The Top 400 pay less in taxes than you do. (1 Viewer)

[Mario Kart]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/07/maddening-graphic-shows-how-400-richest-americans-paid-less-taxes-any-other-income

I didn't see any tax talk today. It's about time we take our country back.

 

[joffer]

that makes me smart!

 

[Shula-holic]

Just out of curiosity, how did he gain access to those 400 returns to be able to come up with those numbers?  He may be close to right, but it would depend on where they lived.  I'm assuming most of their income were derived from long term capital gains.  If a disproportionate share of them live in TX or FL that would also help account for it.  I'm just curious how he would be able to first identify those 400 returns, and then have access to the data, not only at the federal level but the state level as well.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Just out of curiosity, how did he gain access to those 400 returns to be able to come up with those numbers?  He may be close to right, but it would depend on where they lived.  I'm assuming most of their income were derived from long term capital gains.  If a disproportionate share of them live in TX or FL that would also help account for it.  I'm just curious how he would be able to first identify those 400 returns, and then have access to the data, not only at the federal level but the state level as well.

I would love to see the backup data. I would bet solid money that this is highly manipulated data. 

 

[Sammy3469]

I would love to see the backup data. I would bet solid money that this is highly manipulated data. 

Probably not as manipulated as the top 400s taxes.

 

[jon_mx]

It is a shame they pay so little, but it would be a bigger shame if they were not allow them to keep at least half of what they made. 

 

[pecorino]

It is a shame they pay so little, but it would be a bigger shame if they were not allow them to keep at least half of what they made. 

I don’t know that I agree that it would be a “shame” if folks like Bezos or Buffett paid at a tax rate of 60%, say. Keeping 40% of a few billion each year should keep them living in a decent lifestyle.

I would call it a shame if they paid practically  zero (or about 10%) which is close to the truth which you seem to agree with. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The top 400 what?

 

[jon_mx]

I don’t know that I agree that it would be a “shame” if folks like Bezos or Buffett paid at a tax rate of 60%, say. Keeping 40% of a few billion each year should keep them living in a decent lifestyle.

I would call it a shame if they paid practically  zero (or about 10%) which is close to the truth which you seem to agree with. 

Buffet is too smart to have much income subject to tax and that should be the real issue.

 

[jon_mx]

The top 400 what?

I would guess yearly gross income, but that is only a guess.  That is much different than the 400 richest.  

 

[Shula-holic]

The problem is the public never understands what drives these differences and poorly written articles like this one don't do anything to help.  The tax reform act passed under Trump had very little impact on this.  The gap was already there due to capital gains treatment.  Politically today people want to make it a talking point but if you truly want to close that gap, rolling back the Trump tax plan would be like peeing on the doorstep if your house was engulfed in flames.  You have to look at capital gains rates versus ordinary income rates if you truly want to address the issue.

 

[knowledge dropper]

The problem is the public never understands what drives these differences and poorly written articles like this one don't do anything to help.  The tax reform act passed under Trump had very little impact on this.  The gap was already there due to capital gains treatment.  Politically today people want to make it a talking point but if you truly want to close that gap, rolling back the Trump tax plan would be like peeing on the doorstep if your house was engulfed in flames.  You have to look at capital gains rates versus ordinary income rates if you truly want to address the issue.

And Switch to more of a net worth tax than an income tax.  The richest can avoid an “income tax” because year to year their wealth is not necessarily based on that year’s traditional income.  Being able to offset losses also works heavily in their favor in our traditional income tax system.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And Switch to more of a net worth tax than an income tax.  The richest can avoid an “income tax” because year to year their wealth is not necessarily based on that year’s traditional income.  Being able to offset losses also works heavily in their favor in our traditional income tax system.  

I'll mark you down as another fan of the Elizabeth Warren wealth tax.

 

[knowledge dropper]

I'll mark you down as another fan of the Elizabeth Warren wealth tax.

Not at all.  If you want to tax the rich that is how you do it. States did that with corporate taxes for years.  

 

[huthut]

Taxes have also been historically low for the rich for 40 years (while also being historically high for the poorest):

https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594

The good old days that Republicans want to go back to had many more tax brackets with much higher taxes on the wealthy, I am not sure why that is constantly forgotten. 

 

[JbizzleMan]

One day, when I finally join the top 400, I'll be laughing all the way to the bank! Take THAT, libs.

 

[Jackstraw]

It's obscene. Especially since those same rich benefit wildly disproportianately from the nation's roads, law enforcement, legal system, educational system etc. 

 

[Jackstraw]

Like for instance the Wal Mart heirs making billions while the nation subsidizes its low paid workers with benefits. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I have no idea how they get to 23% for the bottom 10%. I assume they must be assigning corporate taxes to them. 

 

[jonessed]

Taxes have also been historically low for the rich for 40 years (while also being historically high for the poorest):

https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1181004566088814594

The good old days that Republicans want to go back to had many more tax brackets with much higher taxes on the wealthy, I am not sure why that is constantly forgotten. 

The effective tax rate on the top 1% has fluctuated about 10% (from highest to lowest) in the last 70 years.  It’s currently about 6% lower than it was in the 50s.

That Twitter gif is garbage.  Marginal tax rates displayed in isolation are meaningless.

 

[toshiba]

I would love to see the backup data. I would bet solid money that this is highly manipulated data. 

Probably not as manipulated as the top 400s taxes.

Bravo!  

 

[Shula-holic]

The effective tax rate on the top 1% has fluctuated about 10% (from highest to lowest) in the last 70 years.  It’s currently about 6% lower than it was in the 50s.

That Twitter gif is garbage.  Marginal tax rates displayed in isolation are meaningless.

Bingo.  You could make them 90% and it wouldn't affect the Warren Buffett's of the world at all.

 

[Stealthycat]

"thanks to decades of tax cuts and loopholes benefiting the rich."

that's untrue - and the entire piece was anti-wealth hate IMO

tax codes are written for EVERYONE - use them !!  its what Hillary and Obama, Pelosi and Trump and others all use ............. don't people know that?? 

also, how did these wealthy reduce their taxable income? donating millions? spending millions ?   I mean c'mon