Tax Data Reveals Inequities by the Very Rich... - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 06-09-2012, 02:08 PM

Interesting chart, clearly illustrates how the poor will stay poor and the middle class will be no more.. all the while there are some rich amongst us who pay nothing at all..

The loopholes need to be closed, and the ever failing Bush tax cuts for the rich folks need to end..

The National Memo » David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400

Quote:

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each..

In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes. That’s the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.

Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

***patsfan13*** · 06-09-2012, 02:31 PM

Flat Tax solves the problem, Politicians want to fiddle with the system to reward donors.

PatriotsReign · 06-09-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

Interesting chart, clearly illustrates how the poor will stay poor and the middle class will be no more.. all the while there are some rich amongst us who pay nothing at all..

The loopholes need to be closed, and the ever failing Bush tax cuts for the rich folks need to end..

The National Memo » David Cay Johnston: The Fortunate 400

Something is fishy with your chart Darryl. I know I pay a heck of a lot more than 11-12% tax rate...more like 35%. Your chart doesn't tell the reader if this tax rate is just federal income taxes, all federal taxes or all forms of taxes. Is social security/fica included?

Can you tell us what it reflects?

***patsfan13*** · 06-09-2012, 06:21 PM

My guess is that people who are declaring >77M/year are not doing that every year and that money is more capital gains that salary, same with the >10M demographic, not a lot of those folks either.

PatsFanInVa · 06-09-2012, 06:34 PM

What am I missing, Daryl?

The chart seems to indicate that the <5000 contingent (in AGI) get a very bad deal in terms of effective tax rate - however at the upper income, it shows the effective rate, while down around the 20s, to be well above the rates for the middle class, as is appropriate.

However, while you may not like the extent to which the tax code is actually slightly progressive, your chart points to that conclusion -- albeit with a big reversal of that tendency for the very poorest.

In terms of a flat tax, of course it would be less progressive than the status quo. I'm glad to look at formulations to the contrary, but that's always been my suspicion.

PFnV

***Wolfpack*** · 06-09-2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

What am I missing, Daryl?

The chart seems to indicate that the <5000 contingent (in AGI) get a very bad deal in terms of effective tax rate - however at the upper income, it shows the effective rate, while down around the 20s, to be well above the rates for the middle class, as is appropriate.

That's sure what it looks like to me as well. Essentially Darryl made a statement about how unfair the tax rates are and how much the middle class is being screwed - and then he provided us all a chart which directly contradicts his thesis.

***patsfan13*** · 06-09-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

What am I missing, Daryl?

The chart seems to indicate that the <5000 contingent (in AGI) get a very bad deal in terms of effective tax rate - however at the upper income, it shows the effective rate, while down around the 20s, to be well above the rates for the middle class, as is appropriate.

However, while you may not like the extent to which the tax code is actually slightly progressive, your chart points to that conclusion -- albeit with a big reversal of that tendency for the very poorest.

In terms of a flat tax, of course it would be less progressive than the status quo. I'm glad to look at formulations to the contrary, but that's always been my suspicion.

PFnV

Well under say a Forbes style Flat Tax you have a personal exemption of ~15k per person (12K when originally proposed to be indexed for inflation) with a 17% rate for income after that.

So for a famil of 4 making 60K 0% rate, a family of 4 making 100k 6.8% rate, for the same family of 5 making 1,050,000 a rate of 16.2%.

PatsFanInVa · 06-10-2012, 12:36 AM

For me, two tests, 13 -

1. If the curve bends more right than this, I like it more.
2. The tax would have to produce the same or preferably greater revenues.

The revenues part is because we have unrealistically low rates (or the right likes to say we spend too much, but that's an agree to disagree point... we spend more than we bring in, so we ought to stop it.)

PFnV

PatsFanInVa · 06-10-2012, 06:29 AM

By the way, Darryl's got a very good point about two groups represented in this graph:

1) Those with AGI <10,000 in general, and
2) Particularly those with AGI <5,000.

For them, the system is very regressive, without regard to how it works for the very well-off.

PatsFanInVa · 06-10-2012, 06:35 AM

Interesting...