It's Your Taxes Stupid.

Thank you for the additional info. Gives me something to work with. The complete chart is worth looking at.

 

They are not smarter you imbecile, they are held to a different standard than the "little people". Defending your masters seems to have become your full-time job.

 

According to you, you earn an income in the top 5%. Very well insulated from the "little people" you mentioned. If you want to legally keep more of your immense wealth, try some of the things I've suggested. Remember: Work smarter, not harder.

 

Why do you assume that being in the top 5% in terms of income automatically insulates you from "the little people"?

 

No problem.

My contention, that I think the numbers show, is that most people probably have no idea how low their own actual tax rate is because our tax system is so complex and filled with crap. And they are ripe for the political picking on the issue because of that.

If I was making, say $25K to $75K and thought my tax rate was 15 to 25% (as the books say it is), I would be outraged if a bazillionaire was paying 13%. How does he pay a lower rate that I do!!

Well, the reality is that the $25K to $75K folks mostly have an actual rate of 3-7%. Which means that even Romney is paying a percentage rate in taxes that is from about 2 to more than 4 times the rate they are.

 

First, I don't consider anyone "little people" in the context that Joe used the term. It was derogatory for him to use the term, but since he did so I felt it necessary to quote him to emphasize a point. Secondly, anyone earning in the top 5% is certainly insulated from issues the other 95% experience. Whereas the bottom 95% may worry about how they're going to afford a vacation, the top 5% may worry about how they're going to afford a vacation HOME.

 

I think your numbers have to be viewed in the context of what follows. I think that this becomes more relevant if you look at the full chart that you linked. I"m sure that there are detailed analyses of all these figures side-by-side. Maybe if I get time I'll try to come up with something. I honestly don't know how things would come out. For the time being I'm just providing these charts as a FWIW.




Wealth owned by top 10%
Switzerland 71.3%
United States 69.8%
Denmark 65.0%
France 61.0%
Sweden 58.6%
UK 56.0%
Canada 53.0%
Norway 50.5%
Germany 44.4%
Finland 42.3%

Charts from http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html.

 

Well, now is that very fair? So, let's see if I can get this straight. I'll use some easy math so the liberals can follow:

JOE BLOW #1
Tax Rate: 6.5%

JOE BLOW #2
Tax Rate: 13%

Johnny brings 6.5 apples into the classroom. It appears that he ate half of an apple on his way. He spreads them out on the teacher's desk for all to see. Suzie brings another 6.5 apples in and puts them on the teacher's desk (it seems like she got a bit hungry, too). We now have a total of 13 apples on the desk. How much of a percentage increase over Johnny's original 6.5 apples do we now have? That's right, we have a 100% increase.

Therefore, knowing that 13% is a 100% increase over 6.5% we can thus deduce that JOE BLOW #2 is paying a 100% higher tax rate than JOE BLOW #1.

Fair? You decide.

 

I"m not quite sure how you can be so confident in your assertion that high income is automatically the same as high disposable income.

 

Income is income no matter how you slice it. If a person decides to buy a mansion and a fleet of Cadillac Escalades with his income, but doesn't have enough money for lunch his disposable income is practically nil. However, his net worth is the same whether it's in the form of disposable income or in the form of assets.

 

I see. You've obviously never reviewed loan applications have you.

Well moving right along you also seem to be saying that being in the top five precludes you from having an empathy or understanding of people who are not in the top five. And that because you may not have a problem funding a vacation you can not sympathize with those who do have that problem nor can you have a desire to make it easier for them. And I suppose in your world this is probably largely true. As long as you're comfortable all is well with the world.

 

People may have to liquidate assets in order to get loans. Happens every day.

You've missed the point entirely. It's very possible for the 5% to empathize with the 95%. I'm not saying all of them DO empathize, but it's certainly possible. It might be easier for, say, someone who started with absolutely nothing and built a business from scratch than it would for, say, someone like Ted Kennedy who really never lifted a finger. Now, I'm not saying that someone like Ted Kennedy COULDN'T empathize or that his social and financial strata prevented him from doing so, but for him I don't think it was possible. But, I digress.

I think certain people can succeed in life (or even be born into wealth) and want the best for their fellow man. I believe there are successful people who want everyone to be able to experience the feeling of success in their lives. But, to say they can't empathize is a false assumption.

 

True enough, but who said anything about assets? We were talking about income. Of course you might have to liquidate an asset for cash flow purposes but that's kind of peripheral to the point here. But never mind.

Oh good, I'm glad you agree that it is at least possible.

 

Really? So in your mind, the 95/5 percent is the cut off? Everyone below the upper 5% is completely different than those in the bottom 95%? That is a bizarre black and white picture of the world.

In reality, incomes are a continuum. For example, someone let's say in the 65% range living in a less expensive part of the country with no kids and a low rent situation might actually have a heck of a lot more disposable income than someone in the upper 5% income range. So basically your silly blanket statements are just the result of poorly conceived ideals and I'm sure a healthy does of partisan nonsense. If you weren't so busy trying to be a Right-wing asshat, you might actually post something of substance. But who am I kidding? You have to be what you are.

 

So where does that leave Romney? Mr. Super wealthy doesn't seem to be able to relate to anyone. The Kennedys at least actively worked to help those less fortunate then themselves. Romney helps his own family and other Mormons and of course other super wealthy people like himself. He can't even relate to the poor much less actually conceive of doing anything to make their lives just a little bit better.

 

I am not arguing that Romney should pay this percentage or that percentage. What I am saying is that the arguments I have heard about Romney's taxes seem to fall into 2 groups.

1. The implication that he is a tax cheat - which is completely unproven.

2. The implication that 13% is some kind of low number compared to 'us' typical middle class workers - The whole 'fair share', 'backs of the middle class' stuff - which seems to me is complete BS.

Now, if there are middle class workers who are paying more than 13%, then I would say that is something that should cause them outrage considering most in that group are paying half or less than that rate. But, if it was me, I would lay the outrage for that at the feet of a completely failed tax system because it is independent of what some bazzilionaires are paying in taxes.

I guess if someone thinks Romney should pay an even higher rate, fine. I just can't manage to work up the outrage since he is already paying almost 3 times the rate I am. And, from the data, it seems my situation is pretty typical for my income group.

 

If someone is making $175 to 200K (which is where I believe the 95th percentile breaks at), I don't think they have much of an idea what it is like to only make 1/3 or 1/4th of that (which is about the median household income point) let alone less.

 

Except that most people don't start off life on their own making $200,000 nor once they've reached that level is there any guarantee that they will stay there. I would expect that the majority of people making $200,000 a year have experienced points in their life either while growing up or when just starting out, or after a business failure or loss of a job when they are very familiar with a $50k a year income or probably much less than that.

 

And just how did Teddy start out - since you know so much about him?

 

Most people don't get 400% raises all at once either so it is safe to say that they would be relying on memories from a time in the (sometimes very) distant past - memories which are often more rose colored than the reality was.

I kinda 'remember' what it was like, many years ago, to make 1/3 of what I do now. Sort of. But I don't have any idea how I would survive on that now. And that is the reason I don't pretend to really know what it is like for people who are actually doing that now.