Welcome to PatsFans.com

400 Richest Taxpayers Saw Incomes Double, Tax Rates Halved

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Apr 15, 2010.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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
     
  2. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    What happens? What are you talking about?
     
  4. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
     
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

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

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Special interests
     
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,352
    Likes Received:
    304
    Ratings:
    +824 / 7 / -2

    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?
     
  8. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    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.
     
  9. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,347
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +358 / 9 / -13






    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.
     
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    It's the RICHEST 400 AMERICANS...not 400 random Americans. Don't start out your post with a move like that. It makes the rest of the post seem unreliable, and I know you don't want your rant about how stupid all liberals are to come off that way.
     
  12. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    47% pay no income taxes -- they do get taxed in other ways -- but it's fair to say many of them are taking more than giving.
     
  13. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No ****, Sherlock, that's the point I was making. If it was 400 random Americans then it might be a legitimate study (although still a fairly small sample size). But since they chose 400 specific people from a population of 300+ million, then that's pretty much the textbook definition of cherry picking.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  14. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

  15. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Wistah...he aint gunna listen...

    the 400 richest americans SHOULD pay the bulk of the taxes (They used to pay 50%)..they now pay 17%

    Its the perfect way for tax paying americans to have influence in washington. the top 400 earners would have access to the lawmakers, because they would be paying the bulk of the spending by our elected government, thus no need to loby.

    instead what happened was they used their influence to lower the tax rate, and eliminate things like the capital gains tax, and inheritance tax.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  16. BSR

    BSR In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

    That's the point. Its only the top 400, which means to say that it isn't the same 400 from year to year. Additionally most of these taxpayers don't earn income at a steady rate like your paycheck. Maybe a person is included one year in the top 400 because of stock sales but not the next. Maybe another year had a greater mix of corporations which are taxed at the 38%. Who knows. Its cherrypicked data and almost entirely meaningless. I mean if you didn't already know that cap gains are taxed at 15% then you were out of the loop to begin with.

    And I almost forgot to mention...just wait until these people carryback their tax losses from 2009 and get a credit for those cap gains they paid in 2006!
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  17. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,201
    Likes Received:
    364
    Ratings:
    +674 / 14 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    How can you study the richest people in America if you choose random Americans (who are NOT rich) to do your study with?

    The study wasn't about what random Americans are paying, the study was about a very specific group of people, the wealthiest people. You can't poll everyone in a specific study. That would be like doing IQ tests to show which group of men are the smartest and including women in the study. Or trying to figure out which minivan got the best gas milage and including mini-coopers in the study data.
     
  18. BSR

    BSR In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

  19. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    making the claim that 47% of americans arent paying taxes, and living on the dole is unfair. And backing up the top earners in america getting taxed at a lower and lower rate is rediculous.

    imagine if everyone payed as much as the people who post here. No matter your political affiliation, th emiddle class is the class that gets screwed the most.

    Its funny, the rich don't pay, the poor don't pay. Yet I have managed to pay my taxes on time for decades. Even when, according to social security, I was dead from 1999-2000.
     
  20. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Because even if you wanted to study the richest people in the country, it is still an absurdly small sample to cherry pick the top 400.

    I can understand a study that wanted to look at, for example, the richest 1% of Americans. That would be a reasonable study - but that would still be over 3 million people. To isolate the top 400 is to take the top 1.3% of the top 1% of the top 1% of Americans, which is silly. What are we supposed to do? Craft tax policy to go after those 400 specific individuals?
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>