It was legs day and I’m tired so I’ll keep it short. Thanks for the links. If 40% of Americans do not pay income tax, then the system is broken. More to come tomorrow on this and my answer to your question on the moral justification. And you’re right… this thread is somewhat lacking of insults you laissez-faire neophyte.
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% of income earners (incomes over $388,806) paid 39.89% of the total federal income tax paid in 2006
The top 5% (over $153,542) paid 60.14% of the total.
The top 10% (over $108,904) paid 70.79% of the total.
The top 25% (over $64,702) paid 86.27% of the total.
The top 50% (over $31,987) paid 97.01% of the total.
The bottom 50% (less than $31,987) paid 2.99% of the total.
(I do not know the cutoff point where payment is zero but 40% certainly sounds consistent with the above.)
Yes, the evil “rich” are “not paying their fair share.”
Source: Page Not Found - Search - National Taxpayers Union
I wish I had the figures at hand for the percentage of total income that each of these groups earned. Someone might wonder if it is the case that, for example, perhaps the top 10% earn about 70% of the total income in the country. If so then perhaps the above would not be inequitable. However that is not the case at all – their share of total income is far less than the share of income tax burden carried, whereas very much the reverse is true for the bottom 50%.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
…I wish I had the figures at hand for the percentage of total income that each of these groups earned. Someone might wonder if it is the case that, for example, perhaps the top 10% earn about 70% of the total income in the country. If so then perhaps the above would not be inequitable. However that is not the case at all – their share of total income is far less than the share of income tax burden carried, whereas very much the reverse is true for the bottom 50%.[/quote]
I agree with these points Bill. What might make the burden a bit more clear is by looking at the effective tax rates, which is the actual rate paid to the government as a percent of income. The tax brackets are a bit confusing so if you like, try searching for effective rate. If you examine the numbers, the highest 1% of all income earners ($307k and up) do pay a higher effective tax rate. This is not surprising given that we have a progressive tax structure in the US, and that the disparity between the rich and poor is growing.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/business/income.4.php
I don’t have the time to get into it right now, but let me just make the point that although the effective rate
is highest for a select few, the disparity between the rich and poor is alarming.
I could put in a bunch of charts on income distribution, but don’t have the time. The point is that a livable wage is becoming harder and harder to maintain in this country. I’m not a fan of income redistribution, but sometimes there are necessary evils. I think that the economy is much stronger when the wealth of the middle class grows. The middle class are the real consumers in this country, and they are the drivers of demand. Demand and not supply is what fosters the health of the economy.
So is the economy much stronger when the “wealth of the middle class grows” by means of taking money from those who earned more – most often because of producing goods and services worth more to others who willingly pay for them – and giving it to those who earned less? (Most often because of producing goods and services worth less to others and thus others being willing to pay them less for them.)
Or does, instead, the welfare (income redistribution) reduce the incentive of those receiving the money to work, as well as reduce the incentive of those taxed at higher rates to produce as much?
It’s a nice thought that wealth comes from demand, but if GDP is less because less goods and services are produced, wealth is less. Regardless of how much people might want to buy or how many dollars they may have had given to them by the government.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So is the economy much stronger when the “wealth of the middle class grows” by means of taking money from those who earned more and giving it to those who earned less?[/quote]
That’s not what I said at all. In fact middle class people do pay taxes. They in fact hold the majority of the tax burden. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
Therefore, you cannot use this taking from the rich and giving to the middle class argument.
I suppose if you define middle class so as to exclude the entire first 50% of income earners, then you can say that all of the middle class pay substantial income taxes.
But that would be a weird definition of “middle.”
I’m not aware if there’s a univerally accepted definition of where the cut-off points are. I don’t think most mean only the middle third when referring to the middle class. If so then one would be calling a full third of Americans poor and a full third “rich.”
But let’s say one was just that narrow.
In that case the “middle class” would extend from the 33.3th to the 67th percentile.
It was reported above that the first 40 percent pay nothing.
So even with the middle class defined this narrowly, 6.7 out of 33.3 (that is to say, 20% of them) then pay nothing.
From above information we see that the entire “middle class” then pays about 10% of the taxes. (From using an estimate for the 75th percentile figure to try to guess the approximate 66.7th percentile figure.)
So you then have 90% of the taxes paid by “the rich”, with “rich” being defined as earning somewhere around $60K per year.
Now if you broaden your definition of the middle class, to be let’s say the middle 50% of individuals (thus 25% are “poor” and 25% are “rich,” then everyone in the “middle class” from the 25th to the 40th percentile – 15/50ths or 30% of the “middle class” – pay no income taxes and half the middle class, those between the 25th and 50th percentiles, pay only 3% of the income taxes.
A claim that all or almost all the middle class pays income taxes and they pay most of the taxes is simply not true.
Either you expand “middle class” fairly high to get most of the taxes paid, in which case if it is symmetrical – truly middle – then a whole lot pay nothing. And more accurately it is not then “the middle class” that pays most of the taxes, but the burden being carried, crushingly, by the upper middle class.
Or you make it extremely narrow but even then many in fact pay no income tax and then the middle class, as so defined, is not paying the majority of the taxes or anything like.
I’m sure that countless agitprop you’ve seen has had it that the “middle class” bears the income tax burden and it hits everybody or just about everybody, but it’s not true.
It used to be true that it hit just about anybody earning any money, but it isn’t any more.
That is why many voters now have no reason to oppose tax rate increases. They pay nothing now in income tax and will still pay nothing under the increase – in fact, may well receive a check under a given new plan, called a “tax credit” when it’s actually income redistribution.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote: …Or does, instead, the welfare (income redistribution) reduce the incentive of those receiving the money to work, as well as reduce the incentive of those taxed at higher rates to produce as much?
It’s a nice thought that wealth comes from demand, but if GDP is less because less goods and services are produced, wealth is less. Regardless of how much people might want to buy or how many dollars they may have had given to them by the government.[/quote]
Welfare is a necessary evil. There are abusers of the system, but it has a necessary purpose in our country. Can you really imagine our country without a form of welfare? Just because is not against something, doesn?t mean they are a fan of it. I did say it was evil, just a necessary evil.
On the economy, when GDP is down, the economy is suffering. This is capitalism at its finest, in that it is survival of the fittest right now. Weak companies are crumbling. It’s just a real sad situation when jobs are lost, but again with the necessary evil thing. There are natural peaks and valleys in a capitalist economy. It?s a historical fact. It’s unfortunate that we are in one now, but increasing supply won’t fix it.
Before when I gave the example that the single mother was more likely to spend her money on things like diapers (which would raise GDP) vs the manufacturing company, I was not offering a solution to the economy. I don’t think that socialism is the way to a better economy at all.
So should the bottom 50% or so of income earners receive a check? Or the bottom 30%?
Or for that matter should those with fairly average incomes – a little below average, but still well in the ordinary range – get a total free ride on societal benefits funded by income tax, at the cost of someone else having to carry, as a result, extra burden, above and beyond merely the multiple of the extra that they earn?
Why?
There’s a difference between a person temporarily in hardship, or disabled, and a permanent class-warfare income redistribution scheme to those who in fact earn enough to get by, but who enjoy having wealth seized from others given to them by their caring politicians.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I suppose if you define middle class so as to exclude the entire first 50% of income earners, then you can say that all of the middle class pay substantial income taxes.
But that would be a weird definition of “middle.”
I’m not aware if there’s a univerally accepted definition of where the cut-off points are. I don’t think most mean only the middle third when referring to the middle class. If so then one would be calling a full third of Americans poor and a full third “rich.”
But let’s say one was just that narrow.
In that case the “middle class” would extend from the 33.3th to the 67th percentile.
It was reported above that the first 40 percent pay nothing.
So even with the middle class defined this narrowly, 6.7 out of 33.3 (that is to say, 20% of them) then pay nothing.
From above information we see that the entire “middle class” then pays about 10% of the taxes. (From using an estimate for the 75th percentile figure to try to guess the approximate 66.7th percentile figure.)
So you then have 90% of the taxes paid by “the rich”, with “rich” being defined as earning somewhere around $60K per year.
Now if you broaden your definition of the middle class, to be let’s say the middle 50% of individuals (thus 25% are “poor” and 25% are “rich,” then everyone in the “middle class” from the 25th to the 40th percentile – 15/50ths or 30% of the “middle class” – pay no income taxes and half the middle class, those between the 25th and 50th percentiles, pay only 3% of the income taxes.
A claim that all or almost all the middle class pays income taxes and they pay most of the taxes is simply not true.
Either you expand “middle class” fairly high to get most of the taxes paid, in which case if it is symmetrical – truly middle – then a whole lot pay nothing, or you make it extremely narrow but even then many in fact pay no income tax and then the middle class, as so defined, is not paying the majority of the taxes or anything like.
I’m sure that countless agitprop you’ve seen has had it that the “middle class” bears the income tax burden and it hits everybody or just about everybody, but it’s not true.
It used to be true that it hit just about anybody earning any money, but it isn’t any more.
That is why many voters now have no reason to oppose tax rate increases. They pay nothing now in income tax and will still pay nothing under the increase – in fact, may well receive a check under a given new plan, called a “tax credit” when it’s actually income redistribution.[/quote]
Very few tax credits are refundable, meaning that most reduce your tax liability. Very few can you actually at the end of the day get a check for.
Secondly, I comepletly argree that the middle class is small. That’s the disparity problem that I spoke of. As for a definition, middle class is clasically defined as between working class and the elite, i.e. professional of skilled labor and white collar workers. Don’t you think it’s a sad day when a whole crop of college educated and skilled workers can barely if at all afford a moderately sized home let alone raise a family? Going back to our roots in our country we must get to the point where this is again possible. Poverty breeds poverty, and when a hard working educated class of people struggle, the country struggles.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Very few tax credits are refundable, meaning that most reduce your tax liability. Very few can you actually at the end of the day get a check for.[/quote]
You are just wrong to imagine that this is rare and that the IRS is not, for many, an income redistribution service for their benefit.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So should the bottom 50% or so of income earners receive a check? Or the bottom 30%?
Or for that matter should those with fairly average incomes – a little below average, but still well in the ordinary range – get a total free ride on societal benefits funded by income tax, at the cost of someone else having to carry, as a result, extra burden, above and beyond merely the multiple of the extra that they earn?
Why?
There’s a difference between a person temporarily in hardship, or disabled, and a permanent class-warfare income redistribution scheme to those who in fact earn enough to get by, but who enjoy having wealth seized from others given to them by their caring politicians.[/quote]
You’re making it seem as though people in the lowest class enjoy being there. Let me make the point that I think the ill of our country and economy is inefficiency and laziness, but it’s mostly the former. Beyond these two, I don’t think there is any other major contributor, and yes, even a War in Iraq. It’s not what we choose to spend our money on, but it is the manner in which money is wasted in the process. It is also the inefficiencies in the production and consumption of disposable capital good.
Do you suppose it the lowest class was taxed more, and then they would be harder working citizens? I think tax rates have little if anything to do with the health of the economy. The economy is strengthened by the attitudes of its citizens and not vice versa. When attitude is good waste is cut down, and efficiencies increase. This is a very broad concept, but efficiency would include a breadth of topics. I would consider lower teen pregnancy rates, higher college and high school graduation rates, and more obscure things like decreasing food waste, and energy waste in production as indicators of increased efficiency and less waste.
I would say that some people in the lowest economic status have a terrible work ethic and that their contribution to society is always going to be pathetic. F those people because they’re f’ing up our country, but also F the factories who waste energy. F middle class and even rich parents who have don’t pay enough attention to their kids who consequently become drug addicts, F obesity, F people who routinely throw away food that sits in the fridge too long.
Others in the lowest economic status do in fact have a good work ethic.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
Very few tax credits are refundable, meaning that most reduce your tax liability. Very few can you actually at the end of the day get a check for.
You are just wrong to imagine that this is rare and that the IRS is not, for many, an income redistribution service for their benefit.
[/quote]
Sure there are inefficiencies in our economy, but this picture to me looks like no one is benefiting as much as you are intending:
(the orange line appears visibly lower than the green line in all scenarios)
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
You’re making it seem as though people in the lowest class enjoy being there. [/quote]
Many enjoy it more than the alternatives.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
You’re making it seem as though people in the lowest class enjoy being there.
Many enjoy it more than the alternatives. [/quote]
Two points sloth:
-
Yes many do. But don’t assume many = majority. Many people enjoy licking arm pits as a fetish. I wouldn’t say the majority of people with a fetish choose this one. I would say a nice ass is better than licking an arm pit. I don’t think statistics could possibly exist to prove the point either way, but this leads me to my second point;
-
I think you have to look at welfare from the otherside. Effective welfare benefits both society and the economy. Having lazy ass people is a hinderence to our economy, and subsequently makes our country less secure. I hope no one here assumes I am sympathetic to those who are not willing to do their fair share.
There is difficulty in distinguishing the lazy from those just down on there luck and consequently there difficulty in establishing an effective and efficient welfare system. But would you argue that welfare is a bad thing?
Either you are for A) letting people suffer without regard or B) giving them a little stimulus could get them back on their feet. In both A and B, you are going to have people who are leaches on society. I thnk that all A does is increase the crime rate of the leaches while unnecessarily making people suffer.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
You’re making it seem as though people in the lowest class enjoy being there.
Many enjoy it more than the alternatives.
Two points sloth:
- Yes many do. But don’t assume many = majority. Many people enjoy licking arm pits as a fetish. I wouldn’t say the majority of people with a fetish choose this one. I would say a nice ass is better than licking an arm pit.
I don’t think statistics could possibly exist to prove the point either way, but this leads me to my second point;
- I think you have to look at welfare from the otherside. Effective welfare benefits both society and the economy. Having lazy ass people is a hinderence to our economy, and subsequently makes our country less secure. I hope no one here assumes I am sympathetic to those who are not willing to do their fair share.
There is difficulty in distinguishing the lazy from those just down on there luck and consequently there difficulty in establishing an effective and efficient welfare system. But would you argue that welfare is a bad thing?
Either you are for A) letting people suffer without regard or B) giving them a little stimulus could get them back on their feet. In both A and B, you are going to have people who are leaches on society.
I thnk that all A does is increase the crime rate of the leaches while unnecessarily making people suffer. [/quote]
In fact, I oppose welfare vigorously. I think it’s the cruelest, most destructive, and evil thing that has ever been targeted at the poor. No, perhaps the ideas of “free love” and an unrestrained pity tie it.
Anyways, I believe the welfare state has thrown a monkey wrench into the mechansims of risk and reward, caution, prudence, personal responsibility and self reliance, and the intact family. Things the poor need more than any other class of people, basically. Look at the out of wedlock stats.
They’ve skyrocketed! And, with this comes increased violence, entrenched multi-generational poverty, and drugs.
Alot of discussion is to be found here about the harm the war on drugs has brought upon our nation. What about the the war on poverty? Is it really so hard to believe that there too, we may be doing far more harm to those we were supposedly trying to protect?
Just curious: Do you also oppose the minimum wage as it too is a form of welfare? Do you think universal healthcare is a bad idea? How about other socialized services such as the fire department, police, or public transportation?
I’d like to also know what data you have to show a statistical relationship other than correelation between the welfare policies and increasing rates of out of wedlock stats, or increased violence.
I think you are correct to state that things like out of wedlock births increase multigenerational poverty, and thus there is a correlation, but correlation doesn’t mean causation. I have serious issue with the notion that there is a strict statistical relationship between poverty and the use of drugs and out of wedlock child birth of the impoverished.
There is limited and mixed information on welfare reform’s effect on poverty, let alone the correlated relation to drug use, etc. I don’t argue that welfare reform is an extremely important issue, only I argue with good reason, and based on research, that welfare is effective to reduce deep poverty.
I will not post such research as you can also find it yourself as well as contradicting info. The data to the contrary is also based on research and is supported by philosophers I respect as well, therefore I am torn, but find my ultimate conclusion, that the problem is not welfare, but the way welfare policies are implemented.
Maybe the system is screwed up and abused, but tell me please, would you help someone up when they fall, or let them wallow in the slippery mud, and allowing them to get in everyone else’s way as they try to walk by?
… and one more point. regarding efficieny in our economy. In order to establish an effective long term strategy for a welfare system that works, I agree that you have to look at not short term fixes like food stamps, and you have to look at how welfare programs affect employment, wage rates, productivity and prices.
The force of law should never be used to benefit some people at the expense of others. Maybe I’m finally seeing the light that the hand out is not the way to go, but that’s not to say that welfare is evil.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
… and one more point. regarding efficieny in our economy. In order to establish an effective long term strategy for a welfare system that works, I agree that you have to look at not short term fixes like food stamps, and you have to look at how welfare programs affect employment, wage rates, productivity and prices.
The force of law should never be used to benefit some people at the expense of others. Maybe I’m finally seeing the light that the hand out is not the way to go, but that’s not to say that welfare is evil.[/quote]
But the servitude that is required to finance it is.
You would not let someone else pick your cotton at gunpoint but you would have him pay your medical bills?
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Maybe the system is screwed up and abused, but tell me please, would you help someone up when they fall, or let them wallow in the slippery mud, and allowing them to get in everyone else’s way as they try to walk by?[/quote]
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality.
And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G1824
Does that answer your question?
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So should the bottom 50% or so of income earners receive a check? Or the bottom 30%?
Or for that matter should those with fairly average incomes – a little below average, but still well in the ordinary range – get a total free ride on societal benefits funded by income tax, at the cost of someone else having to carry, as a result, extra burden, above and beyond merely the multiple of the extra that they earn?
Why?
There’s a difference between a person temporarily in hardship, or disabled, and a permanent class-warfare income redistribution scheme to those who in fact earn enough to get by, but who enjoy having wealth seized from others given to them by their caring politicians.
You’re making it seem as though people in the lowest class enjoy being there. [/quote]
Lately there is a real trend of people reading things into my posts that I never wrote, which no conceivable mental process other than fabrication could put into my posts. It was really prevalent in the quinoa thread but has popped up at least another place or two as well.
Your reply is an example. You’re just making it up that supposedly I wrote anything that “made it seem” like that.