Power and Politics

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by htb

Illiteracy.

The traduced "Top One Percent" of earners pay nearly half of all taxes.

The state told you that the entrepreneur was taking your money -- and you believed it.

Please express this as a marginal tax rate.

[Kiddo]

Originally Posted by htb

Illiteracy.

The traduced "Top One Percent" of earners pay nearly half of all taxes.

The state told you that the entrepreneur was taking your money -- and you believed it.

Are you sure about those numbers? From what I have read, the top 50% of of wage earners pay for over 96% of the taxes. The top 5% pay for a little over 50%. The 1% pays just a little over a third.

The top 50% of wage earners is anyone who makes 30K (by themselves or jointly with a spouse) or more a year. The top 1% is anyone who makes 300K a year or more. If you make less than 9K a year then you are consider impoverished (about 12%). So basically I guess the rich are pissed at the 32% of people who make between $9,000-$29,999 a year and who don't pay their fair share? That would be around minimum wage, so I wonder why the wealthy didn't want to raise that either?

Edit: That being said, I just found this neat little table.

The Tax Foundation

Top 1% (1.3 million people) = 39.28% Top 5% (6.6 millions people) = 59.67% Top 50% (66.3 million people) = 96.93%

Anyone who makes less than 30K (Another 66.3 million people) contributes only 3% of the taxes even though they consist of 50% of the population. Does anyone want to graph that?

I don't think you can find any legitimate statistic to compare other than income tax. I'm assuming that is what you meant by "all taxes" because it wouldn't make sense to compare amount earned to "all taxes". For example, you could be dirt poor and still own a business and be paying other taxes. You could be very wealthy and have no other commitments other than income tax. So they really aren't comparable stats.

[htb]

Originally Posted by Kiddo

Are you sure about those numbers? From what I have read, the top 50% of of wage earners pay for over 96% of the taxes. The top 5% pay for a little over 50%. The 1% pays just a little over a third.

Yes, it's been about 40 percent for nearly ten years, and two-fifths is, for a tiny number of those who include the country's most productive, closer to one-half than it is to zero; and certainly close enough for mention.

The lot of you are missing the point, and splitting hairs. Money yields power; if capitalists were behind the kind of plutarchy described in the first post they wouldn't put up with the confiscation that takes place. So I demonstrated this both with the corporate rate and with income tax revenue.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by htb

The lot of you are missing the point, and splitting hairs. Money yields power; if capitalists were behind the kind of plutarchy described in the first post they wouldn't put up with the confiscation that takes place. So I demonstrated this both with the corporate rate and with income tax revenue.

I would disagree. There are two reasons why taxes would be allowed by the elites; one is because corporations are granted power through the legal structure that takes in the money (ie: corporate socialism) - examples include everything from telecomm to military complex. The other is because a theoretical elite requires a limitation on the growth of the middle class (most taxes are regressive) and it serves as a tool to prevent civil unrest.

It's not much of a stretch considering that middle class and lower (~65% of the population) have had a net decrease in purchasing power over the last decade (ignoring the dropping dollar, which will drastically amplify this now).

All economics is in relative terms. If the top 1% pay 99% of the taxes, the cost-benefit isn't measurable and so the statement that "they wouldn't allow it" is misleading; if the top 1% pay 99% with 1000x the asset base of the remaining 99% of the population, they are getting a good deal.

[Kiddo]

Originally Posted by htb

The lot of you are missing the point, and splitting hairs. Money yields power; if capitalists were behind the kind of plutarchy described in the first post they wouldn't put up with the confiscation that takes place. So I demonstrated this both with the corporate rate and with income tax revenue.

I also disagree. Where does money get its value? The answer; there are a great number of people who want it. Money gets its value from the demand generated by the people who wish to earn and spend it. No value means you can't use it to obtain anything. Therefore, it's the people who yield the power. Who are they yielding it to? The people who have money.

Do you need proof of this? Look at our legal system. A blue collar Joe who steals a $15,000 car can get 10-15 years in a maximum security prison but the CEO who steals several billion dollars from his shareholders will most likely not serve any prison time, and if by some twist of justice he does, it will be in a country resort prison for only a few years. Isn't this a country where anyone can run for president? Only if you have tens of millions of dollars backing you up. Where does most of that come from? Well it certainly isn't coming from the guy working 40 hours a week at $5.15 an hour.

[htb]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

There are two reasons why taxes would be allowed by the elites; one is because corporations are granted power through the legal structure that takes in the money (ie: corporate socialism) - examples include everything from telecomm to military complex. The other is because a theoretical elite requires a limitation on the growth of the middle class (most taxes are regressive) and it serves as a tool to prevent civil unrest.

But that assumes a corporation will choose other than the shortest route: here, let me give you ten dollars, uninvited, so I can get eight back. It imputes corruption not to market involvement by the government but the private sector's interpolation of government. That's backwards, causally and chronologically. Finally, it requires belief in multiple conspiracies, when a simpler explanation (e.g., companies play the game because it's often the only one allowed by the state) will suffice.

It's not much of a stretch considering that middle class and lower (~65% of the population) have had a net decrease in purchasing power over the last decade (ignoring the dropping dollar, which will drastically amplify this now).

Numbers alone don't describe it. Who had an LCD television set, a cell phone, a laptop, a mutual fund ten years ago?