Why don’t you qoute Matthew 19:24 to them?
Seems like the obvious response.
I find that verse better served on my bathroom mirror to read each day when I wake and go to bed.
You are neither the most successful nor most generous person on this forum. You might be one of the more successful (though I find “wage inflation” tracks with anonymity ) and you might be one of the more generous (same stipulation). But either way basing your argument on your personal track record is laughable. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given 100 of billions to charity (so more than some guy you know) and are on the record as saying the US Tax policy should be more progressive.
You can try to live better with what you have while also recognizing the thief is both comparison AND the truly rich person.
I think we have to separate happiness from wealth. They do not seem to correlate well. For example judging by the fact that antidepressant use goes up with income level. (though maybe largely because wealthy people can afford such things, but somehow I doubt that’s everything). I was shocked a while back at a campfire with a bunch of bros who seem totally normal and happy to me, and the talk turned to antidrepressants, and I was the only one not on them, sitting quietly while they all talked about dosages, etc.
Rich people have anti-depressants. Poor people have booze, Oxy, and herion.
Hunter might disagree with you.
You are neither the most successful nor most generous person on this forum. You might be one of the more successful (though I find “wage inflation” tracks with anonymity ) and you might be one of the more generous (same stipulation). But either way basing your argument on your personal track record is laughable. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given 100 of billions to charity (so more than some guy you know) and are on the record as saying the US Tax policy should be more progressive.
You’re right. I got caught up in defending myself against the claim that I was hoarding and wishes that I had insomnia/diarrhea.
But–as you point out–the arguments for/against the progressive tax code by using me or Gates/Buffet really fail because they rely on the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Better arguments are the data that I quoted about the massive taxes (both raw figures and %s) paid by the wealthy (whomever they are), in response to Ike’s faulty figures.
You are neither the most successful nor most generous person on this forum. You might be one of the more successful (though I find “wage inflation” tracks with anonymity ) and you might be one of the more generous (same stipulation). But either way basing your argument on your personal track record is laughable. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given 100 of billions to charity (so more than some guy you know) and are on the record as saying the US Tax policy should be more progressive.
You’re right. I got caught up in defending myself against the claim that I was hoarding and wishes that I had insomnia/diarrhea.
But–as you point out–the arguments for/against the progressive tax code by using me or Gates/Buffet really fail because they rely on the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Better arguments are the data that I quoted about the massive taxes (both raw figures and %s) paid by the wealthy (whomever they are), in response to Ike’s faulty figures.
I never wished you insomnia/ diarrhea personally. I simply said if you made outrageous wealth off the backs of the poor/ sick then I wish you those. I know nothing of you personally. But if the shoe fits and you can’t sleep - that’s for you to work through.
I quit my job when I had enough (well as long as your health care innovations are not too successful). I now volunteer with kids. Wednesdays is helping a local science teacher with the school’s most challenging kindergarten class. I lost my year to date streak of no one getting punched in class today. I will be back next week to try again. My goal is to get the struggling students to have a small success or at least see a smile in their day.
I just want you to know there is a whole very rewarding world out there outside of wealth hoarding if you ever feel the need to explore it.
You clearly have brains and drive.
I quit my job when I had enough (well as long as your health care innovations are not too successful). I now volunteer with kids. Wednesdays is helping a local science teacher with the school’s most challenging kindergarten class. I lost my year to date streak of no one getting punched in class today. I will be back next week to try again. My goal is to get the struggling students to have a small success or at least see a smile in their day.
Glad you’re working with younger kids. I don’t have the patience. And, it comforts me that you are out there working with them.
I quit my job when I had enough (well as long as your health care innovations are not too successful). I now volunteer with kids. Wednesdays is helping a local science teacher with the school’s most challenging kindergarten class. I lost my year to date streak of no one getting punched in class today. I will be back next week to try again. My goal is to get the struggling students to have a small success or at least see a smile in their day.
Glad you’re working with younger kids. I don’t have the patience. And, it comforts me that you are out there working with them.
Thanks!
In 20 years one of your college kids could be saying- this guy Floyd used to be a crazy successful lawyer and walked away from it and created a network of non-profit memory care centers that revolutionized elder care in the US. He removed a burden from so many and made the world a better place. Some day I hope to be like him.
Hunter might disagree with you.
Yeah, more seriously there are lots of suburban-to-rich people dying from stupid fentanyl overdoses just like street users. And not just famous ones like Prince.
It is hard to get data that are precisely apples to apples, but the top 1% have 21% of total US income and pay 24% of total taxes — so our overall tax system (not just income tax) is not highly progressive. The top 1% have 32% of total wealth — so the system is regressive from a wealth perspective.
These figures don’t look right, and I see that you got them from ITEP’s very flawed analysis. Lots of places on-line that point out ITEP’s terrible analysis. ITEP’s analysis cherry-picks certain taxes and ignores other HIGHLY progressive taxes. You note about the difficulty of “precisely apples to apples”. That’s especially hard when ITEP is cherry-picking to communicate a certain political viewpoint.
Objective tests are still the best and they state a unequivocally a very progressive tax system that in 2020, Top 1%'s share of Total Adjusted Gross Income was 22.2%, while Top 1%'s share of total income Taxes paid was 42.2%. That’s highly progressive.
My personal experience reflects this highly progressive system. I pay GOBS of taxes on many levels.
I admit I didn’t look at all sorts of sources and just picked ones that came up after a quick search. If they are wrong, then I will have learned (more). The 32% figure is from the Fed. You don’t present a different figure.
Yes, the 21% is from ITEP and you say it should be 22%. Ok, that may be a difference in what year’s data is being studied. In any case, only a 1 percentage point difference. And, the direction of the difference cuts against your argument.
Your main point is about the 24%. I can see that it might be challenging to calculate that, since it involves all sorts of different taxes. But, you present no data point on total tax burden. What do you think is the right figure? Your 42.2% figure is for a subset of all taxes and is one of the most progressive of all taxes. So, you’re cherry picking. Sales taxes, Social Security tax, state income taxes, for example, are less progressive and sometimes are regressive.
Payroll tax is regressive. Sales tax is regressive. Property taxes are regressive.
If federal income tax compared to AGI is the best way to determine fairness, fine.
Then he should have no problem with eliminating the income cap on payroll tax. That would permanently address social security’s solvency issues.
Something tells me that isn’t the case.
You have to be rich to fully afford legal protections and rights in this country.
Payroll tax is regressive. Sales tax is regressive. Property taxes are regressive.
Identifying only those taxes that ITEP included that are regressive but zero of the taxes that are progressive is Exhibit A to cherry picking.
Then he should have no problem with eliminating the income cap on payroll tax. That would permanently address social security’s solvency issues.
Something tells me that isn’t the case.
Solving a faulty gov’t program by collecting more taxes from the wealthy to fix it is an example of the terrible thinking that got us into this faulty situation in the first place. I would suggest fixing the faulty gov’t program.
Payroll tax is regressive. Sales tax is regressive. Property taxes are regressive.
Identifying only those taxes that ITEP included that are regressive but zero of the taxes that are progressive is Exhibit A to cherry picking.
Then he should have no problem with eliminating the income cap on payroll tax. That would permanently address social security’s solvency issues.
Something tells me that isn’t the case.
Solving a faulty gov’t program by collecting more taxes from the wealthy to fix it is an example of the terrible thinking that got us into this faulty situation in the first place. I would suggest fixing the faulty gov’t program.
I am not arguing one way or the other on the ITEP stat. I didn’t present that. What I am suggesting is that an honest discussion of this issue should include ALL taxes. Personal income tax is progressive. Many other taxes are regressive. Claiming the top 1% do more than their share by only citing personal income tax is dishonest.
In regards to social security: again I’m not arguing one way or the other. I’m merely pointing out that since you clearly consider it a tax you should be considering its disproportionate impact on the middle class when discussing tax policy. Someone making $100K per year pays 9% of their income to payroll tax. Someone making $1M per year pays less than 2% of their income to payroll tax. Are/were you aware of this? Are you okay with this?
I bet my feelings about social security fixes aren’t too different than yours. Change full retirement age to 70. Decrease employee portion to 5.2%, increase income cap to $400,000 (from 160k).
Solving a faulty gov’t program by collecting more taxes from the wealthy to fix it is an example of the terrible thinking that got us into this faulty situation in the first place. I would suggest fixing the faulty gov’t program.
I’m not sure what’s “faulty” about it other than ensuring it’s properly funded. It’s a program overwhelmingly supported by Americans as a whole.
As a wealthy person, I’m fine paying some marginal increase in taxes to help secure it’s solvency, and prevent benefits being cut by ~25% around 2034 (the latest projection). I’d honestly also be fine if I could opt out of benefits to help out. SS benefits are not a factor in my retirement plans. Just a “beer money” bonus.
people are questioning historically low tax rates…
Just to keep this truthful…
1.) The percentage of the total tax paid by the top 1% has never been higher…
Because they are hoarding all of the income to tax. Yet they are paying taxes at a lower rate than has historically been the case on their last dollar.
These are not mutually exclusive.
Also his statement is barely true. The percentage of total tax paid by the top 1% has never been much lower, either. It has been relatively stable over the years despite changes to the marginal tax rate.
This is not factually accurate. In the 1960s the top 1% of households paid 13% of all federal taxes. In the 80’s it rose to around 25% of all federal taxes. Nowadays the 1% often pay over 40% of all federal taxes depending upon the year. I would imagine that the local and state tax burdens are not as pronounced or maybe more constant, but still.
When none of your problems can be solved by simply having more money.
I think that is a more elegant way of saying what I was trying to say.
Thanks
To be honest, I think what we are actually talking about is freedom.
Modern capitalism emerges out of feudalism.
There exists in both systems the idea that one can buy their own freedom.
This is what I have always been after.
However…
Monotheism, feudalism, bureaucratic Scientific atheism, communism, capitalism - these are all totalitarian systems.
They do not acknowledge ANY permanent limits to their power over the individual.
The rich are often just as enslaved as the poor.
A lord living under a micro-managerial king
Is less free than a serf with an absentee and negligent lord.
The rebellious wage slave in modern capitalism, is more free than the entrepreneur who micro-manages every second of their own day.
So …
When we are clever…
We can temporarily use the power of of the “ism” in the pursuit of our own freedom.
A short truce is possible.
But our emancipation is always temporary.
I am not arguing one way or the other on the ITEP stat. I didn’t present that.
What you did present is a one-sided list of what regressive taxes are not included in a discussion about whether taxes are regressive or progressive. Maybe that was random and not an argument. ???
What I am suggesting is that an honest discussion of this issue should include ALL taxes. Personal income tax is progressive. Many other taxes are regressive. Claiming the top 1% do more than their share by only citing personal income tax is dishonest.
It’s not “dishonest” any more than quoting the S&P 500 is a dishonest look at how the stock market is doing. It’s a large portion of the broad market. It’s an objective; albeit not a complete picture. And, it’s a very telling picture of the biggest portion (albeit, incomplete) of the stock market. There are other ways (e.g., the “Magnificent Seven”; NASDAQ, QQQ, etc.), but have various drawbacks. Thus, the SEC generally requires mutual funds to use the S&P as the benchmark.
Federal income taxes are the biggest portion of taxes I pay. It’s very progressive. There are other taxes that I pay that are both regressive and progressive (you helpfully identified some of the regressive ones in your non-argument). The balance of these other portions (that are both progressive and regressive) don’t have a substantial net affect on the level of progressive-ness either way. And, they are particular from person to person (i.e., it’s difficult to do a broad-based analysis). As such, to come to one number beyond the objective federal income tax figure is very squishy. Thus, taking all this into account, the federal income tax figures are objective and a fair (albeit incomplete) representation of the very progressive nature of our tax structure.
In regards to social security: again I’m not arguing one way or the other.
OK, again, the only non-arguing solution of executing your non-argument was “tax the wealthy more to fix it” in a conversation about the fairness of the level of taxes as it relates to the wealthy. You presented no other solutions.
I’m merely pointing out that since you clearly consider it a tax …
Oh, it’s a tax. The Supreme Court said it was a tax.
… you should be considering its disproportionate impact on the middle class when discussing tax policy. Someone making $100K per year pays 9% of their income to payroll tax. Someone making $1M per year pays less than 2% of their income to payroll tax. Are/were you aware of this? Are you okay with this?
When it comes time to get SS. What will be the benefit of the person paying 2% of their income to payroll tax? Will it be 9% of that person’s contribution? What will be the benefit of the person paying 9%?
Frankly, I’m not OK with the SS system at all. (See below.)
Still, in your non-argument way, you’re selecting one tax system and asking me to discuss it individually. I don’t mind doing that in a discussion about the merits of that whether that individual system is good/bad. But, asking me particular questions about one portion of the overall tax system, then trying to convince me that you’re “not arguing one way or the other” is a strange execution of that. For example, was it random that you didn’t ask about corporate income taxes on which wealthy pe0ple are paying: a) an extremely progressive and disproportionate amount; and b) taxed on already taxed money. I don’t necessarily want to engage in that discussion; only pointing out that there are other taxes out there that are VERY progressive and wealthy people pay A LOT of taxes for.
I bet my feelings about social security fixes aren’t too different than yours. Change full retirement age to 70. Decrease employee portion to 5.2%, increase income cap to $400,000 (from 160k).
Apparently, they are different. I would kill the SS tax altogether. It’s a deception played on the American People. It’s sold as pay in/get out system (e.g., like a poorly-managed savings account). But, It’s really just a tax and a welfare system. We should treat the collection and distribution the same as all welfare systems. The $$ comes from the general tax system and it goes to people in accordance to some distribution system.
Once we’ve fixed the collection (i.e., moved to a general (not a special) tax) system, we might disagree on that distribution system. Fine. We’ll arrive at that system through the legislative process. For me, once that system plays out, I think it’s dumb for wealthy people to get a regular check from the gov’t for the purpose of supporting that group in their golden years if they don’t otherwise need it. Right now, wealthy people get SS money under the rationale of “well, I paid into it.” That’s evidence that it’s sold as a retirement system and not (what it really is) just another tax/welfare system.
I didn’t realize you were a kook.
Good luck.
Solving a faulty gov’t program by collecting more taxes from the wealthy to fix it is an example of the terrible thinking that got us into this faulty situation in the first place. I would suggest fixing the faulty gov’t program.
I’m not sure what’s “faulty” about it other than ensuring it’s properly funded. It’s a program overwhelmingly supported by Americans as a whole.
As a wealthy person, I’m fine paying some marginal increase in taxes to help secure it’s solvency, and prevent benefits being cut by ~25% around 2034 (the latest projection). I’d honestly also be fine if I could opt out of benefits to help out. SS benefits are not a factor in my retirement plans. Just a “beer money” bonus.
I love this. You’re not sure what’s “faulty” about it, then you state that you consider it merely as “beer money”. The amount of friction involved in gov’t money transfers is very great. If you’re wealthy, then you should not be a beneficiary of a gov’t welfare system. You don’t need it and it adds to the friction to get it to you.
The fact that SS is going bankrupt is an indicia of its unworkability; not that it requires increased funding.
$100M+
I’ve had this discussion with Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (HNWIs) and they generally tell me they didn’t feel rich until they passed the $100M mark in net worth. A few are multi-billionaires and they don’t feel ‘richer’ after a certain point, it’s more about the comparison to other billionaires. When I hit the billionaire threshold, I’ll get back to the LR and let you know.
They can close restaurants for their use, get performers to their homes for birthdays, etc.