131–140 of 504 posts
That has to be the worst x-axis on a graph I've seen in a long time. The grid lines measure 0-10th, 20-30th, 40-50th, 60-70th, 80-90th, 95-99th, 99.99th, Top 400? That's atrocious, not only is it non-linear, not only does it have a line with regularly spaced dots giving the impression of continuity, but it skips from percent groups to absolute numbers? If we're talking about historical taxes why are we looking at tax…
What a shit article. It's well known that despite the high marginal tax rates of the past, very few people ever paid those. Deductions abound that have since been eliminated. What you should really look at is real effective tax rates by income level.[1] What you'll find is that the top 1% make 19% of all income, but pay 37% of all taxes, with an average tax rate of 27%. The bottom 50% earn 11% of all income, but only…
I read the article, in which this expected point is addressed. From TFA:
>They have constructed a historical database that tracks the tax payments of households at different points along the income spectrum going back to 1913, when the federal income tax began.
That is actual payments, not whatever the tax law says should be paid. Did you think academic economists wouldn't address this point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is looking at even smaller/higher percentiles than the article that you're referencing. I believe this explains the difference.
Yes, there is no explanation of exactly how that number (400) was chosen. Given that the US is widely acknowledged to be one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, the burden of proof required here is far higher than the article attempts.
It's misleading because the rich that they're talking about already paid a much higher rate when they originally got the money in earnings. It's just the 2nd round of taxation: the capital gains which is lower, as it should be. And let's not forget, taxes are extremely high on everyone. The US Govt spends 38% of all US GDP, currently (recently above 40%!). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spendi.…
That's pretty much bullshit by any reasonable definition of "earnings".
Relevant to the HN crowd, let's take an example of a startup founder who hits a home run and whose equity is eventually worth a billion dollars. The founder's company had multiple funding rounds, and eventually the company had an IPO so the founder could sell his equity on the public markets. The founder will pay low capital gains rates on his stock, with a basis of 0.
At no point did the founder put any cash into the company originally from previous earnings. Instead, all of the financial gains from the equity were as a result of the founder's blood, sweat and tears - what we normally refer to as "working". Surely, of course, the founder had a lot more at risk, but at no point did the founder previously pay a much higher rate on any capital that went into the business.
It is absolutely intolerable that the US tax system is now flat and even slightly regressive.
It's not--the article is missing important aspects of tax such as deductions/exemptions and other forms of tax paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful. The two articles rely on vastly different cherry-picked definitions of who counts as rich, and neither claim is even remotely true anymore if you use the other definition. The top 1% are indeed audited at about the same rate as the working poor, but they also pay higher taxes than everyone else. This NYT article on the other hand picks out the top 400, who apparently pay lower taxes but are much more aggress…
Lower tax rates, not necessarily lower taxes.
> They have constructed a historical database that tracks the tax payments of households at different points along the income spectrum going back to 1913, when the federal income tax began.
It may be reading the book for the full detail on methods and results. I plan to.
Their money working for them. I think this is as it should be. But, all kind of inheritance should be banned, or to be created at heavy tax. That way, a rich self made person got to have and spend his money any way he wants, and at the same time, undeserved millionaire and billionaire get taxed.
What a shit article. It's well known that despite the high marginal tax rates of the past, very few people ever paid those. Deductions abound that have since been eliminated. What you should really look at is real effective tax rates by income level.[1] What you'll find is that the top 1% make 19% of all income, but pay 37% of all taxes, with an average tax rate of 27%. The bottom 50% earn 11% of all income, but only…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Deductions abound that have since been eliminated. Yep, and those "deductions" are now referred to as "tax shelters" (post-1986). Basically, high-earners could invest a relatively small amount of capital into a "business" that was certain to generate large tax losses. These were things like llama farms or avocado farms. The entire purpose was to generate deductions, since the capital invested was smaller than the t…
> since the capital invested was smaller than the tax losses generate Can you give an example of how that works? As a non-rich person if I invest $100 it seems like the largest taxes I can pay is $100 (100% tax). How do I generate > $100 tax loss for a $100 investment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember when Rumsfeld announced that 2.3T USD were missing from the military? https://www.city-journal.org/html/americas-missing-money-157... Yeah, nor do most people. The date he announced that? September 10, 2001. The section of the Pentagon hit? The accounting wing with all the records.
ummm, are you making an oblique "9/11 truther" claim?
EDIT: According to other comments who explained what's wrong, the "facts" are wrong and belong into the realm of "911truther" propaganda.