How would you calculate a person or company's benefit from all of that infrastructure that you seem to think the government produced? Why isn't the huge sum Walmart pays now, enough? They pay income taxes ( 32%), fuel taxes for trucks, road use fees, etc. They claim to have 7k truck drivers. I bet that's a lot of fuel with specialized taxes just for roads. And yet, for you, it still isn't enough. I don't know how old you are, but there's a line from an old song by 10 Years After called "I'd love to change the world". The line is "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no, rich no more"
And the Rich get Richer!
- Thread starter Charles1959
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
How would you calculate a person or company's benefit from all of that infrastructure that you seem to think the government produced? Why isn't the huge sum Walmart pays now, enough? They pay income taxes ( 32%), fuel taxes for trucks, road use fees, etc. They claim to have 7k truck drivers. I bet that's a lot of fuel with specialized taxes just for roads. And yet, for you, it still isn't enough. I don't know how old you are, but there's a line from an old song by 10 Years After called "I'd love to change the world". The line is "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no, rich no more"
simplepeddler
Well-Known Member
aren't the very people they employ paying the taxes for such things? So if they just shut thier business down now, after creating so much wealth, would that not affect the "infastructure" negatively?
And I see no connection to food stamps and welfare by the mega wealthy.......
I can see the point you are trying to make, but it's a hell of a bridge that needs to be built to get there.
And I see no connection to food stamps and welfare by the mega wealthy.......
I can see the point you are trying to make, but it's a hell of a bridge that needs to be built to get there.
Do Taxes Redistribute Income?
It is widely believed that taxes are highly progressive and, furthermore, that the top several percent of income earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal government. Both ideas are wrong because they focus on official, rather than "effective" tax rates and ignore payroll taxes, which are mostly paid by those with incomes below $100,000 per year.
But what matters in terms of a power analysis is what percentage of their income people at different income levels pay to all levels of government (federal, state, and local) in taxes. If the less-well-off majority is somehow able to wield power, we would expect that the high earners would pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes, because the majority figures the well-to-do would still have plenty left after taxes to make new investments and lead the good life. If the high earners have the most power, we'd expect them to pay about the same as everybody else, or less.
Citizens for Tax Justice, a research group that's been studying tax issues from its offices in Washington since 1979, provides the information we need. When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid 20.5% in taxes. So if we only examine these first two steps, the tax system looks like it is going to be progressive.
And it keeps looking progressive as we move further up the ladder: the middle 20% (about $33,400/year) give 25.3% of their income to various forms of taxation, and the next 20% (about $66,000/year) pay 28.5%. So taxes are progressive for the bottom 80%. But if we break the top 20% down into smaller chunks, we find that progressivity starts to slow down, then it stops, and then it slips backwards for the top 1%.
Specifically, the next 10% (about $100,000/year) pay 30.2% of their income as taxes; the next 5% ($141,000/year) dole out 31.2% of their earnings for taxes; and the next 4% ($245,000/year) pay 31.6% to taxes. You'll note that the progressivity is slowing down. As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.
What I've just explained with words can be seen more clearly in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Share of income paid as tax, including local and state tax
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (2010a).
We also can look at this information on income and taxes in another way by asking what percentage of all taxes various income levels pay. (This is not the same as the previous question, which asked what percentage of their incomes went to taxes for people at various income levels.) And the answer to this new question can be found in Figure 7. For example, the top 20% receives 59.1% of all income and pays 64.3% of all the taxes, so they aren't carrying a huge extra burden. At the other end, the bottom 20%, which receives 3.5% of all income, pays 1.9% of all taxes.
Figure 7: Share of all income earned and all taxes paid, by quintile
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (2010a).
So the best estimates that can be put together from official government numbers show a little bit of progressivity. But the details on those who earn millions of dollars each year are very hard to come by, because they can stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with Switzerland. And there are many loopholes and gimmicks they can use, as summarized with striking examples in Free Lunch and Perfectly Legal, the books by Johnston that were mentioned earlier. For example, Johnston explains the ways in which high earners can hide their money and delay on paying taxes, and then invest for a profit what normally would be paid in taxes.
Income inequality in other countries
The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.
The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 5 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income due to high taxes on top income earners and/or high minimum wages -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.
Table 8: Income equality in selected countries
Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient
1. Sweden 23.0
2. Norway 25.0
8. Austria 26.0
10. Germany 27.0
17. Denmark 29.0
25. Australia 30.5
34. Italy 32.0
35. Canada 32.1
37. France 32.7
42. Switzerland 33.7
43. United Kingdom 34.0
45. Egypt 34.4
56. India 36.8
61. Japan 38.1
68. Israel 39.2
81. China 41.5
82. Russia 42.3
90. Iran 44.5
93. United States 45.0
107. Mexico 48.2
125. Brazil 56.7
133. South Africa 65.0
Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.
Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).
The differences in income inequality between countries also can be illustrated by looking at the share of income earned by the now-familiar Top 1% versus the Bottom 99%. One of the most striking contrasts is between Sweden and the United States from 1950 to 2009, as seen in Figure 8; and note that the differences between the two countries narrowed in the 1950s and 1960s, but after that went their separate ways, in rather dramatic fashion.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Share_of_income_paid_as_tax.gif
It is widely believed that taxes are highly progressive and, furthermore, that the top several percent of income earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal government. Both ideas are wrong because they focus on official, rather than "effective" tax rates and ignore payroll taxes, which are mostly paid by those with incomes below $100,000 per year.
But what matters in terms of a power analysis is what percentage of their income people at different income levels pay to all levels of government (federal, state, and local) in taxes. If the less-well-off majority is somehow able to wield power, we would expect that the high earners would pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes, because the majority figures the well-to-do would still have plenty left after taxes to make new investments and lead the good life. If the high earners have the most power, we'd expect them to pay about the same as everybody else, or less.
Citizens for Tax Justice, a research group that's been studying tax issues from its offices in Washington since 1979, provides the information we need. When all taxes (not just income taxes) are taken into account, the lowest 20% of earners (who average about $12,400 per year), paid 16.0% of their income to taxes in 2009; and the next 20% (about $25,000/year), paid 20.5% in taxes. So if we only examine these first two steps, the tax system looks like it is going to be progressive.
And it keeps looking progressive as we move further up the ladder: the middle 20% (about $33,400/year) give 25.3% of their income to various forms of taxation, and the next 20% (about $66,000/year) pay 28.5%. So taxes are progressive for the bottom 80%. But if we break the top 20% down into smaller chunks, we find that progressivity starts to slow down, then it stops, and then it slips backwards for the top 1%.
Specifically, the next 10% (about $100,000/year) pay 30.2% of their income as taxes; the next 5% ($141,000/year) dole out 31.2% of their earnings for taxes; and the next 4% ($245,000/year) pay 31.6% to taxes. You'll note that the progressivity is slowing down. As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.
What I've just explained with words can be seen more clearly in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Share of income paid as tax, including local and state tax
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (2010a).
We also can look at this information on income and taxes in another way by asking what percentage of all taxes various income levels pay. (This is not the same as the previous question, which asked what percentage of their incomes went to taxes for people at various income levels.) And the answer to this new question can be found in Figure 7. For example, the top 20% receives 59.1% of all income and pays 64.3% of all the taxes, so they aren't carrying a huge extra burden. At the other end, the bottom 20%, which receives 3.5% of all income, pays 1.9% of all taxes.
Figure 7: Share of all income earned and all taxes paid, by quintile
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice (2010a).
So the best estimates that can be put together from official government numbers show a little bit of progressivity. But the details on those who earn millions of dollars each year are very hard to come by, because they can stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with Switzerland. And there are many loopholes and gimmicks they can use, as summarized with striking examples in Free Lunch and Perfectly Legal, the books by Johnston that were mentioned earlier. For example, Johnston explains the ways in which high earners can hide their money and delay on paying taxes, and then invest for a profit what normally would be paid in taxes.
Income inequality in other countries
The degree of income inequality in the United States can be compared to that in other countries on the basis of the Gini coefficient, a mathematical ratio that allows economists to put all countries on a scale with values that range (hypothetically) from zero (everyone in the country has the same income) to 100 (one person in the country has all the income). On this widely used measure, the United States ends up 95th out of the 134 countries that have been studied -- that is, only 39 of the 134 countries have worse income inequality. The U.S. has a Gini index of 45.0; Sweden is the lowest with 23.0, and South Africa is near the top with 65.0.
The table that follows displays the scores for 22 major countries, along with their ranking in the longer list of 134 countries that were studied (most of the other countries are very small and/or very poor). In examining this table, remember that it does not measure the same thing as Table 5 earlier in this document, which was about the wealth distribution. Here we are looking at the income distribution, so the two tables won't match up as far as rankings. That's because a country can have a highly concentrated wealth distribution and still have a more equal distribution of income due to high taxes on top income earners and/or high minimum wages -- both Switzerland and Sweden follow this pattern. So one thing that's distinctive about the U.S. compared to other industrialized democracies is that both its wealth and income distributions are highly concentrated.
Table 8: Income equality in selected countries
Country/Overall Rank Gini Coefficient
1. Sweden 23.0
2. Norway 25.0
8. Austria 26.0
10. Germany 27.0
17. Denmark 29.0
25. Australia 30.5
34. Italy 32.0
35. Canada 32.1
37. France 32.7
42. Switzerland 33.7
43. United Kingdom 34.0
45. Egypt 34.4
56. India 36.8
61. Japan 38.1
68. Israel 39.2
81. China 41.5
82. Russia 42.3
90. Iran 44.5
93. United States 45.0
107. Mexico 48.2
125. Brazil 56.7
133. South Africa 65.0
Note: These figures reflect family/household income, not individual income.
Source: Central Intelligence Agency (2010).
The differences in income inequality between countries also can be illustrated by looking at the share of income earned by the now-familiar Top 1% versus the Bottom 99%. One of the most striking contrasts is between Sweden and the United States from 1950 to 2009, as seen in Figure 8; and note that the differences between the two countries narrowed in the 1950s and 1960s, but after that went their separate ways, in rather dramatic fashion.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Share_of_income_paid_as_tax.gif
Last edited:
I can make pie charts as well. Got a source?
Actually, it fits in well with my post above. I just prefer a source over just a picture. With a source, we would be talking about the same facts and be on the same page.
Last edited:
First off I don't "buy" into every video I see. Wealth is and should not be distributed. Second not everyone one is equal, created or determind by performance. I can't play football like Drew Brees or play golf like Tiger Woods. All through out history there was poor folks and not so poor folks. It is and will be a fact of life, some cry babies need to get over it. I have what I have by working all of my life. Ain't no pie chart or redistribution of my assets is going to change it. It is just another agenda the Liberals are pushing. As far as I'm concerned screw them. I have gone from no job to working 3 jobs at the same time in my life. The way I was raised; was a "man" does what he has to do to provide for his family and himself. It's time to rid our country of the politicians and the dead heads that depend on them to get their free handouts. 
Last edited:
We've discussed this video ad nausem:
http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?104445-Video-Wealth-Inequality-in-America&highlight=wealth+distribution
and
http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?115236-Best-description-yet-showing-Wealth-distribution-in-America&highlight=distribution+of+wealth
Upworthy must have discovered the video recently and posted it.
http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?104445-Video-Wealth-Inequality-in-America&highlight=wealth+distribution
and
http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?115236-Best-description-yet-showing-Wealth-distribution-in-America&highlight=distribution+of+wealth
Upworthy must have discovered the video recently and posted it.
It all comes down to the word "fair". At some point in our human history, someone invented that word. The sooner people realize that the world is not "fair" the sooner all this complaining will go away. Is it "fair" that my brother in law, who has no college education, not one day in a college classroom, makes over $250,000 a year and my wife, who has her masters makes $50,000 a year? Is is "fair" that my wife loves her job and would never give it up while my brother in law hates getting up in the morning? We all make choices in life, every one of us. The minimum wage worker all the way up to the CEO of companies. All of us are where we are because of choices we made at one point in time or another. I just get tired of hearing the "we deserve...." crowd. You deserve two things, jack and crap, and Jack just left town. You get what you are willing to work for. If all you know how to do is flip burgers or stock shelves when you are 30 then you have no one to blame but yourself.
Last edited:
bsoileau24
Well-Known Member
Very well said
I'm stealing that.
Members online
- Jiggy205
- JBP55
- AndyG
- Kylelawrence318
- larryp44
- themcfarland
- Kipp Castaing
- miscverb
- randballs
- Nboazman1
- pullstart
- CJB1911
- twinin
- success
- hotbiggun
- Bravo-13
- Pacioli
- WhereIsIt?
- gunfan2
- kpm
- Richard Michael
- PECEMKR
- 80man
- Radar55
- JasonD4877
- Jstudz220
- Tonyaav
- balancedforday
- mikelee
- redhammer5
- Brent_Miller
- BOSS302
- jtj5002
- k0k0m0
- fng
- D joiner
- BDill
- Papa
- PhalanX-SS
- quick403b
- mforsta
- AK shooter
- MilOperator
- ONTARGET7.62
- Target Sports USA
- N4sir
- SuperK
- lw55566
- cdaniel76
- Beatbama
