Skip to main content

View Diary: Federal taxes lowest since 1950 (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Modest Tax Increase??!!! (0+ / 0-)

    We've had a decade of stagnant median wages, and you want to call for a modest tax increase?

    Fine, just make sure that the "modest tax increase" doesn't apply in any way to households making less than US$ 250K a year.  That 250K a year, by the way, is President Obama's threshold to separate the middle-class from the affluent.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

    by PatriciaVa on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 07:23:46 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  right on both counts (0+ / 0-)

      Fine, just make sure that the "modest tax increase" doesn't apply in any way to households making less than US$ 250K a year.

      Yep.  Tax the rich fucks.  They've had a free party for the past thirty years--and now it's time for them to pay their bar tab.

      That 250K a year, by the way, is President Obama's threshold to separate the middle-class from the affluent.

      Sounds about right to me.  It would cover something like the richest 10% of the population----and they own more than half of the nation's entire wealth.

      Even if we just taxed the wealthiest one percent (millionaires, basically), that still covers about one-third of the nation's entire wealth.

      •  Way off on your percentages. (0+ / 0-)

        The IRS presumably knows something about the income distribution of the US, and they say differently.

        Top 1-percent Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) break (TY 2008) [3,4] $380,354
        Top 10-percent AGI break (TY 2008) [3,4]  $113,799
        Bottom 10-percent AGI break (TY 2008) [3,4] $5,942
        Median AGI (TY 2008) [3,4] $33,048

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Fri Jan 28, 2011 at 08:36:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "income" is different from "wealth" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Habitat Vic

          The IRS figures are for job/salary income.

          Most of the super-rich don't have any job income--they get their money through investment dividends. They don't NEED jobs, dahling.

          That's why the distribution of WEALTH is much more highly lopsided than the distribution of INCOME.

          And that is why raising INCOME taxes on the rich is only half the story----we also need to raise the CAPITAL GAINS taxes to comparable levels. Only then will the super-wealthy be paying taxes at anything like a real-world rate.

          •  figures are based upon tax returns, not "salary" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus
            - The IRS figures are for job/salary income.

            Incorrect. Yes, dividend/interest/capital gains/etc gets entered on different lines on a tax return (and often are taxed at different rates), but they are reported nonetheless. Tax returns are required for all types of income, not just W-4 or 1099.

            And Odysseus is right that there is a big gap between the top 1% of individual tax returns, whose AGI (after deductions) is $380K, versus the top 10% that starts at $114K.  I would point out that these are for individuals.  If looking at households, the numbers bump up a bit as you head lower.  For example the median wage earner makes $33K in the US yet the median household income is $51K.  Why?  Middle and lower class income earners are more likely to be in a household where the spouse works as well.  At the high end its less likely that the other works, or less likely that its an equal level of income.

            You're right about the unequal distribution of wealth.  Throw in that many of the "near wealthy" have most of their net worth tied up in primary residence and somewhat illiquid IRA/401K accounts, and its clear who the real investor-speculator class is in the US - the top 1% and higher.

            •  I will defer to those figures (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Habitat Vic

              An interesting thing leaps out at me: if the top 10% have average incomes of only $100k-ish, and if the top 10% also own 70% of the total national wealth, then it becomes apparent (1) what a huge amount of wealth is owned by the very top of the top, the wealthiest 1% or even 0.5%, and (2) what an insignificant amount of wealth is owned by the bottom 90%.

              Our distribution of wealth is akin to that of a banana republic.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site