Do the rich really pay more in taxes?

[RadioRaheem84]

Someone squash this obvious myth to me with some facts:


Last I checked, we have a progressive tax system, one in which the bottom 40% of the American public pays almost no federal income tax.

The reason tax cuts benefit the wealthy the most is because they are paying most of the taxes! How can a tax cut benefit someone who pays no tax? They already paying nothing! Should they get a check for simply taking up space?

So apparently, rich people pay the most taxes, so they deserve a tax cut?

[Noinu]

Do I think they deserve a tax cut? Hell no. Do they pay more money in tax? Well around here, they're supposed to (not sure they do, but supposed to).
The thing is, you have to think about it in a slightly different way.
Say you get 30 000 dollars per month as your salary. Then you pay let's say 19% taxes, that's 5700. You're still left with 24300, so a lot of money.
But when your salary is 1600 dollars and you pay lets say 17% in taxes, that'll be 272, you're left with 1328 dollars, that's not all that much especially if you have some loans to pay, three kids and a car.
Personally I think the one getting less money and paying percentagewise slightly less taxes deserves a tax cut much more than one that is rich even after paying taxes.

[timbaly]

Rich people in the USA do pay most of the taxes. I'm not sure what you're asking? This isn't a myth. The idea that they need a tax cut is a myth because it is beleived that with a tax cut the rich will take the money that would have gone to taxes and reinvest it in the economy. This is arguably not going to happen at the rate its expected to happen. This will likely cause more consolidation of wealth. However if there is a tax cut for the wealthy there will be a major drop off in tax revenue for the federal government and the debt will grow even more. Giving a tax cut to those in the lower tax brackets won't have nearly as much of an impact on the deficit.

[RadioRaheem84]

I figured they did pay the most in taxes because on account of their larger share of income and other sources of revenue. I thought that the argument was twisted to make it seem like our share of the taxes was somehow comparable to the rich top earners, therefore they "deserve" a tax cut.

[timbaly]

Do I think they deserve a tax cut? Hell no. Do they pay more money in tax? Well around here, they're supposed to (not sure they do, but supposed to).
The thing is, you have to think about it in a slightly different way.
Say you get 30 000 dollars per month as your salary. Then you pay let's say 19% taxes, that's 5700. You're still left with 24300, so a lot of money.
But when your salary is 1600 dollars and you pay lets say 17% in taxes, that'll be 272, you're left with 1328 dollars, that's not all that much especially if you have some loans to pay, three kids and a car.
Personally I think the one getting less money and paying percentagewise slightly less taxes deserves a tax cut much more than one that is rich even after paying taxes.


The main point you have here is that even though the rich pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income that does not really have a major impact on their lifestyle because they still have more than enough money to live comfortably.

[learningaboutheleft123]

come on people, look whos in charge of the UK at the moment...David Cameron, ex bullingdon club member, that says it all ! hes already lied about the cuts hes making, so do you really think hes going to give his 'jolly good chums' a high tax rate....he must think we were born yesterday, well all upper class snobs do.

[Broletariat]

Be sure to recognise the differences between income tax and capital gains tax rates.

[Sosa]

found this on http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income. Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.
Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?
In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.
Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.
Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.
Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.
As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)
The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.
Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.
Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

[timbaly]

Be sure to recognise the differences between income tax and capital gains tax rates.

A lot of rich people pay capital gains taxes because they tend to have more assets than the average and below average income earners like stocks and property. The tax rates on these properties are significantly lower if they are long term investments than the taxes on earned income.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Sosa has the best post so far in my opinion, but doesn't go far enough. The rich are in fact the only people who benefit from the existence of the capitalist state. The entirety of the capitalist state apparatus is an insurance policy taken out by the capitalist classes against the possibility of proletarian insurrection. This includes welfare state provision of mass education, healthcare, etc. The capitalist state (whether First World market capitalist or Second World state capitalist) provides enough, and only just enough, to stave off the revolution.

[CAleftist]

The rich have the most tax loopholes available to them, because the IRS doesn't go after them and their lobbyists are writing the laws.

Charities, offshore accounts, write-offs on things like corporate jets, etc...

[livingandlearning]

yes I also think that most of the rich people pay taxes more but who are dishonest I don't know about that.Thanks.

[Noinu]

The main point you have here is that even though the rich pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income that does not really have a major impact on their lifestyle because they still have more than enough money to live comfortably.

In a way, yes. It is though less about making a major impact on the rich than the fact that there is a major impact done on those who are poor. It's very much unfair.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

The people talking about "fairness" should read Marx's scathing deconstruction of the word in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

They pay more money in taxes, but all in all, they are less affected by how much money that they pay in taxes than your middle class family that managed to fall into that bubble in which they weren't getting any rebates.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Money is an invention. Fuck that.

Think about it like this. Who gives more real labor to the government?

a) A janitor that works 40 hours a week

b) Rupert Murdoch

[Lyev]

This is just for the UK, but I'm almost certain it is sadly much the same picture across the globe. I think £20 billion yearly is lost through tax avoidance of the rich, who find legal loopholes to avoid paying some amount; a further £70 billion per year is lost through tax evasion of the rich who simply don't declare on certain kinds of income. Those who can pay, don't. Those who can't pay, do pay, and carry the largest burden. That is simply capitalism.

[Nolan]

They own so much of the wealth that they do pay the most.

I don't see leftists stressing enough the fact that taxes are extremely low right now.

[L.A.P.]

Here's a simple debunking of that statement; they don't.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Do I think they deserve a tax cut? Hell no. Do they pay more money in tax? Well around here, they're supposed to (not sure they do, but supposed to).
The thing is, you have to think about it in a slightly different way.
Say you get 30 000 dollars per month as your salary. Then you pay let's say 19% taxes, that's 5700. You're still left with 24300, so a lot of money.
But when your salary is 1600 dollars and you pay lets say 17% in taxes, that'll be 272, you're left with 1328 dollars, that's not all that much especially if you have some loans to pay, three kids and a car.
Personally I think the one getting less money and paying percentagewise slightly less taxes deserves a tax cut much more than one that is rich even after paying taxes.

This.

To make it simpel, even small tax raises will have big impacts on workers life (if we in this example consider that the tax money wont go to welfare). While on the other hand higher taxes for rich people will mean that they are not being able to buy theire fourth car....until the next year.

[Noinu]

This.

To make it simpel, even small tax raises will have big impacts on workers life (if we in this example consider that the tax money wont go to welfare). While on the other hand higher taxes for rich people will mean that they are not being able to buy theire fourth car....until the next year.

Exactly :)

[brigadista]

the rich pay "creative accountants" and tax planning lawyers to ensure the consolidation of their fortunes through tax planning schemes [that only benefit the very wealthy] and charitable donations that provide huge tax relief at the same time ensuring that they gain further benefits by wrapping their wealth up in trusts to avoid tax and enable the money to pass to the next generation..the whole of the capitalist system is set up to legislate for their benefit

[timbaly]

Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)


I think that's a little too simplistic. Working class people in San Francisco, Washington DC, San Jose, New York, and Boston amongst other places face high mortgages but are not wealthy. The new plan by the congress is to get rid of these tax breaks for people with high mortgages but the plan does not take into account the regional differences in cost of living. There are many average working class families that greatly benefit from this deduction.

[Reznov]

If your rich, a little bit of taxes wont hurt financially (Not to the point where you won't be able to afford your bills at least.)

And, 17%? It is this high for rich people? I could have sworn it was lower.

[timbaly]

If your rich, a little bit of taxes wont hurt financially (Not to the point where you won't be able to afford your bills at least.)

And, 17%? It is this high for rich people? I could have sworn it was lower.


It's over double that. The richest pay 35% in Federal Income tax. I believe the richest tax bracket starts around $375,000.

[B0LSHEVIK]

The current tax rate laws in the US of A break down as such.

1)A family of four making $50K yearly, pays $2900 in taxes. So thats about 2.9/50 = 6% of earnings in taxes
However,
2)A family of four making $500K yearly (10 times the former), pays only $9k in taxes. Only 3 times the rate. And thats about 9/500 = 2% of income goes to taxes.

Obviously, the tax burden (key word is burden not rate) is heavier on the lower classes.

And on edit****

Dont be confused by the upfront tax rate. Its meant deceive. Rich qualify for thousands of credits, breaks, loopholes, etc, that they really dont pay anywhere near their supposed tax rate

[~Spectre]

Someone squash this obvious myth to me with some facts:



So apparently, rich people pay the most taxes, so they deserve a tax cut?

Rich people pay the most income tax, but that doesn't account for every sort of sales tax etc. An even though the tax rate shifts up, they're still much less effected by said taxes.

They also get plenty of tax subsidies.

[timbaly]

Here is a graphic showing the tax brackets for American Federal Income Taxes. This isn't a complete bracket, there are separate rates for married people who file independently and those who are the head of a household. This also does not account for deductions a person may claim due to having kids or needing special medical support etc.

http://www.macoassociates.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010-tax-brackets2.jpg

[Property Is Robbery]

Rich people in the USA do pay most of the taxes. I'm not sure what you're asking? This isn't a myth. The idea that they need a tax cut is a myth because it is beleived that with a tax cut the rich will take the money that would have gone to taxes and reinvest it in the economy. This is arguably not going to happen at the rate its expected to happen. This will likely cause more consolidation of wealth. However if there is a tax cut for the wealthy there will be a major drop off in tax revenue for the federal government and the debt will grow even more. Giving a tax cut to those in the lower tax brackets won't have nearly as much of an impact on the deficit.

That's not necessarily true. They're supposed to but they have a looot of different ways to get out of what they owe. Look at Forbes magazine it's partially devoted to getting rich ****s out of paying their dues.