Top 3% of Taxpayers paid majority of income taxes in 2016.

Marxist notions, lol. In what way? More like Keynesian notions but I will allow that I follow some socialist theory.

There are many schools of thought on the subject besides just Marx and the idea has evolved over time so to call someone a Marxist is a little like showing yourself to be illiterate on the subject - unless you can explain and quantify your argument in some way.

Just calling someone a Marxist to try and invalidate an argument is a very right-wing american ad hominim that is largely meaningless in more sophisticated discussions of economics.

I didn't really make a diatribe against Rand either.

If you take her seriously that is fine. Rather than do a lot of typing I merely provided a source that would provide you with a similar opinion of her as mine.

Can you justify Rand's central premise in some way? Everyone should have the same right to freedom, right? Not just those that can afford state protection of their property rights and access to land and resources.

 

Yea sure and people win the lottery too,so what. What are the probabilities of this happening to the very poor and are they inceasing or decreasing?

Do you have any stats?

 

Why are you so concerned with a secretary who is in the top earnings categories in order for Buffet to pay a lower RATE than she? Why do you conflate the capital gains rate, what Buffet mostly pays, and the earned income rate which she, at least it is being painted as, she mostly pays.

How would he even know what effective tax rate his secretary is paying?

 

Again you conflate wealth with income, they are NOT the same. Wealth has nothing to do with our tax system. The purpose of the tax system is pay for the cost of government and insure the good welfare of the government. Not to give you other people's money because you believe it unfair they have more than you or earn more than you. If you care about people would would care about increasing the value of their labor by increasing the value of the jobs the work and increasing their abilities to work those jobs as valuable employees.

 

That is not what the OP said.

Wages have gone up and down for decades, they are still trying to get back to where they were when Bush and the Republicans were in control after the disastrous years under Democrat control when those gains were lost. And we are FINALLY in a good position to do that with over 7,000 open jobs and low unemployment and hopefully making a dent in the low LFPR.

What do you mean "cost" cost to whom? Businesses face enough cost and you want to add some more vague cost to them? What are they paying for by this cost you want to apply to them that they don't already pay for? Who do you think will ultimately pay that cost?

 

It is you and your fellow progs entire argument about the tax rates the highest earners pay, that it's not "fair". It's not "equal". THAT is a pathetic premise on which to base the tax system.

 

I think the tax burden has already been shifted to the middle and working class through payroll and consumption taxes. Once Trump's tax cuts and increased spending have a chance to percolate through the system, you will see who is going to pay the cost. Or maybe you think a trillion in deficit is a good thing.

 

"This first section provides a detailed overview of trends in wages and compensation (including employer-provided benefits such as contributions to pensions and health insurance premiums) for the vast majority of American workers in recent decades. It pays particular attention to growth in hourly compensation when possible, simply because rising annual earnings obtained by working more hours cannot be fairly classified as an increase in Americans’ living standards. Further, the key driver of unequal annual labor income growth has been inequalities of hourly wages rather than increased inequalities of work hours.

The section begins with an examination of the disconnect between pay and productivity; turns to an analysis of wage trends by decile; presents wage gaps by gender and race and ethnicity; demonstrates that sluggish wage growth has not been driven by nonwage benefits such as employer-provided health insurance and pensions; and concludes by showing that the fruits of productivity growth have mainly accrued to those at the top."

https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/

"Over the entire period between 1979 and 1995, wage growth was faster at higher wages than at lower wages–the higher the percentile in the wage distribution, the faster the wage growth. However, starting in the late 1980s, low-wage workers began experiencing wage growth either comparable to or even exceeding that of middle-wage workers. Consequently, the wage gap between the middle and bottom lessened and then stabilized (data on this are presented later in Table 9 and discussed in some detail in section five). Increases in the minimum wage in the early and late 1990s, along with low unemployment, can explain most of the closing of this gap between the bottom and the middle."

"After the momentum of the late 1990s/early 2000s full-employment labor market was broken by the recession and jobless recovery of the early 2000s, the poor and unequal pre-1995 wage trends reasserted themselves. Wages of the bottom 30 percent of wage earners fell between 2000 and 2013, while wages of workers between the 40th and 70th percentiles were essentially stagnant (growing 0.2 percent annually or less). Only the 95th percentile saw wage growth that even closely approached 1 percent annually. If we look just at wage trends since 2002, after the momentum from the wage growth of the late 1990s had faded, wages have been falling for the bottom 70 percent–by as much as 0.6 percent annually for the bottom 30 percent (see appendix tables and Mishel and Shierholz 2013)."

 

Can you correct the formatting on your post please.

 

So long as the belief of Democrats is that the poor will remain poor, that the middle class is not moving forward, etc, we will find posters making the claims you make.

The lottery is a extreme case. A person or more wins all of them. At least over time.

Do I have stats? I could help a lot were I to know the stats you are wanting to see?

If it is the poor are doing better, in my past, I have pulled up stats. And they showed 5 quintiles. Better I believe than the routine 3 groups. This was over the Reagan era and the Stats showed the 5 groups improved. In some cases, not a lot, we saw the rich losing wealth. We saw a very few of the extreme poor gaining. But let me show you a case story of a homeless man with a son with him, living in a Subway in the SF Bay area that became a multimillionaire. They made a movie about this man.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38144980

I know a lot more of his story than below. What fired his rocket was a man driving a Ferrari. He encountered Chris who asked the car driver, what do I do to own one? The man then hired him in the stock brokers office. Why do this for Chris? Chris stated he had a goal. This goal means he had to plan. And when he worked, he worked for his goals.

To get him, you have to know all of his story.

.

 

One in the same, based on the 5th plank of the communist manifesto, central control of currency.

 

Sorry but I didn't ever make that statement. Sad you have to lie about what I said but I guess thst is the best you can do.

 

I think you just proved that either you have never paid taxes, or you have no understanding of the tax code.

And very few earn more than I do but nice try. That said anyone who makes their money by working does subsidize me since almost all of my income now comes from capiral gains that is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.

 

You

 

Interesting that despite your claims you haven't been able to actually show any errors I have made about how the system actually works.

 

Doesn't answer the question .

 

Yes however my saying that still doesn't support your lie about what you claim I said which was:

"It is you and your fellow progs entire argument about the tax rates the highest earners pay, that it's not "fair". It's not "equal". THAT is a pathetic premise on which to base the tax system."

I think if you were actually paying attention you would find that I never said " the tax rates the highest earners pay is not fair" Nor would you find I ever said " the rates the highest earners pay is not fair"

Now you might find I did say lower rates for capital gains aren't fair. Or stepped up basis for inheritance isn't fair, or any number of specific parts of the tax code aren't fair.

 

A claim as misleading as the anti-gun movement's claim that "Over 33,000 Americans die every year from gun violence".

If we had a flat tax, say 20%/no deductions, a person making $100,000 will pay more in taxes than a person making $30,000. Does this mean the person making more money is more patriotic or deserving more "rights" or that the person making less deserves less respect, less rights? No, it does not.

 

How would you like me to increase the value of the jobs people work?

 

Why not pay attention?

 

And you have not seen other posters claiming I am making errors. Funny innit?

 

Another internet rich guy just begging to pay high taxes. Never heard that before.

Every dollar is not taxed the same.
A dollar earned is a dollar earned, no matter if it's your first or your millionth.

 

Will if you ever manage to actually talk specifics.

 

Actually a lot of people would advocate for a tax code that results in less wealth inequality instead of a tax system that increases it. I do know it shocks people to whom their few bucks is so precious that others don't measure their own worth by their money or are sompisessive of their pittance that they can't envision a more equitable tax system.

And no your first dollar is not taxed at the same rate as your last dollar. And a dollar earned from capital gains is not the same as a dollar earned from labor according to the tax code.