Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich”

[jficquette]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

John

[Anonymous]

[i]Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.[/i]

The other point that is ignored is the fraction of national income going to the top few percent of percent.

Rich are paying much of the income tax because they are making far more of the income. No other tax is progressive — state income taxes are usually close to flat at that level, and consumption taxes are naturally regressive, likewise SS and FICA.

They are capturing all of the productivity gains and GDP increase. Real median income per person has been flat in the Bush “expansion”, and has hardly moved since 1980.

Suppose the DJIA were at the same inflation adjusted (and dividend adjusted) place since 1980. Don’t you think the Bush classes would be screaming?

It used to be that both the owners and workers benefitted alike from the increase in productivity from capital investment and technological progress. Now? Only in China.

When did this horrible phrase “wage inflation” pop up in normal discourse? Why not “salary increases”?

There is propagandistic wallpapering that goes like “oh normal workers have stocks in their pension and 401k”. Sure, how much? How much of their total lifetime income comes from *returns* on stocks (not capital invested) versus working for a living? It’s quite small. They’d benefit far more by making more money.

[Anonymous]

[i]Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.[/i]

The other point that is ignored is the fraction of national income going to the top few percent of percent.

Rich are paying much of the income tax because they are making far more of the income. No other tax is progressive — state income taxes are usually close to flat at that level, and consumption taxes are naturally regressive, likewise SS and FICA.

They are capturing all of the productivity gains and GDP increase. Real median income per person has been flat in the Bush “expansion”, and has hardly moved since 1980.

Suppose the DJIA were at the same inflation adjusted (and dividend adjusted) place since 1980. Don’t you think the Bush classes would be screaming?

It used to be that both the owners and workers benefitted alike from the increase in productivity from capital investment and technological progress. Now? Only in China.

When did this horrible phrase “wage inflation” pop up in normal discourse? Why not “salary increases”?

There is propagandistic wallpapering that goes like “oh normal workers have stocks in their pension and 401k”. Sure, how much? How much of their total lifetime income comes from *returns* on stocks (not capital invested) versus working for a living? It’s quite small. They’d benefit far more by making more money.

[Anonymous]

[i]Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.[/i]

The other point that is ignored is the fraction of national income going to the top few percent of percent.

Rich are paying much of the income tax because they are making far more of the income. No other tax is progressive — state income taxes are usually close to flat at that level, and consumption taxes are naturally regressive, likewise SS and FICA.

They are capturing all of the productivity gains and GDP increase. Real median income per person has been flat in the Bush “expansion”, and has hardly moved since 1980.

Suppose the DJIA were at the same inflation adjusted (and dividend adjusted) place since 1980. Don’t you think the Bush classes would be screaming?

It used to be that both the owners and workers benefitted alike from the increase in productivity from capital investment and technological progress. Now? Only in China.

When did this horrible phrase “wage inflation” pop up in normal discourse? Why not “salary increases”?

There is propagandistic wallpapering that goes like “oh normal workers have stocks in their pension and 401k”. Sure, how much? How much of their total lifetime income comes from *returns* on stocks (not capital invested) versus working for a living? It’s quite small. They’d benefit far more by making more money.

[Anonymous]

[i]Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.[/i]

The other point that is ignored is the fraction of national income going to the top few percent of percent.

Rich are paying much of the income tax because they are making far more of the income. No other tax is progressive — state income taxes are usually close to flat at that level, and consumption taxes are naturally regressive, likewise SS and FICA.

They are capturing all of the productivity gains and GDP increase. Real median income per person has been flat in the Bush “expansion”, and has hardly moved since 1980.

Suppose the DJIA were at the same inflation adjusted (and dividend adjusted) place since 1980. Don’t you think the Bush classes would be screaming?

It used to be that both the owners and workers benefitted alike from the increase in productivity from capital investment and technological progress. Now? Only in China.

When did this horrible phrase “wage inflation” pop up in normal discourse? Why not “salary increases”?

There is propagandistic wallpapering that goes like “oh normal workers have stocks in their pension and 401k”. Sure, how much? How much of their total lifetime income comes from *returns* on stocks (not capital invested) versus working for a living? It’s quite small. They’d benefit far more by making more money.

[Anonymous]

[i]Had they picked a higher income level (say $1M/year or higher), you can be guaranteed that the results would have said something very different, namely that the Bush tax cuts have generated a huge windfall for the people in category 1.[/i]

The other point that is ignored is the fraction of national income going to the top few percent of percent.

Rich are paying much of the income tax because they are making far more of the income. No other tax is progressive — state income taxes are usually close to flat at that level, and consumption taxes are naturally regressive, likewise SS and FICA.

They are capturing all of the productivity gains and GDP increase. Real median income per person has been flat in the Bush “expansion”, and has hardly moved since 1980.

Suppose the DJIA were at the same inflation adjusted (and dividend adjusted) place since 1980. Don’t you think the Bush classes would be screaming?

It used to be that both the owners and workers benefitted alike from the increase in productivity from capital investment and technological progress. Now? Only in China.

When did this horrible phrase “wage inflation” pop up in normal discourse? Why not “salary increases”?

There is propagandistic wallpapering that goes like “oh normal workers have stocks in their pension and 401k”. Sure, how much? How much of their total lifetime income comes from *returns* on stocks (not capital invested) versus working for a living? It’s quite small. They’d benefit far more by making more money.

[Borat]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.

[Borat]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.

[Borat]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.

[Borat]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.

[Borat]

The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.

[jficquette]

[quote=Borat]The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.[/quote]

“People who work for others have no way of understanding this.”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

It has everything to do with it because the vast majority of whining Libs work for others and have no apperication for what it takes to have your own business and get ahead. They are always looking for someone else to pay for needless government crap.

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting but not surprising.

The top 50% pay 97& of the tax. Great system we have.

BTW, what is your definition of “productive” work?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Borat]The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.[/quote]

“People who work for others have no way of understanding this.”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

It has everything to do with it because the vast majority of whining Libs work for others and have no apperication for what it takes to have your own business and get ahead. They are always looking for someone else to pay for needless government crap.

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting but not surprising.

The top 50% pay 97& of the tax. Great system we have.

BTW, what is your definition of “productive” work?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Borat]The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.[/quote]

“People who work for others have no way of understanding this.”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

It has everything to do with it because the vast majority of whining Libs work for others and have no apperication for what it takes to have your own business and get ahead. They are always looking for someone else to pay for needless government crap.

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting but not surprising.

The top 50% pay 97& of the tax. Great system we have.

BTW, what is your definition of “productive” work?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Borat]The “new rich” those that were born with nothing got rich by working hard. You can’t get rich starting from nothing without busting your ass.

Sure, no one here is arguing otherwise. If you start with nothing and want to become rich, you’re going to have to work hard, especially considering all of the taxes you’re going to have to pay on your way to the top.

When rich people get incentives it causes them to work harder, not less.

Again, it depends on your definition of “rich”. The only truly rich people earn all of their money from passive investments, so they’re not doing any productive work anyway. Give them tax breaks and they’ll continue not working — they’ll just make more money doing it.

People who work for others have no way of understanding this.

What does that have to do with anything?

The data is what it is and the data shows our system punishes the most productive members of our system.

I agree 100%. What the data show is that the middle and upper-middle classes are carrying more than their fair share of the load, and that their load is increasing. Note that you won’t see any WSJ articles like this that look at the statistics of those whose income is derived from passive investments rather than productive labor, because it would show a very different picture; one of the main reasons that the WSJ exists is to make sure that we don’t get to see that picture.[/quote]

“People who work for others have no way of understanding this.”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

It has everything to do with it because the vast majority of whining Libs work for others and have no apperication for what it takes to have your own business and get ahead. They are always looking for someone else to pay for needless government crap.

The data clearly shows the rich get raped. How you could see the opposite is interesting but not surprising.

The top 50% pay 97& of the tax. Great system we have.

BTW, what is your definition of “productive” work?

John

[Author]

Posts