400 Richest Taxpayers Saw Incomes Double, Tax Rates Halved - New England Patriots Forums

Holy Diver · 04-15-2010, 12:53 PM

Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the top 400 enjoyed a 27 percent increase in their income, or nine times the rate of increase for the bottom 90 percent...Since 1992, the bottom 90 percent of Americans have seen their incomes rise by 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with an increase of 399 percent for the top 400.

10 Inconvenient Truths for Tax Day | Crooks and Liars

khayos · 04-15-2010, 01:11 PM

That's what happens when the government spends your money for you.

wistahpatsfan · 04-15-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khayos

That's what happens when the government spends your money for you.

What happens? What are you talking about?

khayos · 04-15-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

What happens? What are you talking about?

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

wistahpatsfan · 04-15-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khayos

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

How does government spending (as opposed to policy) make the rich richer?

khayos · 04-15-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

How does government spending (as opposed to policy) make the rich richer?

Special interests

Real World · 04-15-2010, 02:23 PM

Hmmm....2001-2007. I'm just curious, are they cherry picking data? On the surface, I can't help but think of the stock market crash, & recessionary economic setting post 9/11 (the low), leading up to the economic, free money, stock market at 14,000, credit bubble of 2007 (the high). Then factor in the aspect of "income". What type, and what tax rate? Are they talking about W-2 type income, or investment income. Most of those top 400 are not collecting a salary of $100 million. They are probably cashing out investments made from previously taxed money, that is thus taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Aside from all that, is the simple math involved with ROI. People with larger sums of money, are far more likely to grow their pile of cash, than will those at the living level of earned income. People with $50k to invest, will simply have a lower ROI than those with $50 million.

Quote:

7. 400 Richest Taxpayers Saw Incomes Double, Tax Rates Halved
For Democrats wavering in their resolve to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, shocking data released by the IRS in February should hopefully stiffen their backbones. Between 2001 and 2007, the 400 richest taxpayers doubled their annual incomes to an average of $345 million, while their effective tax rate plummeted to only 16.6% from 29.4% in 1993.

Why use figures of earned dollars from 2001-2007, but use the tax rate from 1993? Also, where is the analysis of what this meant for federal tax reciepts? They have a graph that shows the federal level of taxation remaining relatively true to GDP over the century, yet we all know GDP has grown exponentially over the last 10, 20, to 30 years. So clearly, the fed is taking in massive amount of cash, under the current system of taxation. Why is it not enough?

Holy Diver · 04-15-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Hmmm....2001-2007. I'm just curious, are they cherry picking data? On the surface, I can't help but think of the stock market crash, & recessionary economic setting post 9/11 (the low), leading up to the economic, free money, stock market at 14,000, credit bubble of 2007 (the high). Then factor in the aspect of "income". What type, and what tax rate? Are they talking about W-2 type income, or investment income. Most of those top 400 are not collecting a salary of $100 million. They are probably cashing out investments made from previously taxed money, that is thus taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Aside from all that, is the simple math involved with ROI. People with larger sums of money, are far more likely to grow their pile of cash, than will those at the living level of earned income. People with $50k to invest, will simply have a lower ROI than those with $50 million.

Why use figures of earned dollars from 2001-2007, but use the tax rate from 1993? Also, where is the analysis of what this meant for federal tax reciepts? They have a graph that shows the federal level of taxation remaining relatively true to GDP over the century, yet we all know GDP has grown exponentially over the last 10, 20, to 30 years. So clearly, the fed is taking in massive amount of cash, under the current system of taxation. Why is it not enough?

It would be a lot worse if they showed you that the riches 400 people in the US used to pay over 50% of the taxes.

by 2006, they payed 17%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400.pdf

The IRS report shows that in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), the 400 richest
income tax filers paid just 17.2 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in federal income taxes.
That is down from 22.3 percent in 2000, and is less than half of the top statutory income tax rate
of 35 percent. Almost 65 percent of the income reported by those 400 taxpayers consisted of
capital gains and dividends subject to the preferential rates.

***Wolfpack*** · 04-15-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Hmmm....2001-2007. I'm just curious, are they cherry picking data?

Anytime someone selects 400 people from a population of over 300 million, I think it's safe to say they're cherry picking data.

See, here's the problem with liberals (one of many): They see someone made $100 million last year and they honestly believe it was in the form of salary and wages. The liberal mind just doesn't understand the concept of capital gains. They think if this guy made $100 million this year, then he made roughly the same amount last year and will make roughly the same amount next year.

But out here in the real world, we know that the bulk of that $100 million came from long term capital gains, which is taxed significantly lower than salary and wages. Which is as it should be. And that is why the guy who made $100 million paid a much smaller percentage than the guy who made $100 thousand.

***patsfan13*** · 04-15-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

It would be a lot worse if they showed you that the riches 400 people in the US used to pay over 50% of the taxes.

by 2006, they payed 17%

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400.pdf

The IRS report shows that in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), the 400 richest
income tax filers paid just 17.2 percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) in federal income taxes.
That is down from 22.3 percent in 2000, and is less than half of the top statutory income tax rate
of 35 percent. Almost 65 percent of the income reported by those 400 taxpayers consisted of
capital gains and dividends subject to the preferential rates.

Teh 400 'richest' probably derive their income from investments, not salary youwould have to look at whether they were selling assets that year.

If you factor salary income the richest 1% pay the majority of taxes, currently 47% pay NO Taxes.