OT: 2001 tax statistics/who really pays the lion's share

For those out there who think the rich are getting a free ride on the backs of the working class, I offer the following stats, taken directly from the IRS web site . These numbers are from 2002, the latest available, but the point is clear. Now ask yourself the following question - what will the politicians do if the top 3% of taxpayers were to suddenly disappear? A ridiculous question? Just ask the guys under the dome in Sacramento CA. Bob S.

% of Taxpayers (income) % of Total tax revenue 2 5K 0.12 7 >10K 0.44 8 >15K 0.91 7 >20K 1.31 7 >25K 1.75 14 >30K 4.33 11 > 40K 5.01 18 > 50K 12.84 9 > 75K 11.12 9 >100K 20.86 3 >200K 41.27

Reply to
Robert Scibienski
Loading thread data ...

in message news: snipped-for-privacy@news-byoa.prodigy.net...

Then the 3% under them would be the new top 3%.

Yes, it is. For example, if the richest 3% all disappeared, who would get their money?

d8-)

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:10:48 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: ?

The point is, when the dot com millionaires in CA suddenly disappeared due to the crash, the state was left with commitments they couldn't cover. The "money" didn't go to someone else, it simply disappeared. So, if one is going to base a significant percentage of their (tax) income on such sources, they are well advised to keep a bit in the bank, which, of course, politicians don't seem to understand - Bob S.

Reply to
Robert Scibienski

Well, wherever they went, the people there must have been able to cover even more commitments.

That is, if the dot.com millionaires were still making money. Most places don't tax your cash assets to even a fraction of the degree to which they tax your income.

Did they eat it? 'Take it out of the banks and investments they had it in, and stuff it in their mattresses?

Where did it "disappear" to?

Bob, their assets weren't the source of California's big tax revenues. It was the return on their investments, and the incomes they generated.

Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

I wonder if those in the top-most 3% bracket would be willing to trade incomes and tax bills with those in any other bracket?

An interesting analysis might be possible if you could supply the average income of that top-most 3%.

Reply to
Mike Henry

I opened up that link & I didn't see the table you copied. Could you please double-check that link?

Reply to
Daven Thrice

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:22:09 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net (Robert Scibienski) calmly ranted:

DIBS!

Recheck your stats there, buddy. Both the Federal gov't and the ROKalifornia demand that you put aside their tax monies (both sales and income in CA) on a regular basis throughout the year. They GOT their money then blew it all. If they made committments, that has nothing to do with income from the now-defunct dot commers.

BTW, I'm a dot commer myself and am working on my second million $. (The first was too hard to obtain.)

--- Is it time for your medication or mine?

formatting link
Custom Website Applications

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Always fascinates me when anti tax supporters post gross numbers to imply that the top % are paying the lion's share of taxes. Of course they are..the table top goes from $ 200,000 a year to INFINITY in income: The rest of the catagories only span $ 199,999 of potential income. It's meaningless. It doesn't say ANYTHING about how much of their incomes are being paid in real taxes.

Everyone knows that the tax brackets for those with high incomes tend to be higher than for those with mid to low incomes. So what? The thing that should be looked at is how much of that income and increase in net worth is NOT considered income for tax purposes. Most middle income people have to bank their income and are taxed immediately. Those with tons of disposable income usually have investments that are *almost* as liquid as cash but still considered tied up in investments. I put it in the bank and pay income taxes...they put it in leaseback arrangements and no tax is collected on the increase in value AND they are able to write off false deprecation and such to make that income growth appear to be 1/10 what it really is.

The rambling point is....If you show income of 10 million a year you are probably making a *real* income of about 20 million a year...you just haven't depreciated and put that other 10 mil in your pocket to be taxed yet. When/if you do, the tax rate is not on the 10 you gained from the investment but the 10 minus all the manipulation you were able to do for tax purposes.

Whenever you have a decision to make about an investment (IE Rollovers), you ARE in control of that asset and it's worth should be considered as income at that point. Moving your 50 million from stocks to bonds or from stock to stock means that the profit is within your control and taxable the same as a paycheck being taxable as soon (actually before) I am paid.

Personally, I think treating rollover transactions as taxable at that time would help US investers go back to tihnking about long term investing rather than roll the dice investing that has US companies planning only 6 months in the future.

Koz

Reply to
Koz

Since we are able to steal the assets of higher income people simply because we have them out-numbered, why not tax them at 100% and eliminate our taxes altogether? It makes as much sense as the present system.

George Willer

Reply to
George Willer

People would probably argue that they should then have more control over the government (because the gov't taxes them and likewise they pay for the gov't...), and we all know how terrible it would be to have such idiots as movie stars in charge... So keep them from controlling? I bet they wouldn't even pay their tax then...

I do wonder what the world would be like, though, if everyone got their income capped logaritmically.. so people who make

Reply to
Tim Williams

Reply to
Robert Scibienski

Nope..never said to steal assets nor to tax them at a higher rate (although that's what we do). What I said was to count things that are income as income. When you have control over an asset that effectively turns into cash in the process of rolling over that asset, the capital gains from that should be taxed at that time. Trading assets for like kind assets should not be a way to avoid taxes on the gains as they are effectively in your control and the equivalent of cash at the time of the trade.

Vigorous elimination of tax avoidance schemes should be pursued also. If you would not do it in the normal course of business except for the tax avoidance involved, it is a "scheme" and should not be a legal business transaction.

Koz (who thinks everyone should have the same tax rate...and everyone should have the same definition of income)

Reply to
Koz

Interesting, but why not display "tax rate" rather than total amount taxed for each catagory.

Hint, because if you do that, you see that the extreme ends of the curve have a pretty low tax rate.

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

Interesting, but why not display "tax rate" rather than total amount taxed for each catagory.

Hint, because if you do that, you see that the extreme ends of the curve have a pretty low tax *rate*.

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

That's a pretty good idea, but to be fair we should also steal the bottom 5% as well. Since they have no money and pay no tax it makes sense to steal them and use them for servants (slaves) to the middle class ;)

Reply to
Nick Hull

They tried that in Great Britain already - the Beatles song "Mr. Taxman" was a lament based on their problems - the verse "One for you, nineteen for me" referred to the 95% top tax rate at the time.

Probably why all the Beatles - and a whole lot of other wealthy Britons - left Britain in the 60's and 70's when they became wealthy - because if they stayed they sure wouldn't be wealthy for very long.

Try jacking up the top tax rates like that over here, and the really wealthy can, and certainly will, leave in a hurry. (Hey, Bill Gates can easily buy himself a large island - or a small country...)

And you'll be taxing 95% of nothing - and as of the last time I checked, 95% of nothing is still nothing. But I'm sure there's a Democrat or two out there who would argue to the death over that one, logic be damned.

-->--

Reply to
Bruce L. Bergman

If you sit down and think about it you can't tax the wealthy and the big businesses. They just pass all that on to the little guy. Where do you think they got their income to be in the top 3%.

tim

Reply to
TSJABS

Oh, OK. Those are your calculations. I thought I may have been missing something in terms of the posted data.

Reply to
Daven Thrice

That is why over 250,000 moved out of the Santa Clara valley in the last couple of years. Over taxation and more to come.

Martin [ Sorry Phoenix, er - AZ in general and NV in general ]

Reply to
Martin H. Eastburn

Frankly..it makes NO difference as to how much of their incomes are being paid in real taxes.

So..does it mean that a family of 6, who make $18k a year and purchases $800 worth of toilet paper a year, should be given a subsidy on toilet paper, or the childless couple who make $200k a year, and spend $200 a year on toilet paper should pay for the subsidies for all of the rest of them?

Somehow I get the feeling that you think that the rich guys money is somehow not his..but is actually community property and if he decides to hold on to too much of the communities money..he is a bad person.

Since you feel that way, evidently..the old retired gent I gave the Logan 11 lathe to, is needing a mill and drill press. Since you have more than you need..and as they really are community property..Ill have someone stop by and load up what the old man and I think is fair.

He will like the mill and drill press Im sure.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Reply to
Gunner

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.