The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

A serious question. What does "Pay their fair share" mean? As I listen to the President say it for the Nth time, I wonder, and I'm not just speaking rhetorically. I really want to know what it means. I did a quicksearch and found this -



Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)

Group's Share of Income Taxes
Top 1% 38.02%
Top 5% 58.72%
Top 10% 69.94%

Source: Internal Revenue Service
Should the top 1% be required to pay more than 38% of all fed income taxes? Should the top 5% have to pay more than 59% of all fed income taxes?

The chart (I didn't include it) also shows that in 2008 the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes.

That data makes it seem to me that thew ealthy already are paying their fair share.

So what is "their fair share"?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Source: Internal Revenue Service
Should the top 1% be required to pay more than 38% of all fed income taxes? Should the top 5% have to pay more than 59% of all fed income taxes?

Is the top 1% earning more than 38% of the country's income? I don't have time to find a complete answer for that, but here's a partial answer.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.


The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as te average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

In my opinion, yes. If that top 1% is earning waaaaaay more than the bottom 99%, then yes, they should be paying waaaaay more in taxes.

[scaeagles]

Well, obviously they are. The top 1% paying 38% of the income tax bill is paying way more. What would make it "their fair share"?

If the bottom 50% is paying only 2.7%, obviously they can't pay any less (well they could I suppose). Would transferring that 2.7% to the top 10% of income earners make it fair?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, obviously they are. The top 1% paying 38% of the income tax bill is paying way more. What would make it "their fair share"?

Again, if they're earning more than 38% of the income, then yes, they should account for more than 38% of income tax.

Let's make it simple.

Let's assume a country with a population of 10 people whose income breaks down to:

1. $1,000,000
2. $200,000
3. $50,000
4-10. $10,000 each

Then person #1 is making about 75% of the county's income, and should account for 75% of the country's taxes. And those bottom 6 people should account for only about 3% of the taxes.

That's obviously an extreme example, and I doubt it's quite at the 75% level. But 38%? 40%? 50%? Yeah, I have no trouble believing that 50% or more of the United States income is earned in a year by the top 1% of earners.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yeah, I have no trouble believing that 50% or more of the United States income is earned in a year by the top 1% of earners.

Especially when you consider that that top 1% has infinite ways to generate wealth that is not considered "income" and is protected from taxation.

[Alex]

Deja vu.

"Fair" means different things to different people. But the idea that income tax is progressive is hardly a recent development and was baked into the income tax from the very beginning.

Odds are I pay more in taxes than most people here (first because I earn a lot more and second because I don't care enough to try to avoid it).

I'm ok with paying a fair amount more (not just total but percentage wise). If one thinks the government has any responsibility to provide social safety nets it is pretty much ridiculous to expect all parties to fund that program identically. I think the national park system is a valuable government service that would not be replicated in the private marketplace and if that means progressive taxes to get, I'm ok with that.

But the very question of "fair" is meaningless. Let's say we all paid 18% of our income in taxes. Why is that fair? I'll be paying five times more than my sister. Would I be ok with it if AMC charged me 5 times more for the same service simply because I make more?

[JWBear]

And the amount of taxes taken in by the government as a percentage of the GDP is the lowest it has been in 50 years - mostly due to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

The top 1% also pay far less of a percentage of their income (when you count all forms of income) in taxes than the rest of us.

So yes, they need to start paying their fair share.

I also think that calling the ending tax breaks for private planes and other corporate welfare "tax increases" is patently absurd.

[scaeagles]

If they ended to mortgage interest tax deduction, which is simply a tax break, I would certainly consider that a tax increase.

[innerSpaceman]

Why? Because you're used to it? If it's a deduction, then eliminating it is not an increase. In the same way that taking a retail item off the sale price is not a price hike. Sheesh.


By the way, Medicare is only 40 years old. So I'm also not quite going along with claims that the program is an inviolate American right. But I'm not happy it's going to be privatized and gutted. Private health insurance companies spend, on average, 31% of their money on non-health-related things. Medicare spends 3%.*





* this efficiency does not extend to the recently-enacted Medicare Part D, which is not administered by the government, but by private, for-profit agencies. Remind me again why a single-payer, Medicare For All system was ruled out as the solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

* this efficiency does not extend to the recently-enacted Medicare Part D, which is not administered by the government, but by private, for-profit agencies. Remind me again why a single-payer, Medicare For All system was ruled out as the solution to skyrocketing health care costs.

Because the insurance industry can't make obscene profits from denying treatment to sick people under a government run single-payer system. Duh!