It's always good to look at the actual numbers, that's true. Still, as far as the top 10% are concerned, there is nothing to complain and nothing unfair about what is stated in the quote, at least qualitatively.

I mean sure, the ratio of tax share to income share has gone up for the top 10%. But consider that the income share of those top 10% has gone up as well. Think of it as controls for a dynamic system. As the system goes further away from the desired state, you need to work harder to get it back in the right direction.

Inequality has increased, so it is only logical that the pressure in the opposite direction should be increased as well. Of course one can quibble about what the numbers should be exactly, but at least qualitatively, the fact that the ratio of tax share to income share has increased for the top 10% is the right reaction to how their share of the income has developed.

I feel like my standpoint on taxes is getting repeatedly overlooked.

[color="#1C2837"]I agree and I am fine with tax rates as they are.[/quote]

[color="#1C2837"]I am arguing against increasing taxes on the rich using wealth/income distribution as an excuse when the fact of the matter is they already pay more and the tax revenues made off them continually increase. Not to mention the impact many of them have through charitable donations, the top 7% of earners donating 50% of the charitable donations in the US.

[color="#1C2837"]Rich people are an easy target and are often villainized just for making money, which isn't fair.

[color="#1C2837"]Regardless I would much prefer we raise the bottom than lower the top.

[color="#1C2837"]edit: on reading yours and khaiy's posts again, I think we are all arguing for the same state, we are just making the arguments from opposite sides. If I understand correctly you both are arguing against lowering taxes saying the level we are at (or a similar level with a simpler tax code) is fine, where I am arguing against raising it saying where we are at is fine.

[color="#1C2837"]I don't think it should be lowered.

[color="#1C2837"]double edit: I'm still astounded at how many minus votes I'm getting for arguing pro-education.

[color="#1C2837"]Rich people are an easy target and are often villainized just for making money, which isn't fair.

I'm not very sure that they are villainized for making money per-se. I believe that they are criticized (ok, maybe not always comprehensively) for being capable of living a life of disproportionate luxury (accumulating enormous amount of capital they won't be able to expend for generations and that won't be coming back to society in any sort of form) while being completely indifferent at the suffering of the rest of mankind who really experiment the injustice of this world: People who *was born* without the possibility of making any difference with their lives on a social level and that are just left apart for having such condition.

On the other hand, I know from experience that in most cases, if any of those "left apart" would be taken into a position of richness and power wouldn't behave much different (sometimes maybe even worst).

I honestly think there should be some sort of "valve" to balance things out both ways be it when the rich start screwing society (by immobilizing capital) or when the poor start screwing the industry (unions and stuff).

I'm not very sure that they are villainized for making money per-se. I believe that they are criticized (ok, maybe not always comprehensively) for being capable of living a life of disproportionate luxury (accumulating enormous amount of capital they won't be able to expend for generations and that won't be coming back to society in any sort of form) while being completely indifferent at the suffering of the rest of mankind who really experiment the injustice of this world: People who *was born* without the possibility of making any difference with their lives on a social level and that are just left apart for having such condition.

You say not villainized, but then you say that the accumulate large amounts of capital that won't come back to society in any sort of form, which is totally wrong; I previously pointed out that the top 7% of earners donate 50% of the charitable giving in the US on top of the large amount of taxes they already pay.

[quote name='owl' timestamp='1303948349' post='4803763']
I'm not very sure that they are villainized for making money per-se. I believe that they are criticized (ok, maybe not always comprehensively) for being capable of living a life of disproportionate luxury (accumulating enormous amount of capital they won't be able to expend for generations and that won't be coming back to society in any sort of form) while being completely indifferent at the suffering of the rest of mankind who really experiment the injustice of this world: People who *was born* without the possibility of making any difference with their lives on a social level and that are just left apart for having such condition.

You say not villainized, but then you say that the accumulate large amounts of capital that won't come back to society in any sort of form, which is totally wrong; I previously pointed out that the top 7% of earners donate 50% of the charitable giving in the US on top of the large amount of taxes they already pay.
[/quote]


So I'm totally wrong and you're totally right? Isn't that absolutism?

So I'm totally wrong and you're totally right? Isn't that absolutism?

Bearing in mind that I never said anything of the sort, I have statistics and data and you have heresay; make of that what you will.

You say not villainized, but then you say that the accumulate large amounts of capital that won't come back to society in any sort of form, which is totally wrong; I previously pointed out that the top 7% of earners donate 50% of the charitable giving in the US on top of the large amount of taxes they already pay.

Are these "large amount of taxes" disproportionate to what they (the rich) earn? And are these taxes and the size of their amount calculated before or after an accountant handles them? For the record, I honestly don't know. However, from what I've heard, the taxes the rich pay, although quite a sum, is "chump change" compared to their net income. Though you may argue that the poor pay no income. I mean.... they're poor. How much tax do you expect to get from them? Also, what kind of additional burden would that put on said poor person. The ratio of needs to be spent and can be spent is, from all hearsay accounts, disproportionately favoring the rich. I'm not promoting Robin Hood style tactics (even though normally I would in such a thread). I'm just pointing out facts based on hearsay.


*No. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but rather, honest about my position.

Are these "large amount of taxes" disproportionate to what they (the rich) earn?

that's extremely subjective, but I would say atm they are not.

And are these taxes and the size of their amount calculated before or after an accountant handles them?[/quote]
The numbers in the article I'm fairly sure are on taxes collected from them, not on the amount they should be paying.

For the record, I honestly don't know. However, from what I've heard, the taxes the rich pay, although quite a sum, is "chump change" compared to their net income. Though you may argue that the poor pay no income. I mean.... they're poor. How much tax do you expect to get from them? Also, what kind of additional burden would that put on said poor person. The ratio of needs to be spent and can be spent is, from all hearsay accounts, disproportionately favoring the rich. I'm not promoting Robin Hood style tactics (even though normally I would in such a thread). I'm just pointing out facts based on hearsay.
[/quote]

Anyone under the poverty line shouldn't pay any taxes. The least wealthy 50% of americans pay just 3% of the taxes. I definitely don't think that's a burden. The problem with the tax system today is that it is so complex that you can get anecdotal evidence from edge cases that go against what is good. A decent example is Warren Buffet. He pays a smaller percentage of his income than his secretary, but he also can claim all sorts of capital gains and charitable giving and tax breaks most of us have probably never heard of, but obviously not every millionaire/billionaire applies to that situation.

The merits of the capital gains tax incentives are another highly debatable subject on which I don't want to form an opinion right now. I'm somewhat apathetic toward them. On the one hand the create investment motive that can drive economies and create jobs, but they lower tax revenue. It should be noted, however, that capital gains taxes have historically increased tax revenue despite doing little to shrink the rich/poor gap.

One big question that hasn't been brought up is whether it is better to have everybody be richer with a wide income disparity or to have no income disparity? The income gap is widening in the US, but the adjusted income has gone up at all levels. It's an interesting thing to ponder on.

Anyone under the poverty line shouldn't pay any taxes. The least wealthy 50% of americans pay just 3% of the taxes. I definitely don't think that's a burden. The problem with the tax system today is that it is so complex that you can get anecdotal evidence from edge cases that go against what is good. A decent example is Warren Buffet. He pays a smaller percentage of his income than his secretary, but he also can claim all sorts of capital gains and charitable giving and tax breaks most of us have probably never heard of, but obviously not every millionaire/billionaire applies to that situation.

The merits of the capital gains tax incentives are another highly debatable subject on which I don't want to form an opinion right now. I'm somewhat apathetic toward them. On the one hand the create investment motive that can drive economies and create jobs, but they lower tax revenue. It should be noted, however, that capital gains taxes have historically increased tax revenue despite doing little to shrink the rich/poor gap.

One big question that hasn't been brought up is whether it is better to have everybody be richer with a wide income disparity or to have no income disparity? The income gap is widening in the US, but the adjusted income has gone up at all levels. It's an interesting thing to ponder on.

Actually, I think that every billionaire does in fact enjoy similar accounting gimmicks to take advantage of the tax code, reducing their effective tax rate. In my state (Minnesota), we had a big campaign issue a while ago about exactly that, where the wealthiest segment of our population paid ~8.8% of income as taxes, while the average middle class rate was more like 12-14%. The more money you have, the more likely you are to have some obscure tax break available to you, and the more likely you are to have an accountant who can get that for you.

Investment opportunity doesn't mean jobs, though it can. Investment can also mean the commodities market, where all you do is drive prices up and don't generate any employment. Or ridiculous investment vehicles, like serially securitized mortgages (I know it's a pretty heavily used example, but it's true). Investment can create jobs, but they can also generate nothing-- sometimes more reliably.


And the problem with your last comment is that people aren't all richer despite increasing disparity. Numbers might be up in dollars, but purchasing power is a much more important statistic. Real wages have declined for Americans in most segments of the population, and this has not been the case for the upper income levels-- while disparity has exploded. The effect looks a bit muted because people did things to offset their declining income, like using credit cards and leveraging their houses. Even if you think that that's an OK solution, it's not going to work right now.

Actually, I think that every billionaire does in fact enjoy similar accounting gimmicks to take advantage of the tax code, reducing their effective tax rate. In my state (Minnesota), we had a big campaign issue a while ago about exactly that, where the wealthiest segment of our population paid ~8.8% of income as taxes, while the average middle class rate was more like 12-14%. The more money you have, the more likely you are to have some obscure tax break available to you, and the more likely you are to have an accountant who can get that for you.

Is that state or federal taxes? If it is state, then it really isn't a national problem and one most people won't have enough info to argue. If it is federal, how are you guys paying so little in taxes?

But still again, this is not a problem on whether the tax rates are right or not, it is a problem with the tax code having such loopholes, which I agree the tax code definitely has plenty of. Increasing tax rates won't get rid of those loopholes, just sorely punish the handful of people to whom no loopholes apply.

Investment opportunity doesn't mean jobs, though it can. Investment can also mean the commodities market, where all you do is drive prices up and don't generate any employment. Or ridiculous investment vehicles, like serially securitized mortgages (I know it's a pretty heavily used example, but it's true). Investment can create jobs, but they can also generate nothing-- sometimes more reliably.[/quote]
That is a fair point against capital gains. How would you feel about restricting capital gains to investments in stocks/bonds rather than commodities or debt trading?

And the problem with your last comment is that people aren't all richer despite increasing disparity.
[/quote]
They are though. Average income at all levels as of 2008 have gone up pretty consistently since the 1940s after being adjusted to the 2008 dollar.

They are though. Average income at all levels as of 2008 have gone up pretty consistently since the 1940s after being adjusted to the 2008 dollar.

That is true if we adjust for inflation purely based on the consumer price index. By almost any other metric, however, average income has *decreased* significantly between 1950 and 2008 (source).


And even if we do use the CPI as sole our metric, we should take note that the current US calculation of CPI has been quite heavily criticised, and may be under-reporting inflation by as much as 50% (source).