Yes, we can.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

If I recall correctly, it was a lower number than 10% that payed 80%. I gotta look it up again.

Nope. The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes. The same top 1% owns about 35% of the wealth. Seems about right to me.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Only goods with perfectly inelastic demand curves is this true.

I disagree. I think you would find that ultimately, almost all tax increases to corporations are passed on to the consumer.

And the funny thing about "Big Corporations" is that a good majority of the spoils goes to the common man. Most of the largest shareholders in large companies are mutual funds where you and I and other regular people have at least some of their retirement finds in. When Exxon/Mobile makes an "obscene" amount of money, that means that Joe Blow's pension just improved.

Also, Big Corporations typically employee a shytload of everyday people. Last I head, being employed is a good thing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I disagree. I think you would find that ultimately, almost all tax increases to corporations are passed on to the consumer.

Then you disagree with the generally accepted rules of economics.

reference

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Nope. The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes. The same top 1% owns about 35% of the wealth. Seems about right to me.

You are supporting SCAE and my argument: the wealthy pay the highest percentage of taxes.

Also, "The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes" does not preclude my (trying to remember) numbers. It is just a smaller sampling from a larger subset.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Then you disagree with the generally accepted rules of economics.

Maybe so. I meant to add to my original post that the passing on may not be 1:1, but it will be significant.

Also, the passing on may not be direct either. Big Company A gets hit with a 10% increase in their taxes which results in a 2% overall increase in bottom line costs (I am using hypothetical numbers here). They may only be able to pass on 1% (half the additional burden) on to consumers. Then they extract another .5% from their vendors who must then tighten their belts in the form of layoffs or other such economic impact, another .25% in the form of internal layoffs, and the last .25% in the form of lower dividends to their institutional stockholders (read: your and my retirement funds).

There you have it: all 2% of the increased tax burden passed on to the consumer.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

You are supporting SCAE and my argument: the wealthy pay the highest percentage of taxes.

Also, "The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes" does not preclude my (trying to remember) numbers. It is just a smaller sampling from a larger subset.

Wiki again

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%).

So as I see it, with the top one percent controling 38% of the wealth but only paying 34% of the taxes (71%/66% for the top 10), the wealthiest are carrying a smaller tax burden by proportion than the tax brackets below them. They may account for a larger gross portion of the intake, however they are individually paying a smaller portion of their wealth than an individual in middle to lower class.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

So as I see it, with the top one percent controling 38% of the wealth but only paying 34% of the taxes (71%/66% for the top 10), the wealthiest are carrying a smaller tax burden by proportion than the tax brackets below them. They may account for a larger gross portion of the intake, however they are individually paying a smaller portion of their wealth than an individual in middle to lower class.

According to the numbers, the top 38% only paid 34%

1. The difference is not statistically relevant
2. The numbers are from two different years
3. The comparison is irrelevant because it compares wealth to income tax. We are taxed on our income, not our wealth.

[sleepyjeff]

What does this mean?

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

[Alex]

It means it was superseded by

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Alex]

And for the first 100 years of the country no income taxes were considered direct taxes and were therefore legal so long as they were geographically consistent. Then the Supreme Court changed the rules a bit in 1895 and ruled taxes on some incomes to be unconstitutional per the clause you cite since they were hidden direct taxes and not apportioned by population. This lead to the 16th Amendment making all income taxes specifically constitutional without population apportionment.

Note, though, that taxes on wage income have never in this country been unconstitutional as prior to the 16th Amendment they were allowed as indirect taxes. Which is why all those income tax avoiders who claim they don't have to pay because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified are idiots. Even without the 16th Amendment most income taxes are legal and constitutional.