Yes, the top 1% DOES pay it’s fair share (and then some!)

[BabyBoomer50s]

The marginal tax rates provided in the Tax Cut & Jobs Act are set to expire in 2025. Extending them will be a top legislative priority for the Trump administration when it takes office in January. You can bet a kidney that the left will crank up the volume on its BS “tax cuts for the rich” mantra.

The Tax Foundation provides a reality check by breaking down the latest IRS data. Here are some snippets presented in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. Synopsis: The top 1% kick in 40.4% of income taxes, nearly double their income share.

Enjoy.

What the Top 1% Really Pays the IRS

Here’s a statistic to remember next year, as Congress debates extending President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts: The top 1% of income-tax filers provided 40.4% of the revenue in 2022, according to recently released IRS data. The top 10% of filers carried 72% of the tax burden. Self-styled progressives will never admit it, but U.S. income taxes are already highly progressive.

These figures are from the Tax Foundation’s analysis of the IRS data, which is worth a read. But allow us to highlight a few points, starting with why this matters for the political debate. The GOP’s 2017 law lowered tax rates on people across the income spectrum, and those changes expire at the end of 2025. Extending today’s top marginal rate on high earners, 37%, will be contentious. Democrats will want to let it revert to the old 39.6%. Mr. Trump, scrounging to pay for other priorities, might go along.

The Democratic refrain will be that keeping the current 37% top rate would be a giveaway to millionaires and billionaires who don’t pay their “fair share,” as Bernie Sanders likes to say. That’s when readers can whip out the IRS data and point out that more than 40% of income-tax revenue is already coming from one filer out of every 100. To understand the 2022 numbers in greater detail, let’s break them out by cohort.

The top 1%: This group includes 1.5 million tax returns with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) above $663,000. These people made up 22.4% of the country’s total reported earnings, yet their share of income taxes paid was nearly double that at 40.4%. (See the nearby chart.) Their average federal tax rate was 26.1%.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/what-th...4ad58?st=MXYzej&reflink=article_copyURL_share

 

[AceDesSpades]

Targeted taxation cannot be morally justified; All for one, one for all.


FairTax.org

 

[Rebel5soul]

Greed and envy are one of the democrats stock in trade.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Decrying "fair" frames the entire debate in the terms of the class warrior.


It should be avoided.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Greed and envy are one of the democrats stock in trade.

Igor and Ivan agree...


The discussion cannot be about "fair."

Equitable and efficient, preserving of fundamental rights and the marketplace; those are the bounds of conversation.

 

[ishtat]

The irrefutable fact ignored by the op is that the bottom 20% of taxpayers pay so little that it costs more to collect than it is worth. If these people were taken out of the system these poorest people would spend all of their additional funds which would help both the economy and the top 1% through increased economic activity.

Unfortunately following Trumps previous tax cut vastly disproportionate funds accruing to the 1% were not invested in new economic activity, but largely went into government bonds to finance further government spending and debt payments.

A major problem for all first world economies is the number of companies that warehouse most of their profits in tax havens eg Google, Facebook, Apple and many others.

 

[MajorRewrite]

You can bet a kidney that the left will crank up the volume on its BS “tax cuts for the rich” mantra.

Yes, because Trump does plan to cut taxes for the rich and corporations. It’s a simple fact.

Simple facts cannot be “BS”.

 

[AceDesSpades]

To ish:

Better yet, under the FairTax.org, they would not only voluntarily contribute, but receive a monthly "stipend..."

 

[Rebel5soul]

The irrefutable fact ignored by the op is that the bottom 20% of taxpayers pay so little that it costs more to collect than it is worth. If these people were taken out of the system these poorest people would spend all of their additional funds which would help both the economy and the top 1% through increased economic activity.

Unfortunately following Trumps previous tax cut vastly disproportionate funds accruing to the 1% were not invested in new economic activity, but largely went into government bonds to finance further government spending and debt payments.

A major problem for all first world economies is the number of companies that warehouse most of their profits in tax havens eg Google, Facebook, Apple and many others.

The bottom 47% (old number) pay NO income taxes at all. Where they get hammered is with the payroll taxes, the most regressive taxes of all.

Fairtax.org

 

[AceDesSpades]

And all of the hidden costs of (tax) code compliance which are more than a tax, they are also a resource drain...

 

[MajorRewrite]

Igor and Ivan agree...


The discussion cannot be about "fair."

Equitable and efficient, preserving of fundamental rights and the marketplace; those are the bounds of conversation.

Is this the designated thread for the AceRebelWat morning staged discussion?

And if course the discussion can be about “fair”. Or effective. It all depends on the goal.

The US had a top marginal tax rate of 90% for a long time after WW2. The economy boomed and there was far less income inequality than now. Real life examples are enlightening.

 

[Rebel5soul]

And all of the hidden costs of (tax) code compliance which are more than a tax, they are also a resource drain...

Precisely. All to enforce a code that even the enforcers don't understand.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Precisely. All to enforce a code that even the enforcers don't understand.

But is beloved because it gives the secular crusader the illusion of stealing from the rich and giving...


Robin Hood was an outlaw and a thug who lived by the "gun" of his time.

(As well as being a really cool myth.)

 

[RobDownSouth]

"Graduated Tax Brackets"....what a concept!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yes, because Trump does plan to cut taxes for the rich and corporations. It’s a simple fact.

Simple facts cannot be “BS”.

And yet the rich contribute most of the tax revenues and pay a higher share of their income. In contrast:


The bottom 50%: About 76.9 million returns with earnings under $50,000. Share of income: 11.5%. Share of tax: 3%. Average tax rate: 3.7%.

 

[Rebel5soul]

But is beloved because it gives the secular crusader the illusion of stealing from the rich and giving...


Robin Hood was an outlaw and a thug who lived by the "gun" of his time.

(As well as being a really cool myth.)

And very few understand the lesson of Robin Hood.

Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich and gave it to the poor. Robin stole illegally confiscated taxes from the government and returned said taxes to the taxpayers.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Why does the government need to know the details of the contract between my employer and myself?

Or my supplier and myself? I think that my business is private business and if it has to go public,
there is a branch of government for that – the judicial.

 

[MajorRewrite]

And yet the rich contribute most of the tax revenues and pay a higher share of their income. In contrast:


The bottom 50%: About 76.9 million returns with earnings under $50,000. Share of income: 11.5%. Share of tax: 3%. Average tax rate: 3.7%.

Trump wants to cut taxes for the rich and corporations.

Why are you trying to pretend that simple facts aren’t true?

 

[AceDesSpades]

Trump wants to cut taxes for the rich and corporations.

Why are you trying to pretend that simple facts aren’t true?

Why are you so singularly focused on the color of the sails when the tide is rising?

Yes. The yacht has nice sails, but my canoe is floating high too...

 

[Rebel5soul]

You can always tell when you're dealing with someone that hasn't the foggiest idea as to how business and taxes work.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Why are you so singularly focused on the color of the sails when the tide is rising?

Yes. The yacht has nice sails, but my canoe is floating high too...

BabyBoo said “the left will crank up the volume on its BS ‘tax cuts for the rich’ mantra”. It cannot be “BS” because Trump does plan to cut taxes on the rich and corporations.

Simple facts, which BabyBoo is desperately trying to obfuscate for some reason. He’s weird.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Is this the designated thread for the AceRebelWat morning staged discussion?

And if course the discussion can be about “fair”. Or effective. It all depends on the goal.

The US had a top marginal tax rate of 90% for a long time after WW2. The economy boomed and there was far less income inequality than now. Real life examples are enlightening.

You have to look at the effective tax rates and the impact on tax receipts. When marginal rates were in the 90% range, reported taxable income was dramatically lower. Tax avoidance is legal and by design. The US tax code is more progressive today than it ever was a half century ago.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Greed and envy are one of the democrats stock in trade.

Being cool with wannabe dictator oligarchs is your jam.

 

[AceDesSpades]

You have to look at the effective tax rates and the impact on tax receipts. When marginal rates were in the 90% range, reported taxable income was dramatically lower. Tax avoidance is legal and by design. The US tax code is more progressive today than it ever was a half century ago.

It should not inspire to avoid...

FairTax.org

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

BabyBoo said “the left will crank up the volume on its BS ‘tax cuts for the rich’ mantra”. It cannot be “BS” because Trump does plan to cut taxes on the rich and corporations.

Simple facts, which BabyBoo is desperately trying to obfuscate for some reason. He’s weird.

The “tax cuts for the rich” mantra is shorthand for “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” It ignores the realities of how much of total tax receipts are paid by the highest earners, it ignores the reality that the highest earners pay a greater share of their income, and it ignores the fact that the TCJA resulted in tax cuts for the vast majority of taxpayers.