes, according to the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

In explaining the complicated tax system the administration and congressional Republicans are trying to simplify, Mick Mulvaney played the role of professor at Georgetown University Wednesday night and dished the eye-popping numbers and impact of a middle class tax cut.

It came in a discussion before students of the school's Institute of Politics and Public Service at the McCourt School of Public Policy. The discussion was directed by Cathy Koch, a tax expert and former Senate aide.

When the two turned to the taxes the rich pay, Mulvaney declared, "The top 20 percent of folks who file a tax return, the top 20 percent, pay 95 percent of the taxes."

That may be the highest ever. Just two years ago, it was 84 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal.

What do people here who support leftist/socialist politics think this percentage should be before they stop complaining that "the rich should pay their fair share?" 98%? 100%?
---

But that's not enough think of the poor people
---

Pre Reagan we taxed the wealthy up to 94%, now they pay 35% and everyone else is suffering because of it.
---

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Pre Reagan we taxed the wealthy up to 94%, now they pay 35% and everyone else is suffering because of it.

don't be dumb.
---

Doesnt the top 20% also own like 99+% of the wealth tho?
---

Top 20% probably control 99% of the wealth so yeah, they're getting off easy.
---

While I don't agree with the thinking...I think (could be wrong) their argument isn't that the percentage isn't high enough, but that the raw number isn't high enough

cant imagine how you'd think that though

Drpooplol posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Pre Reagan we taxed the wealthy up to 94%, now they pay 35% and everyone else is suffering because of it.

don't be dumb.

But we did. The middle class didn't stagnate and begin to shrink until the Reagan era
---

The Admiral posted...

What do people here who support leftist/socialist politics think this percentage should be before they stop complaining that "the rich should pay their fair share?" 98%? 100%?

I'm not a socialist but I think that talking strictly about earned income taxes is incredibly disingenuous in these discussions.
---

Maybe if the top 20% didn't fucking horde the wealth like Scrooge McDuck we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with
---

The Admiral posted...

What do people here who support leftist/socialist politics think this percentage should be before they stop complaining that "the rich should pay their fair share?" 98%? 100%?

consistent with their share of the wealth

it's even more slanted towards the top percentiles than the taxes paid are

Balrog0 posted...

The Admiral posted...

What do people here who support leftist/socialist politics think this percentage should be before they stop complaining that "the rich should pay their fair share?" 98%? 100%?

I'm not a socialist but I think that talking strictly about earned income taxes is incredibly disingenuous in these discussions.

it wouldn't be if we treated capital gains like we do earned income from owning a small business

but apparently it's only double taxation if no work is involved in getting your returns
---

MB2012 posted...

Maybe if the top 20% didn't fucking horde the wealth like Scrooge McDuck we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with

Well it also follows the pareto distribution which occurs in most any system where creativity plays a role. Not limited to capitalism but it is an issue

Topic isn't race baiting enough.
---

tote_all posted...

Or you think TC wants to have a constructive discussion?

admiral usually puts on his serious face when balrog and i talk to him
---

tote_all posted...

. Or you think TC wants to have a constructive discussion?

Lol.
---

Simple solution: Establish a 1% tax bracket, at $100 income.
The problem with income taxes and equity isn't paying too much or not enough, it's the segment of the population who pays nothing at all. The moment that group crosses over 50% of the population, is the exact instant a nation begins an inevitable collapse.

When the takers outnumber the makers, it's all over.
If you want to survive the revolution, learn how to make guillotines.

The poor pay nothing because they have nothing. Wealth accumulates more wealth in a capitalist system. The only way to raise revenue isto tax the wealthy and honestly its more of the super wealthy.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Top 20% probably control 99% of the wealth so yeah, they're getting off easy.

85% actually

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf
---

Darkman124 posted...

admiral usually puts on his serious face when balrog and i talk to him

I guess he can at times, but 95% he seems to prefer to troll
---

Omega Hunter posted...

The only way to raise revenue isto tax the wealthy and honestly its more of the super wealthy.

That's not true at all. You can increase the tax base which has proven to be a more effective means to raise revenue.

Darkman124 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Top 20% probably control 99% of the wealth so yeah, they're getting off easy.

85% actually

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf

Is there anything more recent than 2010?
---

The Admiral posted...

What do people here who support leftist/socialist politics think this percentage should be before they stop complaining that "the rich should pay their fair share?" 98%? 100%?

10% is more for someone with a 100k salary versus someone with a 30k salary. No fucking shit.
---

Darkman124 posted...

it wouldn't be if we treated capital gains like we do earned income from owning a small business

but apparently it's only double taxation if no work is involved in getting your returns

that would be an improvement but it really wouldn't change the discussion itt -- it would make the admiral's argument look stronger, actually

the main thing you need to discuss is payroll taxes, which the top 20% pay at roughly the same rate as the bottom 20% and lower than the middle three quintiles
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Simple solution: Establish a 1% tax bracket, at $100 income.
The problem with income taxes and equity isn't paying too much or not enough, it's the segment of the population who pays nothing at all. The moment that group crosses over 50% of the population, is the exact instant a nation begins an inevitable collapse.

When the takers outnumber the makers, it's all over.
If you want to survive the revolution, learn how to make guillotines.

so would you eliminate all deductions

because for that to matter you'd need to do that

the issue there is households with multiple kids and low net incomes have an adjusted gross income of 0

but those households collectively hold approximately 4% of american wealth (and that's being generous and lumping in the bottom 60% of households), so focusing on them is illogical since there's 24 times more money to tax from the other 40% of households
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

The Admiral posted...

What do people here who support leftist/socialist politics think this percentage should be before they stop complaining that "the rich should pay their fair share?" 98%? 100%?

10% is more for someone with a 100k salary versus someone with a 30k salary. No fucking shit.

Yeah even with a flat tax the wealthy would still pay a higher % of revenue. What a stupid fucking talking point.
---

Darkman124 posted...

so would you eliminate all deductions

That too.

the issue there is households with multiple kids and low net incomes have an adjusted gross income of 0

Or, some sort of system where various deductions affect the percentage directly, instead of moving your brackets around.

A fair system would be something along the lines of "15%, no deductions. Period."
Of course, we'd argue for years on what that exact percent should be.

Tmaster148 posted...

Is there anything more recent than 2010?

possibly but it's tough to crunch all the numbers

i'll look when i can

Balrog0 posted...

that would be an improvement but it really wouldn't change the discussion itt -- it would make the admiral's argument look stronger, actually

the main thing you need to discuss is payroll taxes, which the top 20% pay at roughly the same rate as the bottom 20% and lower than the middle three quintiles

idk if you can say that's the main thing, it's certainly one of the main things

removing the cap on SSI is definitely a solid first step but the discussion of whether it's a progressive tax or not hinges kind of on whether it's a wealth transfer program or an annuity investment

for medicare though no question, 100% agreed
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

That too.

A fair system would be something along the lines of "15%, no deductions. Period."
Of course, we'd argue for years on what that exact percent should be.

such an approach would massively increase burden on the segment of the population that presently doesnt pay taxes even if you dramatically cut spending

why do you want to increase their burden

what do you propose to do when they resort to violence in reaction

remember you can't spend money to respond because you don't have as much anymore
---

Darkman124 posted...

idk if you can say that's the main thing, it's certainly one of the main things

removing the cap on SSI is definitely a solid first step but the discussion of whether it's a progressive tax or not hinges kind of on whether it's a wealth transfer program or an annuity investment

for medicare though no question, 100% agreed

well, let me clarify -- in terms of federal taxes, that is the main one which every one pays
there are definitely other elements to the discussion, but imo they are mostly at the state-level -- state sales and property taxes being the other things mostly every one pays
---

Darkman124 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

That too.

A fair system would be something along the lines of "15%, no deductions. Period."
Of course, we'd argue for years on what that exact percent should be.

such an approach would massively increase burden on the segment of the population that presently doesnt pay taxes even if you dramatically cut spending

why do you want to increase their burden

what do you propose to do when they resort to violence in reaction

remember you can't spend money to respond because you don't have as much anymore

No one wants "fair". They want "fair share", whatever that means.

Questionmarktarius posted...

No one wants "fair". They want "fair share", whatever that means.

i dont want fair

i want functional

preferably without a large budget spent on 'maintaining social order' by force
---

why do conservatives think that leftists are going to feel bad for millionaires
---

_Near_ posted...

why do conservatives think that leftists are going to feel bad for millionaires

the top 20% aren't millionaires. The top 1% is chump change compared to top 0.1%, you go from a few millions at 1% to hundreds of millions / billions at 0.1%

There is enormous income inequality even at very wealthy tiers.

But guess what income bracket makes the tax laws?
---

the top 1% pays for almost 50% of that 95% tc was talking about

so when you say the top 20%, you definitely include millionaires
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

the top 20% aren't millionaires. The top 1% is chump change compared to top 0.1%, you go from a few millions at 1% to hundreds of millions / billions at 0.1%

Replace "brackets" with a hyperbola then. Brackets are just a simplification on that anyway.
That's going to have its own bizarre consequences (such as a defacto 'maximum wage'), but it seems to be the general desire of the "fair share" argument.

ChromaticAngel posted...

_Near_ posted...

why do conservatives think that leftists are going to feel bad for millionaires

the top 20% aren't millionaires. The top 1% is chump change compared to top 0.1%, you go from a few millions at 1% to hundreds of millions / billions at 0.1%

There is enormous income inequality even at very wealthy tiers.

But guess what income bracket makes the tax laws?

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/releases/2014/cb14-156_net_worth_graphic.pdf
---

When socialists and communists demand higher taxes on the rich, what they're really demanding is more taxes on the middle class (IE anyone who makes $70,000 to $150,000). So fuck 'em.

Questionmarktarius posted...

That's going to have its own bizarre consequences (such as a defacto 'maximum wage'), but it seems to be the general desire of the "fair share" argument.

why would it have a maximum wage?

I'm pretty sure the actual 'fair share' argument conceptualizes taxes as being more than just federal income taxes, too.
---

FICA taxes should apply to Capital gains, too.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We need more granularity than measuring by net worth imo. Someone can have $500,000 in equity in a home worth $3,000,000 and they're arguably not wealthy, since all that gets you in some cities is a cardboard box.

A "wealth" tax would be disastrous. It would essentially be property tax multiplied by several orders of magnitude.

Musourenka posted...

FICA taxes should apply to Capital gains, too.

Why? Money invested into the market was already taxed. Gains are already taxed at a high rate despite people leaving their money invested for years on end, which stimulates the economy and helps it grow.

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We need more granularity than measuring by net worth imo. Someone can have $500,000 in equity in a home worth $3,000,000 and they're arguably not wealthy, since all that gets you in some cities is a cardboard box.

A "wealth" tax would be disastrous. It would essentially be property tax multiplied by several orders of magnitude.

I deleted that comment because I derped - most definitions of net worth don't include equity in the conversation IIRC, so my comment was pointless.

Balrog0 posted...

why would it have a maximum wage?

If you tax someone an increasing percentage of increasing wealth, eventually you'll reach a point where additional income just isn't worth earning.

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We need more granularity than measuring by net worth imo. Someone can have $500,000 in equity in a home worth $3,000,000 and they're arguably not wealthy, since all that gets you in some cities is a cardboard box.

A "wealth" tax would be disastrous. It would essentially be property tax multiplied by several orders of magnitude.

I don't get the line of argument at all. I don't know anyone who is seriously pushing for a 'wealth tax' but I don't see how you can simultaneously like a literal flat tax but then say the way we measure wealth is flawed because cost of living varies in different areas.

Isn't it incredibly obvious how hypocritical that is? Adjusting for COL and adjusting based on ability to pay are like literally two sides of the same coin.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Balrog0 posted...

why would it have a maximum wage?

If you tax someone an increasing percentage of increasing wealth, eventually you'll reach a point where additional income just isn't worth earning.

The same is true with increasingly penalties on putting your money into the market. Eventually people are going to stop doing it because it's not worth the time and the risk.

Liberals are pretty shortsighted tbqh.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Musourenka posted...

FICA taxes should apply to Capital gains, too.

Why? Money invested into the market was already taxed. Gains are already taxed at a high rate despite people leaving their money invested for years on end, which stimulates the economy and helps it grow.

Gains are taxed less than wages, that's why. At a minimum, nonwage income should be taxed at the same rate as wages and salaries.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

If you tax someone an increasing percentage of increasing wealth, eventually you'll reach a point where additional income just isn't worth earning.

almost everyone who is actually working for their money would almost certainly not be making enough for that to be true of them, though, if we were to apportion people based on wealth rather than based on earned income receipts

even the people who work for living at the very top do not make their wealth from working
---

Musourenka posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Musourenka posted...

FICA taxes should apply to Capital gains, too.

Why? Money invested into the market was already taxed. Gains are already taxed at a high rate despite people leaving their money invested for years on end, which stimulates the economy and helps it grow.

Gains are taxed less than wages, that's why. At a minimum, nonwage income should be taxed at the same rate as wages and salaries.

They're taxed less than wages if you leave the money in the market for a minimum of two years, IIRC. At which point they're taxed at a rate that is lower than income tax but still high enough to feel the burn.

Taxing nonwage income at higher rates would just make it less attractive for me to put money into the market. At least in America.