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

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.

[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.

[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It means it was superseded by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.

[Alex]

Interesting to note, also, that if we did go back in time and expand the definition so that all income taxes fell under the geographic apportionment, this would really screw the red states which tend to be poorer.

Just to use really rough figures, let's say the government wanted to collect $1 trillion in revenue from income taxes.

Based on population apportionment this would mean that Mississippi and Connecticut would each need to contribute approximately $10 billion (really, 0.95% and 1.15% but let's round off).

Mississippi has 1.12 million households with an average household income of $34,000 for a total of $38.08 billion in income available for taxing.

Connecticut has 1.37 million households with an average household income of $60,500 for a total of $82.89 billion in income available for taxing.

So, for each state to contribute its $10 billion to the federal revenues, Mississippi income would be taxed at 26% and Connecticut income at 12%.

Let's go back to that method and see how quickly the fine people of Missisippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, etc. suddenly realize that it would be a good idea to pass the 16th Amendment again.



Yes, I did just post three times in a row. I suck at the internets.

[€uroMeinke]

I don't see why there needs to be taxes at all, the government can just print more dollars and we all win

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Alex

I suck at the internets.

Well, I wish you would learn how to use them and stop breaking them.

Originally Posted by JWBear

We should raise taxes on the wealthy so that that are paying the same percentage of their wealth as everyone else. Poor rich people... Boo-hoo.....

The reason you don't tax "wealth" is that this is income that was ALREADY taxed when it was earned.

And that is only presuming that it is cash. "Wealth" could also include fixed assets such as real estate, of which property taxes are paid on. If someone realizes capital gains from real estate, they are taxed on that.

Taxing wealth is double taxation. And the wealthy would not be the only ones subject to it.

[scaeagles]

Amen, Kevy.

This is why I despise the inheritance tax. Already paid taxes on it once, why the hell should I pay to give it to my kids? My CEO stareted a company in his garage. He's now a multimillionaire. That's just great that he gets to give his hard earned money to the government when he dies instead of all of it to his kids.

All this goes away if we go to a comsumption tax and eliminate the income tax, but that's not going to happen. Too much power in the hands of congress writing tax law would be given back to the people.