RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Want to see income inequality?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4037
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/09/17 12:57 am    ::: Want to see income inequality? Reply Reply with quote

Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are richer than poorest half of US

Quote:
The three richest people in the US – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own as much wealth as the bottom half of the US population, or 160 million people.


And approximately the bottom half of the U.S. population already pays no income tax at all, so no tax cuts will affect them.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5534



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/09/17 2:15 am    ::: Re: Want to see income inequality? Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:


And approximately the bottom half of the U.S. population already pays no income tax at all, so no tax cuts will affect them.


Your linked article did not state that and this site disputes that. They pay a low percentage of the total federal income taxes paid, but they do pay it. That site claims that the bottom 50% is ether individuals or returns (not sure which) which have an income of $39,724 or less. The two rates at or below $39,724 are 10% (single $8,700 or less taxable income - point $17,400 or less taxable income) and 15% (single $8,701 – $35,350 taxable income, joint $17,401 – $70,700 taxable income).


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/09/17 1:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Seems like quibbling.

By those numbers, top 5% pays 60%, bottom 50% pays less than 3%.

Still true that there's no tax cuts that can have any significant impact on the bottom 50%. They hardly pay any taxes already.

That bottom 50% also generally does not itemize, so the elimination of deductions for SALT, interest on jumbo mortgages, large medical expenses, casualty losses, some charitable deductions, etc., will have no effect on them.

It's the top 5-25% range that will get screwed. They work for a living but will see their itemized deductions vanish. And will get double taxed when their SALT deduction goes away ( while the rich will see their estate taxes eliminated because we all know that double taxation is so unfair.)


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5534



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/10/17 12:51 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
.

It's the top 5-25% range that will get screwed. They work for a living but will see their itemized deductions vanish. And will get double taxed when their SALT deduction goes away ( while the rich will see their estate taxes eliminated because we all know that double taxation is so unfair.)


I don't see state and local tax deductions as preventing "double taxation". If you have $100,000 taxable income and a 10% state tax rate, you get to reduce your federal taxable income to $90,000 after deducting the $10,000 you paid in income taxes to the state. So you would be "double taxed" on $90,000. I don't see why Congress decided to let state taxes be deducted in the first place. Why should people in high tax states pay a lower federal amount than people in lower tax states?




Last edited by tfan on 11/10/17 4:12 am; edited 1 time in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4037
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/10/17 2:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Tfan, your first link was to a site that used adjusted gross income (AGI), which of course can be much less than the taxpayer's gross income (GI). The Wikipedia article uses taxable income (TI), which is AGI reduced by the personal exemptions and deductions but not including tax offsets for tax credits.

A single person with a $39,000 AGI in 2017 would have a personal exemption of $4,050 and a standard deduction of $6,350. So, this person would have a TI of $28,600. If the person did not use the standard deduction but had large itemized deductions, he could wipe out much more of his TI. Then there are a variety of tax credits available to reduce the tax owed on the TI.

Therefore, it is quite possible that a person with a $39,000 AGI could owe very little to no tax. And this person's GI could have been well over $100,000 if he had a lot of income adjustments such as business expenses.

I estimated "approximately" the bottom half of the population pay no tax. Your first link says the bottom 50% pay about 2.8% of the taxes There are several sites that report that the bottom 45% of taxpayers pay no tax.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5534



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/10/17 3:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Tfan, your first link was to a site that used adjusted gross income (AGI), which of course can be much less than the taxpayer's gross income (GI). The Wikipedia article uses taxable income (TI), which is AGI reduced by the personal exemptions and deductions but not including tax offsets for tax credits.

A single person with a $39,000 AGI in 2017 would have a personal exemption of $4,050 and a standard deduction of $6,350. So, this person would have a TI of $28,600. If the person did not use the standard deduction but had large itemized deductions, he could wipe out much more of his TI. Then there are a variety of tax credits available to reduce the tax owed on the TI.


Tax on $28,600 taxable income is $3,836.25. Still not an insignificant amount to someone at that income level (the vast majority of which would not be making huge deductions to get there). And if you think it is insignificant, then you must feel that we should lower that tax to 0, am I correct?

Quote:

Therefore, it is quite possible that a person with a $39,000 AGI could owe very little to no tax. And this person's GI could have been well over $100,000 if he had a lot of income adjustments such as business expenses.


Unless their expenses are phantom, like "real estate depreciation", then it doesn't matter how high their gross income is. They can't live off of money they have to use to pay a landlord or employees. The real estate depreciation situation though is one that Congress should attack. Buildings appreciate, but investors are allowed to depreciate them like they are a piece of farm machinery that is wearing out. And then when they hit $0 in value they can swap it with someone else and start depreciating again without having spent a dime.

Quote:

I estimated "approximately" the bottom half of the population pay no tax. Your first link says the bottom 50% pay about 2.8% of the taxes There are several sites that report that the bottom 45% of taxpayers pay no tax.


I did a search and found that Romney made that claim (47%) in 2011. The Washington Post investigated and to my surprise, they agree with that figure for 2011.

In this graph, they refer to "Percentage of U.S. Population Not Represented on a Taxable Return". That may result in percentage discrepancies if that counts people that didn't file and someone else limits the pool to "had an income and had to file". That is, an unemployed 28-year-old living with his parents would get counted in one, but not the other. Same with someone who is not married to their partner, but being supported by them.



GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4037
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/17 12:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's worldwide.

Richest 1% own half the world's wealth, study finds

Quote:
The world’s richest people have seen their share of the globe’s total wealth increase from 42.5% at the height of the 2008 financial crisis to 50.1% in 2017, or $140tn (£106tn), according to Credit Suisse’s global wealth report published on Tuesday.
Luuuc



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 17777



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/17 1:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's pretty cool though how some of the wealth of the richest 0.1% trickles down to the next 0.9%



_________________
Seems rike no one takes me serirousreee
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10705
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/17 6:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Luuuc wrote:
It's pretty cool though how some of the wealth of the richest 0.1% trickles down to the next 0.9%


....and the 0.1% even begrudges that! Laughing Laughing



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners!

<--Maddie Manning, Sooner Extraordinaire
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 11870



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/17 1:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
.

It's the top 5-25% range that will get screwed. They work for a living but will see their itemized deductions vanish. And will get double taxed when their SALT deduction goes away ( while the rich will see their estate taxes eliminated because we all know that double taxation is so unfair.)


I don't see state and local tax deductions as preventing "double taxation". If you have $100,000 taxable income and a 10% state tax rate, you get to reduce your federal taxable income to $90,000 after deducting the $10,000 you paid in income taxes to the state. So you would be "double taxed" on $90,000. I don't see why Congress decided to let state taxes be deducted in the first place. Why should people in high tax states pay a lower federal amount than people in lower tax states?


I see math wasn't your strongest class.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5534



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/17 7:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
tfan wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
.

It's the top 5-25% range that will get screwed. They work for a living but will see their itemized deductions vanish. And will get double taxed when their SALT deduction goes away ( while the rich will see their estate taxes eliminated because we all know that double taxation is so unfair.)


I don't see state and local tax deductions as preventing "double taxation". If you have $100,000 taxable income and a 10% state tax rate, you get to reduce your federal taxable income to $90,000 after deducting the $10,000 you paid in income taxes to the state. So you would be "double taxed" on $90,000. I don't see why Congress decided to let state taxes be deducted in the first place. Why should people in high tax states pay a lower federal amount than people in lower tax states?


I see math wasn't your strongest class.


My calculation looks very strong when compared to the math you chose to post.

By the way, people that aren't rich also work for a living.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 8784
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump is not president.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/15/17 7:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Luuuc wrote:
It's pretty cool though how some of the wealth of the richest 0.1% trickles down to the next 0.9%


....and the 0.1% even begrudges that! Laughing Laughing


Repeal the Estate Tax and give these poor folks a break.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin