How much do the rich make, pay in taxes, and how much more can they pay?

[Carthoris]

Looking at the deficit, and the ideas of democrats to tax the rich more. One has to wonder - how much do they pay and how much do they make? We all know rich people pay no taxes right? With their legions of lawyers and tax write offs for mansions and jets. Shockingly, this is about as true as the boogie man. There are some people who don't pay their share across all spectrums of the population, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Ok, so how do we find out exactly who pays what? Well, we go to the people who collect the money of course!

You mean the IRS actually keeps track of how much money they take in and from which bracket? Amazing. Lets see what they have to say!

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls

What is this? This is the 2008 income tax returns for the United States. All in one easy to read excel file. Joy, facts! Its only a couple pages long.

*WARNING* Not reading the government issues IRS spreadsheet and replying to this thread denying it would make you a retarded troll. So please, at least make an attempt to be informed by reading this completely non biased spread sheet of numbers that pinpoints who pays what.

Can the rich actually pay our deficit through higher taxes?

Lets look at what we have!

"The first question is: How much do these folks make in total? The answer is about $2.5 trillion.
If we wanted, we could stop here: You’d need to grab almost half that to finance the deficits Obama’s talking about, and for many of these taxpayers, the other half is already taken in federal and local taxes. No one works for free. But even if we can’t completely eliminate the deficit, maybe we can mitigate it substantially. So it’s worth going a little farther.

First of all, not all of that money is “extra.” I assume that when Obama talked about raising taxes on the rich, he didn’t mean he’d tax people who made $250,000 so much that they ended up with less than people who’d made $200,000. So, in this analysis, not only is he limited to taxing people who make over $200,000, but he’s limited to taxing the amounts that exceed $200,000. Of the aforementioned $2.5 trillion, only about $1.6 trillion is left after we subtract every rich filer’s first $200,000.

And of course, the federal government can’t take money it’s already taken, so we need to factor in taxes. Because we counted out the first $200,000 each person earned, we also have to count out the federal taxes on that income — about $50,000 per person. When we calculate the taxes paid beyond that, and subtract that number from the $1.6 trillion above, we end up with less than $1.3 trillion.

And then we have to knock off state and local taxes, which probably average 5 to 10 percent. All told, we’re left with about a trillion dollars."

A trillion dollars of already taxed money. How much of that trillion can you take before you really hurt the rich and cause more financial problems for the country? Even if you took half of the money they have left - it would only be 500b. Keep in mind this would barely dent the budget. Keep in mind you are talking about 4.5 million people paying 111k extra on average.

 

[Carthoris]

My thoughts.

About 140 million people file tax returns in the US. They pay 19% overall to the federal government of every dollar made. How can roughly 1/5th of everything made not be enough to pay for our needs as a country? That doesn't even count all the other revenues the government gets. Income tax is only 1/3 of the equation. They spend the other 2/3s too and still don't have enough to keep the government going! Keep in mind all this is just to balance the budget, never mind that there is trillions in debt that we owe on top of it.

I think I have conclusively shown that the rich can not shoulder the entire burden. So, what is the solution? Is there a solution that our politicians will seriously consider? What happens if we just shrug off our responsibility to fix the issue and let the next generation take it up? At what point will it not be able to be put off and what will the consequences be?

 

[GreenTreeMachine420]

Rich folks, or those evil bastards who workedu hard to make theyre dreams come instead of waiting for the first and fifteenth of every month, pay more to each government entity than most other people simply because they spend they're more on more things that require sales tax. And if they were all taxed higher than 60%made, most would open up shop in other countries where they could keep more of they're money, for some any higher than what they are currently being taxed is enough to move

 

[NoDrama]

There is no solution other than default by inflation.

 

[mame]

It's not just about taxing the rich, no lefties are proposing that; What we're proposing is that alongside cuts and reforms raising revenue should be a part of any U.S. austerity program. I mean, we've got plenty of room to raise revenues, we take in less corporate income taxes than almost every advanced nation:



and here is the history of our corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP...

Aside from corporate tax rates... The Bush tax cuts, for example, cost over 2 trillion dollars in lost revenue over the last decade compared to what would've been collected under Clinton tax rates, and over 50% of the benefits went to the top couple percent... not only that, but we've been borrowing money to keep this tax break.

You're right, taxing the rich isn't going to solve all our problems by itself but it can help a great deal towards setting this nation on a course towards fiscal sanity.

 

[Mr Neutron]

If the US corporate tax rate is better than the rest of the world, why are they leaving the US for places like Ireland?

 

[mame]

Likely has something to do with our tax codes treatment of different industries...

 

[mame]

Flatten the rates, eliminate most if not all loopholes and there will be no more preferential treatment and done right there will be more revenue... I mean, check out the rapidly growing number of large businesses that are using their status as "S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships" to save on taxes. Here's CBPP's chart on this trend:

 

[ULMResearch]

How much do the rich make, pay in taxes, and how much more can they pay?

Too much, not enough, enough to get us back in the black.

 

[Mr Neutron]

"we take in less corporate income taxes than almost every advanced nation"

not according to the OECD:
http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/2009/01/29/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-oecd/

and:
http://www.545project.com/3.1_Disincentives.pdf

 

[mame]

"we take in less corporate income taxes than almost every advanced nation"

not according to the OECD:
http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/2009/01/29/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-oecd/

and:
http://www.545project.com/3.1_Disincentives.pdf

Do you not understand the difference between effective rates and marginal rates? We do take in less than other nations, just because our top marginal rate is higher than everyone else doesn't mean that reflects reality... Our effective corporate tax rates are lower than almost every advanced nation becuase of all the loopholes and tax breaks... Flatten the rate, eliminate loopholes and we'll take in more revenue and our rates will be lower and more equitable; Let the market pick the winners and losers.... That's what we all want, right?

To save everyone else some time, Mr. Neutron has linked to "the second highest corporate tax rate in the world"... Look man, no one pays 35% corporate tax, if they did we wouldn't have any revenue problems, would we?

 

[ULMResearch]

Yeah, most of our problem isn't our tax RATE, it's all the deductions and exemptions we give corporations to keep them in America that keep them from paying those rates that is the problem.

 

[Carthoris]

It's not just about taxing the rich, no lefties are proposing that; What we're proposing is that alongside cuts and reforms raising revenue should be a part of any U.S. austerity program. I mean, we've got plenty of room to raise revenues, we take in less corporate income taxes than almost every advanced nation:



and here is the history of our corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP...

Aside from corporate tax rates... The Bush tax cuts, for example, cost over 2 trillion dollars in lost revenue over the last decade compared to what would've been collected under Clinton tax rates, and over 50% of the benefits went to the top couple percent... not only that, but we've been borrowing money to keep this tax break.

You're right, taxing the rich isn't going to solve all our problems by itself but it can help a great deal towards setting this nation on a course towards fiscal sanity.

We are the biggest, most powerful, and richest country in the world. What other people do is not our concern, we did not become the powerhouse we are by doing what everyone else was doing. You notice there are some shit holes at the top of your lists - how does having high taxes help them? I hear Korea, Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Greece are all great places to live.

Also, please note my post was not about corporate income taxes. I was addressing income tax. I support an across the board tax on business.

On income taxes, what percent of those who take in more taxes than we do don't make the bottom half of the country pay taxes at all?

That isn't all of the United States revenues. However, the fact that you don't think 1/4 of our GDP is enough is disturbing.

Your graphs don't support raising taxes. They just show the rest of the world. There is also something called 'economies of scale'. We are the largest economy in the world by far. You cannot compare us to countries that have socialist governments and have a total of 5-10 million people, or even 500,000 for Luxembourg. Germany is the only country that is even remotely comparable to us on that entire chart. It being you know, 25-30% the population size of us and a lower GDP per citizen. Which makes the entire chart just a little pointless since it is comparing apples to truckloads of pineapples.

We have the largest budget in the world. You could do it by total budget and show a completely different picture. Or you could go by capital. In which case Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia are some of the finest places to live in the world.

 

[Carthoris]

Yeah, most of our problem isn't our tax RATE, it's all the deductions and exemptions we give corporations to keep them in America that keep them from paying those rates that is the problem.

Same thing with the income tax. It isn't the rates, it's the EIC and other bullshit deductions that give half of the country a free ride. Hell, it even treats 2 people who make exactly the same differently.

 

[mame]

Canada isn't comparable? The fact the the ENTIRE eurozone has higher effective rates isn't comparable? How about the fact that our corporate tax rates are low today by even OUR OWN historical standards? What color are your glasses again? They a little rosy?

The OECD average for corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is 3.4%, we charge ~2%.... I dont see how you can possibly call yourself a deficit hawk if you aren't even willing to consider revenues...

The graphs I presented tell a very simple story: The U.S. takes in less corporate taxes as a share of GDP than most advanced nations. A logical person would put two and two together and say, "oh well then we have a bit of room to raise revenue to help down down our debt and deficits!" but you're telling me, "who gives a shit how low are taxes are!" while also telling me, "OMG we borrow so much money wtf!"

When you look at your finances, do you look at spending alone? Or do you also consider revenue? Let's be real here.

 

[redivider]

canada isn't comparable? The fact the the entire eurozone has higher effective rates isn't comparable? How about the fact that our corporate tax rates are low today by even our own historical standards? What color are your glasses again? They a little rosy?

The oecd average for corporate tax revenues as a percentage of gdp is 3.4%, we charge ~2%.... I dont see how you can possibly call yourself a deficit hawk if you aren't even willing to consider revenues...

The graphs i presented tell a very simple story: The u.s. Takes in less corporate taxes as a share of gdp than most advanced nations. A logical person would put two and two together and say, "oh well then we have a bit of room to raise revenue to help down down our debt and deficits!" but you're telling me, "who gives a shit how low are taxes are!" while also telling me, "omg we borrow so much money wtf!"

when you look at your finances, do you look at spending alone? Or do you also consider revenue? Let's be real here.

taxes = satan

 

[mame]

We can talk solely about the Bush tax cuts if you want... They cost 2 Trillion in lost revenues and we had to borrow (paying INTEREST!) in order to afford these cuts... How do you feel about that? You consider youself a deficit hawk? Then you should be on board to repeal the Bush Tax cuts, because it will only continue to force us into borrowing more money...

taxes = satan

The mental gymnastics involved in conservative anti-tax rhetoric is worthy of a Gold medal, IMO... If nothing else, they've succeeded in making sure this zombie idea will never die.

edit: for those who didn't get the reference, Zombie Economics

 

[Mr Neutron]

The fact the the ENTIRE eurozone has higher effective rates isn't comparable?

I do not subscribe to the "just because other countries do it, we should, too" theory.

How about the fact that our corporate tax rates are low today by even OUR OWN historical standards? What color are your glasses again? They a little rosy?

Here we go again... historic lows. My glasses are crystal clear, however, your prescription is flawed and you need new lenses.

The OECD average for corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is 3.4%, we charge ~2%.... I dont see how you can possibly call yourself a deficit hawk if you aren't even willing to consider revenues...

It is not difficult when you understand the difference between right and wrong.

The graphs I presented tell a very simple story: The U.S. takes in less corporate taxes as a share of GDP than most advanced nations. A logical person would put two and two together and say, "oh well then we have a bit of room to raise revenue to help down down our debt and deficits!" but you're telling me, "who gives a shit how low are taxes are!" while also telling me, "OMG we borrow so much money wtf!"

You are a very detail oriented person and there is nothing wrong with that, to an extent. Have you ever heard the phrase, "can't see the forest for the trees"? What is going on here is a revision of history and a distortion in math, ie 2+2=5 or as I read elsewhere, "it is like putting 10 marbles in a can and expecting tp get 11 marbles out".
There is no need for more taxes if the proper cuts are made.

When you look at your finances, do you look at spending alone? Or do you also consider revenue? Let's be real here.

I do not have a choice. My revenue is fixed and I'm losing ground to inflation. Even for someone employed full time, how do they increase their revenues? Start knocking off convenience stores in their spare time? Let's be HONEST here.

 

[Carthoris]

Canada isn't comparable? The fact the the ENTIRE eurozone has higher effective rates isn't comparable? How about the fact that our corporate tax rates are low today by even OUR OWN historical standards? What color are your glasses again? They a little rosy?

The OECD average for corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP is 3.4%, we charge ~2%.... I dont see how you can possibly call yourself a deficit hawk if you aren't even willing to consider revenues...

The graphs I presented tell a very simple story: The U.S. takes in less corporate taxes as a share of GDP than most advanced nations. A logical person would put two and two together and say, "oh well then we have a bit of room to raise revenue to help down down our debt and deficits!" but you're telling me, "who gives a shit how low are taxes are!" while also telling me, "OMG we borrow so much money wtf!"

When you look at your finances, do you look at spending alone? Or do you also consider revenue? Let's be real here.

How could Canada be considered in the same class as the United States? Their population is 1/10th the size of us. Their number one export is oil. They are not comparable to us. They only exist because we are here to keep Mexico from invading them lol. They are more like Norway than the US.

Taxes should be the same for everyone across the board. All businesses should pay the same tax percent. We would not lower taxes until the debt problem was fixed. 1/3 of our total revenue as a country comes from income tax. Our founding fathers outlawed income tax for a reason. It wasn't an accident. They also restricted the government. If the government wasn't trying to police the world and take care of every body there would be no deficit and no need for taxes at the levels they are.

Maybe it is just me, but my spending never goes above my income. I know that if I spend money, eventually I will have to pay for it. So when my car breaks down or I need new tires, I don't charge them, I save for them in advance. I pay for insurance to cover my health, life, house, car, ect. I do it because I want to be proactive about it. I don't charge it and then go try and get a higher paying job because I don't have enough money to pay for it. Our government knows how much money it will have EVERY year. Why wouldn't they just make the budget what the income is? Then, if programs aren't getting payed for they can raise taxes if the people deem it necessary. However, to expect that half the country not pay taxes at all while using up all the benefits is a pile of bullshit. Why do you think the Government needs to be as big as it is? I would rather see the country default and go bankrupt than continue along this path which ends the same way, with a complete change in the country. Better now than later - why would I expect my children to carry the burden of our poor decisions and of the impending collapse?

Oh, speaking of kids, when I have some in a year or two, my tax burden will be cut in half. That is bullshit. Nothing changes, I make a life choice on my own, and I am rewarded for using more resources of the federal, state, and local governments. That seems real fair. Why would that be? Oh because kids cost money? So do harleys, if I buy a harley will the government pay for it?

The idea that the government is there to take care of you in any way or form is bullshit. Social Security Insurance- ok, I get it. However, if everyone is paying for their own social security then how can there be less going out than coming in? How the hell can that work? Obviously the government can't even make a simple savings account work, they turn it into a bloated pile of shit with somebody on top shoveling money off the side. They turned it into a pyramid scheme where the only way you can get money back is for people under you to pay more than you did. That puts the federal government right up there with Enron for being honest and helpful. Gee, lets do some quick math. If I make 50k a year for 50 years and pay 8 percent to SSI, that is 200k dollars. 78 is the average life span in America. How in the hell can SSI go bankrupt? Because they turned it from insurance into a free for all by the sounds of it. That is without considering the interest!

Given all that, why would anyone ever vote to raise taxes when the Government will just increase spending more if there is less debt per year. Its like giving money to a crackhead.

Once again, why do you think the government needs to spend that much money a year?

 

[mame]

I do not have a choice. My revenue is fixed and I'm losing ground to inflation. Even for someone employed full time, how do they increase their revenues? Start knocking off convenience stores in their spare time? Let's be HONEST here.

You dont know how to invest? And if so, would revising your investment strategy yeild greater revenues? Do you grow/sell weed? If you cant raise your income, that's mostly YOUR fault... The economy is shitty, and that's not your fault but to say you cant get revenues up isn't true in most cases... Unless you're retired or disabled I dont see "My revenue is fixed" as a legit answer. Inflation can be worked around, ask NoDrama he knows all about hedging his wealth against inflation...

The government relies on tax revenue to provide it's services; Compared to other countries of whom have similar government spending structures we dont tax corporations enough... We aren't even middle of the pack! We're near the bottom! If we had high tax rates and we STILL had deficits, THAT's a spending problem but to ignore that a good portion of our deficit and debt is actually the direct result of lost tax revenue is just being a hopeless idealogue with an agenda to starve the beast - not a legitimate defiicit hawk, and not someone who cares about the economic consequences of mass cuts in the first place.

I mean, if we cut everything that you wanted to cut it'd spark a Great Depression... Then what? You think the libertarian pixie is gonna come and sprinkle her dust?