Income Inequality

[KUSA]

How does income tax effect the rich? They already have money. It's not like they are working a job paying income tax.

[Minimalist]

You're kidding, right?



When you look into some of these "falt tax" schemes that rich motherfuckers are always trumpeting you find that they exempt capital gains and dividends...but not your wages.  Guess where they get most of their income from?

Whenever these cocksuckers come up with a plan you can bet your ass it is for their benefit, not yours.

[Jenny A]

How does income tax effect the rich? They already have money. It's not like they are working a job paying income tax.

That's pretty simple.  Interest is subject to income tax.

I have saved some money on which I'd like to retire on in about twenty years.  If I bury it in the back yard, it won't be worth much in twenty years.  Because of inflation (even the low levels of inflation we have now) it's value shrinks unless I invest it.  In a bank account the interest I earn on it is less than inflation, so the value of my money shrinks.  Yet I still get taxed on the interest. In the stock market (mutual funds in my case) it actually grows a little beyond inflation though I do have to put up with some risk of loss.  If you tax the income on my savings whether it be interest, or otherwise, I either gain less, or the real value of what I have shrinks more.

I could put it into something that appreciates but doesn't accrue income tax on the appreciation like real estate, except that when I sold it to retire, I have to pay taxes on the appreciation then.  Oh, and property taxes now.  Taxes are pretty hard to avoid.

If I were really wealthy, my problem would remain the same.  

What Reagen did was reduce the % owed in the top income tax bracket and reduce the amount owed on capital gains. 
The very wealthy benefit from both.  Those saving for retirement benefit from reductions in capital gains and taxes owed on interest. IRAs and 401Ks provide some tax relief for retirement savings.

That's why flat tax proponents are usually wealthy.  They want to tax earned income only and not interest or capital gains.

[Polaris]

Reagan slashed income tax rates on the wealthiest from 70 to 28%.

Then he tinkered around the edges of some deductions but also raised Social Security taxes and gasoline taxes.

Republicunts don't mid regressive taxes like social security and gasoline and sales taxes because those hit the poor disproportionately.  But income taxes hit THEM and the motherfuckers won't stand for that!

It's going on in Kansas as we speak.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/governmen...52741.html

Brownback's plan to hike Kansas sin taxes gets little support in the Legislature


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/governmen...rylink=cpy

But heaven forbid that rich motherfuckers pay their fair share.

I see you didn't address the AMT....it basically keeps the lower end of the 1% (the rich who aren't rich enough to employ the use of tax loopholes) paying the lion's share of the tax burden.

[John V]

Are those charts adjusted for inflation?

If so, what's the problem? 

Everyone's doing better.

It isn't a zero-sum game. 

[Tiberius]

That's why flat tax proponents are usually wealthy.  They want to tax earned income only and not interest or capital gains.

That isn't what flat tax means. Flat tax means the tax rate is the same regardless of the amount being taxed, e.g. a person earning $20k a year would get taxed 10% say, and a person earning $20 million a year would also get taxed 10%. Flat tax says nothing about what should be taxed; it's a way of implementing the tax rate.

You can implement a flat tax policy which taxes income, interest, capital gains, etc. You could even set different tax rates for each of those income types (e.g. 10% income tax, 20% capital gains) and still call it a flat tax, as long as the tax rate wasn't affected by the actual amount being taxed.

[Jenny A]

That's why flat tax proponents are usually wealthy.  They want to tax earned income only and not interest or capital gains.

That isn't what flat tax means. Flat tax means the tax rate is the same regardless of the amount being taxed, e.g. a person earning $20k a year would get taxed 10% say, and a person earning $20 million a year would also get taxed 10%. Flat tax says nothing about what should be taxed; it's a way of implementing the tax rate.

You can implement a flat tax policy which taxes income, interest, capital gains, etc. You could even set different tax rates for each of those income types (e.g. 10% income tax, 20% capital gains) and still call it a flat tax, as long as the tax rate wasn't affected by the actual amount being taxed.

I know it's not what flat tax means.  But, flat tax proponents in the U.S. almost always want to tax only earned income and not capital gains, interest, or business income.  

[Tiberius]

Ah, OK. Misunderstood your post.

[Aractus]

Here's a graph from a journal article (Marmot & Bell 2011):



Fig. 8. Percentage shares of equivalized total gross and post-tax income, by quintile groups for all households, 1978-2007/8. Source: Office for National Statistics (Jones et al., 2009).

It shows income inequality in the UK and in particular it shows that income inequality in the UK has gotten worse and not better since 1978.

[Minimalist]

That's why flat tax proponents are usually wealthy.  They want to tax earned income only and not interest or capital gains.

That isn't what flat tax means. Flat tax means the tax rate is the same regardless of the amount being taxed, e.g. a person earning $20k a year would get taxed 10% say, and a person earning $20 million a year would also get taxed 10%. Flat tax says nothing about what should be taxed; it's a way of implementing the tax rate.

You can implement a flat tax policy which taxes income, interest, capital gains, etc. You could even set different tax rates for each of those income types (e.g. 10% income tax, 20% capital gains) and still call it a flat tax, as long as the tax rate wasn't affected by the actual amount being taxed.

Yes, Divi Tiberio, you can.  But that is not part of the plan.

And Polecat, the AMT was a "fix" to the income tax law (not part of the law itself) which goes back to 1970 because even then rich fucks were gaming the system.  But that is precisely why they want to exempt dividends and capital gains from income.....while still taxing your wages.  If there was no AMT they wouldn't give a fuck about income taxes.  As Leona Helmsly said, infamously:  "Only the little people pay taxes."

---

I realize I forgot to include a link.  Here's one sample from a familiar name.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/07/pf/taxes...-flat-tax/

Here are the few details we know about how Paul would structure his flat tax:

Single, flat tax rate: 17%

Paychecks: Individuals would pay 17% tax on wages and salaries. The net effective rate they pay would almost certainly be lower assuming they're allowed to take an exemption, which is typical under a flat tax. For example, say you gross $100 in income and get to exempt $20. You'd only pay 17% on the $80 that remains. That works out to be $13.60, or just 13.6% of your gross income.

Business income: Businesses would be subject to the same 17% rate.

Investment income: Capital gains, dividends and interest would be tax free.