[rustyp]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Again, statistics from the IRS---THE TOP 1% OF ALL EARNERS PAY 40% OF ALL INCOME TAXES.

And that same 1% owns more wealth than the entire middle class. Statistic from the Federal Reserve.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by rustyp

And that same 1% owns more wealth than the entire middle class. Statistic from the Federal Reserve.

So what???? Is that a reason to punish success?? And in turn give it away to losers????

[tuccillo]

You mean the ones who worked hard, invested money (i.e. took financial risks), and started new companies that developed innovative goods and services, as well as jobs, for the other 99% ?

Originally Posted by rustyp

And that same 1% owns more wealth than the entire middle class. Statistic from the Federal Reserve.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So what???? Is that a reason to punish success?? And in turn give it away to losers????

Well that's a tad over-generalized.
When the former president who brags about his great wealth, which he estimates at "several billion" is found to have paid $750 in taxes one might wonder about a few things,

1. a billion dollars invested in a 2% CD, (you don't have to be to be a stable genius to find that rate of return in "the world's greatest economy") would generate 40 MILLION dollars. That's ONE billion invested that way. $750 on 40 Million is a tax rate of
.001875%. Now that is a nice tax rate, isn't it?

2. why do we tax income instead of wealth? Because the wealthiest people make the rules, so a father of three, working 60 hours a week who seldom gets to see his kids because his life is evaporating while he's working so hard making 200K,, gets taxed at 40%, while a multi-billionaire who lifts not a finger to make 40MILLION in invested income has a tax rate of .001875%....

Yeah, it's great to be the ones with the power to make the rules.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Again, statistics from the IRS---THE TOP 1% OF ALL EARNERS PAY 40% OF ALL INCOME TAXES.

Originally Posted by rustyp

And that same 1% owns more wealth than the entire middle class. Statistic from the Federal Reserve.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So what???? Is that a reason to punish success?? And in turn give it away to losers????

I don't have a dog in this fight. Just illustrating how easy it is to cherry pick.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Well that's a tad over-generalized.
When the former president who brags about his great wealth, which he estimates at "several billion" is found to have paid $750 in taxes one might wonder about a few things,

1. a billion dollars invested in a 2% CD, (you don't have to be to be a stable genius to find that rate of return in "the world's greatest economy") would generate 40 MILLION dollars. That's ONE billion invested that way. $750 on 40 Million is a tax rate of
.001875%. Now that is a nice tax rate, isn't it?

2. why do we tax income instead of wealth? Because the wealthiest people make the rules, so a father of three, working 60 hours a week who seldom gets to see his kids because his life is evaporating while he's working so hard making 200K,, gets taxed at 40%, while a multi-billionaire who lifts not a finger to make 40MILLION in invested income has a tax rate of .001875%....

Yeah, it's great to be the ones with the power to make the rules.

Speaking of over-generalizations-------WOW

Since that top 1% pays 40% of all income tax, do you really think they average a tax rate of .001875%????? Really?????

Those numbers are just talking points for class warfare and socialistic thinking. I would either tax the 47% at some low rate, even if it is only $10, so at least they have some skin in the game. Alternatively, a constitutional amendment that limits the vote to net taxpayers. If you pay nothing, you can pretty much guarantee you will vote for those that promise you the most "freebies" (ie: other people's money)

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by rustyp

I don't have a dog in this fight. Just illustrating how easy it is to cherry pick.

The top 1% paying 40% of all income tax is NOT "cherry picking", it is a fact directly from the IRS.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Laker14

2. why do we tax income instead of wealth?
.

Could be because the base wealth as been taxed already and will probably be taxed again at death. Maybe.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Again, statistics from the IRS---THE TOP 1% OF ALL EARNERS PAY 40% OF ALL INCOME TAXES.

Originally Posted by rustyp

And that same 1% owns more wealth than the entire middle class. Statistic from the Federal Reserve.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So what???? Is that a reason to punish success?? And in turn give it away to losers????

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The top 1% paying 40% of all income tax is NOT "cherry picking", it is a fact directly from the IRS.

Cherry picking does not mean the statistic is false. It is a common technique to support one point of view without giving equal weight to the entire context.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Laker14

2. why do we tax income instead of wealth?

In addition to the fact that "wealth" is already taxed at least once if not more:

Person A scrimps and saves, makes prudent choices, lives within their means and accumulates some degree of "wealth". Maybe to enjoy retirement, maybe to pass something on to their kids, but in either case have been responsible citizens.

Person B spends every penny they ever earn---has impulse buying, gets sports cars, a house they can't afford, runs up credit cards and saves nothing, relying on social security and the good will of others when they stop working.

So who is rewarded and who is screwed by a "wealth tax"??? Fair???? I don't think so.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Cherry picking does not mean the statistic is false. It is a common technique to support one point of view without giving equal weight to the entire context.

The "entire context":

top 1% paying 40% of all income tax

bottom 99% paying 60% of all income tax.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Cherry picking does not mean the statistic is false. It is a common technique to support one point of view without giving equal weight to the entire context.

OK, here's the context:

Who is paying a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden?????

It is not a "point of view", it is a FACT

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

OK, here's the context:

Who is paying a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden?????

It is not a "point of view", it is a FACT

Null hypothesis - Who is paying their disproportionate share of the tax burden ?

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Null hypothesis - Who is paying their disproportionate share of the tax burden ?

Interesting. Here's the definition of a null hypothesis:

The null hypothesis states there is no relationship between the measured phenomenon (the dependent variable) and the independent variable.

So, how does this apply to THE FACT that the top 1% pay 40% of income taxes? What are the two variables????? No sale.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Just what "tax break" would that be????

The top 1% of earners paid 40% of all income tax collected in 2018

The top 10% paid 68%

and the top 53% paid 100% of all income tax

So maybe those "ordinary workers" can climb the ladder and start paying THEIR "fair share"

Just compare the tax brackets and tax % of today to those of 1950 (when the middle class was KING). And it is easy to see that upper-income taxpayers control the US. In other words, fewer and FEWER people (the upper 1%) are controlling everything in the US. As less and less people have more and more power.......WHAT DO YOU END UP WITH.........a dictatorship like Hitlers or the current Russian despot. America is headed that way, I hope smart people like the other poster realize this simple fact.