« Twirling Signs for a Living Wage
Right to Report on the Police »

This Totally Seems Fair

Powerline has a graphic detailing tax breakdown for the richest according to their share of total income and taxes.
Tax Break Down

Differential treatment of groups of people based on income is a form of a discrimination. Where are the liberals defending the right to not be discriminated against according to income?

More from TaxProf

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we’d also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them — the Carter years — the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

So if I’m understanding this correctly, if people discover that the income they gain from working hard is taken by the state they are much less likely to work that hard? That seems so surprising. People work to make money? Odd, never thought people were like that.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 at 10:15 am and is filed under Taxiation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

6 Responses to “This Totally Seems Fair”

  1. Diatribe Says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am

    So true. I for one am sick and tired of rich people being treated different from everyone else. Either we are one country or we are not. People should not be treated a certain way just becuase of race, gender, sexual orientation, or by the amount of money they make. GOD DAMNIT where is the ACLU?

  2. Michael Says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    but but but the few richer people have an obligation to look out for the many poorer people. A majority of the country says so. You got a problem with democracy when it’s used to discriminate against the minority?

  3. darwin Says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    It seems a bit disengenuous to use income though, espexially because I assume that figure excludes many types of wealth generation that billionaires enjoy. The common figure that you hear is that the top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90%, which makes paying 40% of the taxes seem more reasonable. It’s also worth pointing out that this is onl federal income tax, whereas other flat taxes such as medicare and social security make up the bulk of the tax on porrer people, evening out those figures significantly.

  4. steve Says:
    July 25th, 2008 at 11:58 am

    Can I get a source on ‘the top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90%’. Jon Stewart doesn’t count.

  5. darwin Says:
    July 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Here’s the first thing that comes up on Google:
    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

  6. steve Says:
    July 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Second paragraph:

    First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, “wealth” is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person’s net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, “Financial wealth is a more ‘liquid’ concept than marketable wealth, since one’s home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments.”

    He seems to be defining wealth as all the assets poor people don’t have, and then surprisingly, shows that the poor don’t have these assets. Brilliant work.

    Also I find it disingenuous to define wealth three different ways and then in the following paragraph talk about ‘wealth’ without making it clear which of the three he means. This guys is trying to make a point regardless of the facts.

    I don’t believe this guy, your going to have to try harder.

Leave a Reply