Economy The 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate than any other income group

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by PolishHeadlock2, Oct 7, 2019.

  1. PolishHeadlock2

    PolishHeadlock2 Absolutley Haram Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2019
    Messages:
    4,291
    Likes Received:
    11,183
    Location:
    Phila Fucking Delphia
    Interesting Op-Ed on the erosion of America's Progressive Tax system



    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

    Almost a decade ago, Warren Buffett made a claim that would become famous. He said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, thanks to the many loopholes and deductions that benefit the wealthy.

    His claim sparked a debate about the fairness of the tax system. In the end, the expert consensus was that, whatever Buffett’s specific situation, most wealthy Americans did not actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. “Is it the norm?” the fact-checking outfit Politifact asked. “No.”

    Time for an update: It’s the norm now.

    For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data.


    That’s a sharp change from the 1950s and 1960s, when the wealthy paid vastly higher tax rates than the middle class or poor.

    Since then, taxes that hit the wealthiest the hardest — like the estate tax and corporate tax — have plummeted, while tax avoidance has become more common.

    President Trump’s 2017 tax cut, which was largely a handout to the rich, plays a role, too. It helped push the tax rate on the 400 wealthiest households below the rates for almost everyone else.

    The overall tax rate on the richest 400 households last year was only 23 percent, meaning that their combined tax payments equaled less than one quarter of their total income. This overall rate was 70 percent in 1950 and 47 percent in 1980.

    For middle-class and poor families, the picture is different. Federal income taxes have also declined modestly for these families, but they haven’t benefited much if at all from the decline in the corporate tax or estate tax. And they now pay more in payroll taxes (which finance Medicare and Social Security) than in the past. Over all, their taxes have remained fairly flat.

    The combined result is that over the last 75 years the United States tax system has become radically less progressive.

    The data here come from the most important book on government policy that I’ve read in a long time — called “The Triumph of Injustice,” to be released next week. The authors are Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, both professors at the University of California, Berkeley, who have done pathbreaking work on taxes. Saez has won the award that goes to the top academic economist under age 40, and Zucman was recently profiled on the cover of Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine as “the wealth detective.”

    They have constructed a historical database that tracks the tax payments of households at different points along the income spectrum going back to 1913, when the federal income tax began. The story they tell is maddening — and yet ultimately energizing.

    “Many people have the view that nothing can be done,” Zucman told me. “Our case is, ‘No, that’s wrong. Look at history.’” As they write in the book: “Societies can choose whatever level of tax progressivity they want.” When the United States has raised tax rates on the wealthy and made rigorous efforts to collect those taxes, it has succeeded in doing so.

    And it can succeed again.

    Saez and Zucman portray the history of American taxes as a struggle between people who want to tax the rich and those who want to protect the fortunes of the rich. The story starts in the 17th century, when Northern colonies created more progressive tax systems than Europe had. Massachusetts even enacted a wealth tax, which covered financial holdings, land, ships, jewelry, livestock and more.

    The Southern colonies, by contrast, were hostile to taxation. Plantation owners worried that taxes could undermine slavery by eroding the wealth of shareholders, as the historian Robin Einhorn has explained, and made sure to keep tax rates low and tax collection ineffective. (The Confederacy’s hostility to taxes ultimately hampered its ability to raise money and fight the Civil War.)

    By the middle of the 20th century, the high-tax advocates had prevailed. The United States had arguably the world’s most progressive tax code, with a top income-tax rate of 91 percent and a corporate tax rate above 50 percent.

    But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.

    The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.

    The American economy just doesn’t function very well when tax rates on the rich are low and inequality is sky high. It was true in the lead-up to the Great Depression, and it’s been true recently. Which means that raising high-end taxes isn’t about punishing the rich (who, by the way, will still be rich). It’s about creating an economy that works better for the vast majority of Americans.

    In their book, Saez and Zucman sketch out a modern progressive tax code. The overall tax rate on the richest 1 percent would roughly double, to about 60 percent. The tax increases would bring in about $750 billion a year, or 4 percent of G.D.P., enough to pay for universal pre-K, an infrastructure program, medical research, clean energy and more. Those are the kinds of policies that do lift economic growth.

    One crucial part of the agenda is a minimum global corporate tax of at least 25 percent. A company would have to pay the tax on its profits in the United States even if it set up headquarters in Ireland or Bermuda. Saez and Zucman also favor a wealth tax; Elizabeth Warren’s version is based on their work. And they call for the creation of a Public Protection Bureau, to help the I.R.S. crack down on tax dodging.

    I already know what some critics will say about these arguments — that the rich will always figure out a way to avoid taxes. That’s simply not the case. True, they will always manage to avoid some taxes. But history shows that serious attempts to collect more taxes usually succeed.

    Ask yourself this: If efforts to tax the super-rich were really doomed to fail, why would so many of the super-rich be fighting so hard to defeat those efforts?
     
    Swing, Striker Fox, JDragon and 23 others like this.
  2. THEfightsAREfixed

    THEfightsAREfixed Master Servant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2018
    Messages:
    3,072
    Likes Received:
    5,719
    yeah we got a ruling elite and huge slave class, not really a new thing
     
  3. JamesRussler

    JamesRussler You can call me Jimmy Double Yellow Card

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    13,748
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    While I agree that our tax system needs to be overhauled, I don’t necessarily want it to come at the expense of the rich. The rich should pay what they’re paying now, and the middle class should pay even less.
     
    Mcountry likes this.
  4. Kafir-kun

    Kafir-kun Al Far'oun

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    33,456
    Likes Received:
    32,660
    Location:
    Democratic People's Islamic Republic of Kekistan
    {<jordan}
     
    Swing, A_bomb47, Gandhi and 11 others like this.
  5. zebby23

    zebby23 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2017
    Messages:
    11,923
    Likes Received:
    16,892
    In b4 conservatives come running to their defense
     
    jimmas99, Sakurabaism, Kuggk and 2 others like this.
  6. solmu

    solmu Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    How about a flat tax without any loopholes?
     
    Canned Tuna likes this.
  7. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    57,880
    Yeah, but crippling future generations with exorbitant debt to pay off rich donors really triggered the snowflake libs, so worth it.

    How about powdered wigs and treating polio with horse turds?
     
    jimmas99, Dayman1984, Sano and 23 others like this.
  8. zebby23

    zebby23 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2017
    Messages:
    11,923
    Likes Received:
    16,892
    he is 100% correct. Why is this funny to you?

    At the time of the civil war the Union paid about 20% and the confederacy paid about 8%. After the war went on the south was not bringing in enough tax revenue so they instituted a “war tax” to help generate more revenue. I mean, this is a fact and it’s based out of the other fact that the south wasn’t big on taxes because they were more into states rights and not paying federal taxes
     
  9. tinker_190

    tinker_190 Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    1,638
    What percentage or total number paid no income taxes at all? Seems to me the middle class is doing all the heavy lifting here.

    It's the most fair but would probably end up generating the least amount of revenue.
     
  10. Rational Poster

    Rational Poster War Room Messiah Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    35,865
    Likes Received:
    37,555
    It's not close to the most fair.
     
    Sano, AndroidRage, kpt018 and 6 others like this.
  11. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    57,880
    And, also, "loopholes" aren't really an objective thing.

    When you ask people what they mean in terms of a flat tax curbing tax avoidance, they end up meaning a tax code with no deductions, which would end up being an inefficient, incentive-destroying disaster all for the sake of reductive simplicity.
     
    jimmas99, Sakurabaism, Sano and 13 others like this.
  12. ShadowRun

    ShadowRun error Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    9,796
    Likes Received:
    6,437
    What about the measure amount of sales tax, land tax etc those 400 pay?
     
  13. Rational Poster

    Rational Poster War Room Messiah Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    35,865
    Likes Received:
    37,555
    3rd paragraph in the OP.

    "For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data."
     
    jimmas99, Sano, AgonyandIrony and 6 others like this.
  14. ShadowRun

    ShadowRun error Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    9,796
    Likes Received:
    6,437
    Thanks for the rational post, I skimmed over I saw that I guess I didn't see how they measured it, I need to look into it deeper.
     
  15. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    57,880
    [​IMG]




    [​IMG]
     
  16. TripleAz

    TripleAz White Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2019
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    121
    If conservatives are poor rednecks, doesn't this mean dems are avoiding paying their fair share?
     
    Headkicktoleg likes this.
  17. Kafir-kun

    Kafir-kun Al Far'oun

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    33,456
    Likes Received:
    32,660
    Location:
    Democratic People's Islamic Republic of Kekistan
    How is it not funny to you?

    "No taxes!"
    *start civil war*
    "Fuck, we need taxes!"
     
    Swing, A_bomb47, Wet Blanket and 17 others like this.
  18. zebby23

    zebby23 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2017
    Messages:
    11,923
    Likes Received:
    16,892
    oh I may have misunderstood. I thought you were laughing because it wasn’t true.

    it is funny now that I understand your laughter
     
    Wet Blanket, Slick_36 and Kafir-kun like this.
  19. zebby23

    zebby23 Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2017
    Messages:
    11,923
    Likes Received:
    16,892
    Both parties are guilty of this
     
    Kuggk likes this.
  20. Trotsky

    Trotsky Gold Belt

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    57,880
    The people that get conned by the Republican Party are "poor rednecks." The people that actually fund it, control it, and duly benefit from its policy are the ultra-rich.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.