- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NYT is trying to claim the 400 wealthiest Americans paid lower tax rate than bottom 50%
Posted on 5/16/24 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 3:24 pm
The piece is getting torn to shreds by tax economists. The author of the article, Gabriel Zucman, is a well known left wing economist with an agenda.
Here is the chart from the article. I refuse to link the article itself because it is so poorly argued
Here is what Mr. Zucman did to get his absurd chart
1) he *left out* transfer payments that the tax code facilitates (EITC, child credit, etc). Including these items would have sent the bottom 50% tax rate into the negative range.
2) his previous research from 2018 found that the there *has not* been a reduction in the tax burden of the 400 richest Americans since 1962.
Unhappy that this findings did not show what he wanted it to show, he recalculated the data with the unrealistic assumption that 100% of the cooperate tax burden is paid by shareholders (an insane assumption). This “tweak” allowed Mr. Zucman to get the result he wanted, as the below chart shows
3) Mr. Zucman is dividing the payroll taxes paid by the 400 richest Americans by their total income rather than dividing it by the income where the cap takes place. ($169,000) This allows Zucman to assert that the richest 400 Americans basically have a 0% payroll tax. What he ignores is that benefits are capped as well.
What a fricking fraud
Here is the chart from the article. I refuse to link the article itself because it is so poorly argued
Here is what Mr. Zucman did to get his absurd chart
1) he *left out* transfer payments that the tax code facilitates (EITC, child credit, etc). Including these items would have sent the bottom 50% tax rate into the negative range.
2) his previous research from 2018 found that the there *has not* been a reduction in the tax burden of the 400 richest Americans since 1962.
Unhappy that this findings did not show what he wanted it to show, he recalculated the data with the unrealistic assumption that 100% of the cooperate tax burden is paid by shareholders (an insane assumption). This “tweak” allowed Mr. Zucman to get the result he wanted, as the below chart shows
3) Mr. Zucman is dividing the payroll taxes paid by the 400 richest Americans by their total income rather than dividing it by the income where the cap takes place. ($169,000) This allows Zucman to assert that the richest 400 Americans basically have a 0% payroll tax. What he ignores is that benefits are capped as well.
What a fricking fraud
Posted on 5/16/24 at 3:55 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Leftist lies...
Film at Eleven
Film at Eleven
Posted on 5/16/24 at 4:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Liberals eat this shite up.
They honestly think if you earn $1 you pay more than someone making over $400k
They honestly think if you earn $1 you pay more than someone making over $400k
Posted on 5/16/24 at 4:48 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
In the aggregate, the top 10% wage earners pay 76% of tax revenues.
The bottom 50 % of wage earners account for 2.3 % of tax revenues.
The bottom 50 % of wage earners account for 2.3 % of tax revenues.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
We need to uncap social security taxes it would fix a lot of problems regarding the deficit
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:29 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
We need to uncap social security taxes it would fix a lot of problems regarding the deficit
Yeah because they have done so well with the program the last 90 years.
“Give a crackhead more crack, that’ll fix their addiction.”
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:30 pm to cardboardboxer
Screw you. We paid more this year than most will pay in their lifetime. We also will likely not see mush, if any, of the money we paid into SS.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:36 pm to cardboardboxer
Uncapping social security taxes would buy SS a grand total of 5 years of extra solvency, would take taxes on the rich to their revenue maximizing rates (meaning you couldn’t tax them any higher for new benefits such as college, healthcare, etc), and would amount to a large tax increase on those making under 200k
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:43 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
If I have to choose between that and the Fed fixing it out the back door by inflating the debt away via a tax on everyone I would much rather increase taxes on people making over $200k.
Plus you add in means testing benefits and it’s more like 10+ years of solvency.
Plus you add in means testing benefits and it’s more like 10+ years of solvency.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:55 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Liberals eat this shite up.
They honestly think if you earn $1 you pay more than someone making over $400k
I'm guessing they are talking as a percentage of total income.
A household making $100k may be paying a larger tax burden as a percentage of their income than a household making over $1 million annually.
If you take the total taxes on payroll, real estate and personal property, gasoline, food, etc. paid by a household making $100k/year and compare that to a household making $1 million/year the household making $100k is likely paying more in taxes as a percentage of their annual income vs a household making $1 million/year.
This post was edited on 5/16/24 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 5/16/24 at 6:57 pm to Bass Tiger
Those households are paying more than 40% before payroll, real estate and personal property, gasoline, food, etc.? Bc the $1M households do plus they pay more in all the other categories.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 7:17 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Those households are paying more than 40% before payroll, real estate and personal property, gasoline, food, etc.? Bc the $1M households do plus they pay more in all the other categories.
A household with $100k income is paying somewhere around 25% in payroll taxes, factor in real estate and personal property tax, that's probably another 5-7% of total income, gasoline has state and federal taxes combined that run as high as .35 cents/gallon, local sales tax in a metropolitan area is generally over 8% ......doesn't take much math to see a household income of $100k is approaching 45-50% in taxes.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 7:27 pm to Bass Tiger
Do you think the $1M household isn’t also paying those taxes of higher valued real estate and personal property? They are also paying all the others. I get that it cuts in a little deeper to the $100k but the $1M household also gets zero deductions. They are easily paying 45-50% of income, as well. $1M just isn’t that big a jump these days when it comes to tax percentages.
Posted on 5/16/24 at 8:02 pm to cardboardboxer
Means testing? Yeah, let’s punish those “rich” bastards that put money in a 401-k or IRA for forty years and give it to the grasshoppers. They act like it is one percenters but the reality is 53 percenters.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News