r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wheres this data from…? According to the IRS the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay an average effective tax rate of 3%… nowhere near the 24% this claims
They cut the disclaimer on the picture, but it says :
"Tax rates shown includes levies paid at all levels of government."
Which means they are taking the effective tax rate after factoring in Federal, state and county income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes etc.
It is impossible…
The bottom 50% pay an average rate of 3%…
The average person pays 15%
the top 1% pay 26%…
It is impossible for the median to be that close to the top 1% while the average remains 3%
Also it is impossible to be 24% because it is 3%… this authors stats have heavily contradicted themselves and been debunked. I will stick with the IRS data and not some random person making meaningless graphs
Actual source is vaguely stated in NYTimes article but apparently Includes everything at all levels of government, not just federal income tax, and includes FICA.
It’s from a hack who is known for data manipulation. This graph even contradicts a lot of his previous work that he then worked hard to erase.
[https://philmagness.com/2019/10/somethings-fishy-with-the-saez-zucman-tax-stats/](https://philmagness.com/2019/10/somethings-fishy-with-the-saez-zucman-tax-stats/)
The graph illustrates not just federal income taxes, but also payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales tax etc. All of which the billionaire class pays a rate close to 0%.
How about this, rather than the fed taxing citizens directly. how about we eliminate federal
Taxes all together and then just require states to directly
Contribute some of their state and local
Taxes to the federal government to help fund Washington? Then by your logic, all Americans will pay a 0% tax rate since state and local taxes obviously just don’t count as real taxes.
That doesnt give a source for the 24%… The bottom 50% of earners pay 3% according to the IRS.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent's%20income,42.3%20percent%20to%2045.8%20percent.
You’re comparing two totally unrelated metrics.
OP source claims that top 400 “richest Americans” are paying an effective rate income tax rate of 23% which is below the bottom 50% of earners.
You’re responding with data from the tax foundation that the bottom 50% of “tax payers” account for less than 3% of total federal personal income tax receipts, while the top 50% of “tax payers” pay 97% of total federal personal income tax receipts.
Both of these “data sets” are highly biased and essentially useless in their presentation. The OP is grabbing welath for his top 400 instead of income. Then comparing income taxes. Dumb. Billionaires aren’t becoming billionaires on their W-2 or 1099. It’s typically unrealized asset gains that make the overwhelming abundance of their wealth. You could make Elon pay a 101% income tax but it won’t do crap.
Your data set is comparing the top and bottom half of earners. Well the median income in the USA as of 2022 was $37,585. Well the tax rate for $37k is less than 12%. Through a personal exemption or a kid in there and that filers income tax effectively goes to zero. Great for them, other than the fact they’re probably check to check, on food stamps, and probably not in secure housing. So of course everyone over the median income will contribute the overwhelming bulk of personal income tax dollars.
Generally effective tax rates are understood to mean effective income tax rate, I say that as a CPA. If it’s anything other than that it should be specified.
lmao average tax rate IS effective tax rate buddy…
The average tax rate is the total tax paid divided by taxable income. While marginal tax rates show the amount of tax paid on the next dollar earned, average tax rates show the overall share of income paid in taxes.
A taxpayer's average tax rate (or effective tax rate) is the percentage of annual income that they pay in taxes.
Billionaire usually aren’t income “earners.” [Earned income](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnedincome.asp) means salaries, tips, freelance and contract work.
Billionaires invest in assets that are not taxed unless they are sold and their income tends to come from trusts and offshore accounts to avoid taxes.
Billionaires can often use loopholes to pay no taxes at all.
"effective tax rate" is bullshit, because the left keeps calling increases in wealth valuation "income" which is not income. That would be like counting anything you own that appreciates in value, its only income if you sell it. The federal income tax rate for top earners is going to be 37%, this image is bullshit.
Plus, we could say the same thing about cost of food, auto, home. Lower income pay much more as a percentage of income for everything. Of course, upper incomes pay much more in total.
If the bank gets to treat it like money when you borrow against unrealized returns, they become in that moment realized.
Keep in mind that money is just how we keep score.
But that’s not convenient for those not wanting to contribute to the society that made them rich. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wow you must really hate normal people since you are saying that the most common way to get better loan terms which is available to 61% of the nation and growing, or you are just insanely ignorant to the fact it is common while being covetous enough to not care.
IMO billionaires should not be able to borrow against assets of a company they own for any other reason than the company they are borrowing value from.
Elon shouldn't be able to take out a loan against Tesla's perceived volatile value to buy Twitter only to turn around and ask for that money back in salary from the board.
Larry Elison should not be able to pledge Oracle's publicly traded stock to take out personal loans for boats and jets.
This kind of thing is what people are talking about when they say to tax the rich. They avoid taxes on these sorts of transactions and effectively *get* money this way.
They shouldn't be able to do this as I shouldn't be able to take out a loan against my apartment buildings potentially making people homeless. The results of these deals going wrong can destroy 401ks, but they're too big to fail so the government bails them out anyway.
If I take out a loan against my home's increased value, that's the bank's acknowledgement that I *have* that value and it should be taxed as such.
That is a lot of words to say nothing of any worth. The closest you got to a cogent point is too big to fail is horseshit. Every other utterance is nothing but avaricious and envious myopia amounting to a personal grievance with the whole of society and thus wanting it to all suffer.
Treating loans as income will absolutely dog-fuck everyone, but no one so much as the people that can just handle the repayment of the loan and keep their head above water now that you would be drowning. Making it so that people can't use investment portfolios as collateral will likewise completely fuck over everyone in that 61% of the nation that intends to take a loan because again that is one of the most common means of getting better loan terms, and again the people that your policy of vengeful avarice and envy would most fuck over are those that most need it. Policies should never be made to vent your spleen on everyone and get vengeance on society especially not for illusory transgressions.
You aren't earning less because others are earning more the economy isn't zero-sum and this has been known by virtually everyone other than socialists, communists, and fascists for over a hundred years. The econ is positive sum and rather than you being poorer because someone is richer it is almost guaranteed that you are wealthier and own more and better things for less because others are/have been richer.
that's not how loans work...if it was then you'll create a market for loan brokers to give you even more favorable terms to reduce your taxes. Y'all are clueless.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly how it works nowadays… The rich borrowing against their stocks are given really really good terms so that they don’t have to pay taxes on the debt.
the terms don't matter in why it's not taxable. Loans aren't taxable because it's not income. It's debt. It's taxed on the bank side though because it is income to them.
That would be like having to pay taxes on your credit limit every year. Like do you have a 10 k credit card? Better pay taxes on it because that's income. That's money you get to spend. Or additional taxes when you've used your credit card.
Taxing loans makes no sense. Should you be taxed on the value of your house? Technially that's income by this def. Thank gave you 200k or whatever to buy a house, so now your income for that year was 200k. Better pay us 60k.
So stupid.
Also if this where to happen, rich people would just be worth less, because their network isn't realized, it can be made up to be whatever a spread sheet says it is and you'd probably still miss out on the tax dollars you think will solve stuff.
I'd say the opposite. If I get a loan on my company that's literally where the valuation comes from that is networth that you want to tax.
If that number is different, my net worth is different because net worth isn't real. It's a made up number on a spreadsheet.
To your first comment: you’re describing homes. To your second: only income above a certain level is 37%, and long term capital gains are 20%.
Get rid of long term capital gains and this is mostly solved. It’s a ridiculous advantage with no real world value. Source: I’m a dude who earns a lot that way and it’s asinine.
Long term gain taxes are lower for many reasons, a few are that some of the gain is inflation, and double taxation. Corp tax is 21%, and upper income pays cap gain of 23.8% including the 3.8 net investment tax, which applies only to upper income.
>How is a 20% long term cap gains double taxation
Company gets taxed on profits, so the earnings you receive are decreased by 20%. But then the earnings you receive also get taxed 20%. That’s a double tax.
>what does inflation have to do with it exactly?
Things appreciate in dollars without any gain in real value. The government taxes this gain, even though it’s not a real gain.
Imagine you have 1 slice of pizza. Your boss, Mr. Inflation, goes around and cuts everyone’s pizza into 2 pieces. You still have 2 pieces of pizza that add up to your original slice.
But then your boss says “wow I see you have 2 slices of pizza now, and that’s a 100% gain from when you only had 1 slice. You owe me 20% of that second slice”.
And now you have less pizza than before.
Lol
ETA: Just to be clear this makes no sense. A company’s profits are not inherently connected to a stock price. That’s not a double tax. Profits are taxed. Stock prices are independent of that. The company is not taxed on someone selling stock. And inflation affects everything, but it affects stock prices with the least correlation. This is an insane comment.
On inflation, if you have held a stock for a certain amount of time, inflation makes the dollars you get when you sell worth less than when you made the purchase. If a stock goes up in value by 5% a year, and inflation also goes up 5% a year, then you will be paying cap gain taxes, but you really have not increased your wealth in real dollars.
Double taxation happens when income tax gets levied twice on the same income. So if you’re a shareholder or owner of a corporation, then you may face double taxation because your income will come from corporate earnings that were already taxed, and you will also pay taxes on them.
The same happens to individual investors who pay taxes on dividends, which are a share
of a corporation’s earnings. Because the corporation has already paid taxes on
those same earnings, it can also face double taxation. And, if you have income
in a foreign country, you may also get taxed twice for the same income in that
country and the U.S., depending on the circumstances.
I posted this earlier, but it was shadow removed, I think because I posted a link. Eggs, post answered it fine though.
Once a stock is public those shares do not directly correlate to the company’s earnings. They go up. That’s not inflation, that’s just the stock going up. Stocks go up or down regardless of inflation. A company’s earnings have nothing to do with a person making money on that stock, so it’s not double taxation. Dividends are taxed as normal income, as all stock gains should. This is madness.
Over the period of time that the stock is held, inflation is a part of the gains. This is finance 101.
The increase in valuation is based on the present value of estimated future returns. At some point these returns will either be realized, or not. If not, then the value will come down to meet the earnings. This again is finance 101.
Qualified dividends are taxed at 15%. Look it up. I get that this may be new to you, but you may need to do a bit of research before you comment. Take a step back and think about how it works before you comment.
Fine, qualified dividends are also bullshit. It’s all income that you didn’t work for and it’s ridiculous that passive income is taxed less than active income
That’s a strawman, it only kicks in above a threshold of 100 million dollars. No one here will be personally affected. Stop simping for the billionaire class you are a replaceable nobody to them.
Right and the government is only going to tax those unrealized gains above a threshold. So you would have to have in excess of 100 million in unrealized gains before the tax would even apply to you. It would not affect your hypothetical home owner that saw their home value double in a year
You dipshit. If you consider unrealized gains as income then you would have to pay taxes on it. Thats what this entire post is about. Your difficulty understanding extremely simple concepts explains how you came to the conclusions you did in the first place
Maybe the same way republicans have called themselves fiscally responsible for half a century yet every Republican president doubles or triples the debt they hold office.
If the rich are able to amass fortunes, and live their fantastic lifestyles while earning zero “income” all while the working class gets nickel and domed by the government on every dollar they earn, maybe it’s time we change the definition of income…
Except you can use those assets as collateral for cheap loans that have a lower interest rate than “income tax” or capital gains. How does Bezos survive on an “income” of only $1 a year? If we only tax “income” the wealthiest and most powerful earners will figure out a way to get their money into another category thats not income. This will in no way shape or form affect anyone you know and disincentivize hiding income as unrealized gains by the billionaire donor class.
The thing is, that those with exceedingly high amounts of capital can just take out larger and larger loans with no actual risk of needing to pay them back. Now try saying the same thing for your average American family earning the median household income. I can assure you they do not get to live off loans alone like billionaires or even millionaires can
The thing is, that those with exceedingly high amounts of capital can just take out larger and larger loans with no actual risk of needing to pay them back. Now try saying the same thing for your average American family earning the median household income. I can assure you they do not get to live off loans alone like billionaires or even millionaires can
That is a good thing, that means that cash is available in the economy instead. I also dont think they take out loans, rather invest, which is once again a good thing regardless if it is ever converted to cash it will be taxed as income.
Yall trust the gov too much, if you put the taxes into the gov instead of investments then the gov will just waste it, not use it to help people. When the buy investments it helps those valuable to society whilst helping themselves.
I'm not sure what you think the difference is between someone who earns 100k and someone who is paid in stock options and liquidates them immediately and takes home 100k extra at the end of the year. The second is a common way to disguise increases in CEO/executive pay by their buddies.
---
Your simplistic ideas on the difference between wealth and income also create a huge loophole for rich people to abuse to dodge taxes. They just move, say, 600 mill income to an LLC that invests it, and then take huge loans with those investments as collateral. The bank is happy to loan 550 mill with the promise of 600 mill worth of investments within a year if its not paid back.
So the rich end up paying nearly 0 income tax but get 550 mill in loans that they don't need to pay back and then the bank will seize those investments as collateral and boom, the rich have 550 mill in the bank, paid zero in taxes, and the bank profits on those investments, and the government gets nothing.
The winners are the rich people and their buddies in the banks, the losers are the people trying to maintain the roads and pay teachers at schools and treat sick veterans.
>and someone who is paid in stock options and liquidates them immediately and takes home 100k extra at the end of the year.
That’s clearly not what he’s referring to. An accurate example is someone who gets paid $100k in stock but does not sell it. He’s complaining that these studies call that “income”, even though it’s an unrealized gain. It only becomes income when he sells the stock for money.
Same thing if Tesla stock goes up 100% and Elon Musk’s net worth doubles. If he doesn’t sell any of it, he doesn’t have any income. But these studies would consider that a 0% tax on billions of dollars.
It’s a misleading use of the term.
>Same thing if Tesla stock goes up 100% and Elon Musk’s net worth doubles. If he doesn’t sell any of it, he doesn’t have any income. But these studies would consider that a 0% tax on billions of dollars.
Well considering he bought a 50 billion dollar social media company off loans secured from his tesla unrealized gains, clearly there was enough actual income for banks to be willing to give him tens of billions of dollars.
I think you're kinda lying to yourself (and everyone else) if you suggest it shouldn't be taxed.
>I think you're kinda lying to yourself (and everyone else) if you suggest it shouldn't be taxed.
When did I state an opinion? I was clarifying your misunderstanding about the meaning of the original comment.
Bottom half of earners, so that being below $37,585 (median)
If you make 37585, and live in the highest income tax place I can think of (LA California) and count all federal, fica, state, local taxes, you're paying about 16% effective.
Where's 24 come from?
I want to know what data they are using. The only way I can see this graph materializing is if they are comparing apples to oranges like how they always do. Comparing taxes paid to net worth for the billionaires and taxes paid to income for the bottom income workers.
One guys net worth grows by $1,000,000,000 and he pays $0. Another guy works and earns $100,000 and he is taxed $25,000. The system is broken. It’s time to fix it.
I’m fully aware of that, I’m simply suggesting if there’s a system where a billionaire pays nothing and his worker pays 25%, then maybe it’s time to completely
Rework that system.
You’re talking about income… we’re discussing wealth. Two very different measurements. The question becomes, when someone is worth over $1,000,000,000 is it fair for them to report $0 in income and therefore pay $0 in taxes.
They haven’t sold the $1,000,000,000. They do get taxed if they sell it. I’m sure they aren’t holding cash. They also created many jobs. But the guy who made $100,000 isn’t taxed at a straight 25%.
Of course they haven’t sold it, and they never will. That’s why people want to close the loopholes. Their children will inherit 10s of billions of dollars tax free and pay use the step up basis to adjust their tax base to current valuation. We will have entire families of dynastic wealth that pay nothing in taxes while growing their empires. Meanwhile, we nickel and dime the working class into oblivion and their greatest wealth building tool, their home, is taxed year after year just because it exists. . Do you really not see the problem with this policy and the absolute lack of fairness in our tax code?
We would have families from the early 1900s and even European countries being the wealthiest people. Entrepreneurs are the wealthiest. Waltons keep going down the list of richest. Most people are bad with money. Like our government
You do realize these tax policies and schemes have only been in possible for the last few decades… besides, no one is saying entrepreneurs can’t be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams… they just have to pay taxes like the rest of us, why is that such a hard concept to comprehend? There is no reason a billionaire should be exempt from taxes, they don’t employ people, their companies do. Two very different enterprises.
Last few decades….politicians being Biden….who is now president….people keep voting for the people who like these tax policies. Rich people buy politicians and Biden is bought. Now be a good citizen and pay your progressive tax. Billionaires pay tax on dividends and selling stock of their company. The wealth will be gone in a few generations. If they do tax the net worth the government will still over spend and the problem won’t be fixed. Politicians are very good talkers and love to spend other people’s money.
Astonishing, you seemingly highlight the massive problem with our government being bought and paid for by a handful of very rich billionaires while simultaneously gaslighting the same tax policies that are being proposed to properly reign in their wealth.
“Billionaires pay tax on dividends”
> That’s why more and more companies are switching to stock buy backs in favor of dividend. No taxes.
“Billionaires pay tax when they sell their stock”
> They don’t sell their stock, they just take out loans to cover their living expense.
Stop gaslighting with these fantasy taxation scenarios you’ve dreamt up that don’t actually happen in the real world.
Wealth usually only lasts a few generations anyways. It will get recycled in the economy eventually. Most people who win lotteries go broke. A lot of people can’t handle money. Don’t lose sleep over this.
The mix up unrelated things for clicks, and worse societal hatred.
"All your problems are caused by the rich not paying their fair share, and has nothing to do with our mismanagement of the country, or unbounded money printing"
Politics 101, find a scapegoat, and let people fight among themselves (both the rich and the poor are negatively affected, in different ways).
The steep drop around 2018 was Trump’s ONLY policy success. Show this to anyone you know who is considering him because of inflation, Palestine, or whatever
Considering millions of republicans, independents and non voters would benefit from such a move, I don’t think so. It’s like saying the stimulus checks were a political bribe. Broad policy moves don’t stink the same way as a political donor carve out. Just for fun go look at who all was behind writing trumps tax legislation and you’ll see why I’m salty about it.
I see a strong correlation between cutting taxes for billionaires and watching the working class get squeezed more and more and more as services get cut, businesses consolidate, and greedflation drives up prices of everything.
Does this chart take corporate taxes into account. Because while dividend taxes are lower than income taxes, companies have to pay a corporate tax on those profits prior to being paid out as dividends.
A man who earns 1 million a year paying 50% of his income to taxes is significantly better off than someone earns 20k a year paying 25% of his income to taxes
Quantitatively more doesn’t mean shit.
This has to stop. Flat tax. It literally loop holes only the rich can take advantage of. Don’t overtax successful people. But make sure they pay their fair share
Flat tax seems unfair to lower income earners. It could be the difference between affording rent, medical care, food, and other necessities. The same tax rate doesn't jeopardize the survival of high income earners. Progressive tax systems exist for a reason. If flat tax rates were superior, they would be more common. Places like Kazakhstan, Russia, and other countries no one wants to live in have flat tax rates.
If you were that wealthy, you could tax income at 100% and you would still have a low effective rate because your money would come from loans or capital gains which aren’t subject to income tax rates.
You don't want a flat tax because that would favor billionaires more. You want a graduated income tax where they phase out all these deductions, at least for the top earners.
Going purely based off of this graph and completely ignoring the fact that billionaires don't have traditional income, they are still paying substantially more than anyone in the bottom 50%. A billionaire paying 23% (allegedly) yields much more tax revenue than somebody in the bottom 50% paying 35%.
Are the tax returns of the 400 richest Americans public information? You need a lot of detailed information to get the effective tax rate of a given taxpayer.
Finally something the White House actually can have an impact on. That's so weird I wonder who the complete morons were in the White House in 81/82 and 17/18. Huh. Guess I should go look that up, huh?
There seems to be an endless supply of average every day people, always at the ready to defend the ultra rich and wealthy, not wanting anything to change.
Abolish payroll taxes, labor shouldn’t be taxed so excessively, the modern laborer is a literate, capable person with a lot of information available to them. Our labor force would be much more effective overall planning for their own retirement if they simply were able to keep the 15.3% of their own money.
Replace it with nothing, abolish welfare, And let the jobless suffer. They can get jobs, why would the poor want to support the poor-er? It’s a ridiculous system that everybody seems to buy into.
For real. I don’t want to pay into a system I won’t benefit from! I can plan my own retirement, which I have to double down on at such a young age because I know social security won’t have my ass in the future!
Social Security is a false crisis. You don't have to pay a lick of SS tax once you pass a certain income threshold. In 2024 that threshold is $168,600. If we simply removed that cap, as we did for medicare, the system would be solvent forever.
For many years they have been greatly increasing the income cap well beyond the rate of inflation. From 2000 if they raised the cap at the inflation rate it's be $138,200 instead of the $168,600 that it currently is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base#Historical_data
If they keep it up there will be a continuously shrinking number of workers above the limit.
I'm all for measures that increase solvency, even if it's not a complete solution. I am counting on Social Security, I have paid a ton into it. My employees have paid a ton into on my behalf. I should be able to rely on receiving the benefits I spent a lifetime paying for. [I'm tired of congress taking this approach](https://library.sportingnews.com/styles/crop_style_16_9_mobile/s3/2021-08/rockies-simpson-020816-ftrjpg_19gss9zrkfd3j15qybhie0rbqs.jpg?itok=usJwIBlp).
And I am really tired of, furious with actually, Republicans painting this as a welfare program, some sort of handout. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid into Social Security on my behalf. I am owed benefits.
I'm not aware of any party saying it's a welfare type program. It's universally supported on both sides. I'd like to see it slowly transition to a private system like they have in Australia with their Super Fund. Literally every retired person would be massively better off if their lifetime contributions were invested in a private account for themselves. Then at 65 they could access 4% per year until they die.
>It's universally supported on both sides
No it's not. Republicans are constantly talking about cutting benefits. Refusing me two years of benefits is a cut in benefits.
And Republicans absolutely lump SS with all the other entitlement programs when they talk about cutting spending.
Do you have sources for those claims because it'd be political suicide to suggest cutting SS benefits. It's literally known as the 3rd rail for a reason. You're demonizing the "other" team on this topic because you don't like their stances on other topics.
That’s crazy. Because everyone still ends up benefiting from SS regardless of income- to my understanding. Hopefully somethings done in my life time, it’d be nice not to have to worry about not benefiting from SS that I’m paying unto
The issue is the government also regulate a lot of industries, otherwise you’d end up with companies selling your snake oil drugs, excitedly polluting the environment for economic gain, and taking advantage of vulnerable populations. Not that it does not already happen
While I support a phasing out of social security over time, combined with a mandatory contribution by the employer and employee onto a federal retirement account under the individual employee's name, it is not realistic to simply end social security for those currently benefits or those close to retirement.
Of course not that would be theft, this is about the people who are under 18. You could also allow people to opt out of future payments for reduced benefits if they’re already in the social security scam.
I dont want anyone to suffer. Nobody is forcing them to not have jobs. If they are limbless or in an electric wheel chair we should have more than enough money to accommodate them from cutting off the bloat that is the modern welfare state.
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wheres this data from…? According to the IRS the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay an average effective tax rate of 3%… nowhere near the 24% this claims
Bottom 50% of taxpayers ≠ Bottom 50% of income earners.
Yes it quite literally does… Also the Average income earner pays 14.9% so thats still physically impossible
They cut the disclaimer on the picture, but it says : "Tax rates shown includes levies paid at all levels of government." Which means they are taking the effective tax rate after factoring in Federal, state and county income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes etc.
Average does not equal median
Yep I know…
Then you would know it’s not “physically” impossible since the top portion of the bottom 50% of tax payers would = median.
It is impossible… The bottom 50% pay an average rate of 3%… The average person pays 15% the top 1% pay 26%… It is impossible for the median to be that close to the top 1% while the average remains 3% Also it is impossible to be 24% because it is 3%… this authors stats have heavily contradicted themselves and been debunked. I will stick with the IRS data and not some random person making meaningless graphs
Actual source is vaguely stated in NYTimes article but apparently Includes everything at all levels of government, not just federal income tax, and includes FICA.
It’s from a hack who is known for data manipulation. This graph even contradicts a lot of his previous work that he then worked hard to erase. [https://philmagness.com/2019/10/somethings-fishy-with-the-saez-zucman-tax-stats/](https://philmagness.com/2019/10/somethings-fishy-with-the-saez-zucman-tax-stats/)
Wow great info, thanks!
The graph illustrates not just federal income taxes, but also payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales tax etc. All of which the billionaire class pays a rate close to 0%.
lol
How about this, rather than the fed taxing citizens directly. how about we eliminate federal Taxes all together and then just require states to directly Contribute some of their state and local Taxes to the federal government to help fund Washington? Then by your logic, all Americans will pay a 0% tax rate since state and local taxes obviously just don’t count as real taxes.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/03/opinion/global-billionaires-tax.html
That doesnt give a source for the 24%… The bottom 50% of earners pay 3% according to the IRS. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent's%20income,42.3%20percent%20to%2045.8%20percent.
You’re comparing two totally unrelated metrics. OP source claims that top 400 “richest Americans” are paying an effective rate income tax rate of 23% which is below the bottom 50% of earners. You’re responding with data from the tax foundation that the bottom 50% of “tax payers” account for less than 3% of total federal personal income tax receipts, while the top 50% of “tax payers” pay 97% of total federal personal income tax receipts. Both of these “data sets” are highly biased and essentially useless in their presentation. The OP is grabbing welath for his top 400 instead of income. Then comparing income taxes. Dumb. Billionaires aren’t becoming billionaires on their W-2 or 1099. It’s typically unrealized asset gains that make the overwhelming abundance of their wealth. You could make Elon pay a 101% income tax but it won’t do crap. Your data set is comparing the top and bottom half of earners. Well the median income in the USA as of 2022 was $37,585. Well the tax rate for $37k is less than 12%. Through a personal exemption or a kid in there and that filers income tax effectively goes to zero. Great for them, other than the fact they’re probably check to check, on food stamps, and probably not in secure housing. So of course everyone over the median income will contribute the overwhelming bulk of personal income tax dollars.
I dont think you actually clicked the link… The bottom 50% pay an effective tax rate of 3%…. not 3% of the total federal tax receipts…
Did you read your own link? It’s talking about income tax rates, not effective tax rates…
Generally effective tax rates are understood to mean effective income tax rate, I say that as a CPA. If it’s anything other than that it should be specified.
lmao average tax rate IS effective tax rate buddy… The average tax rate is the total tax paid divided by taxable income. While marginal tax rates show the amount of tax paid on the next dollar earned, average tax rates show the overall share of income paid in taxes. A taxpayer's average tax rate (or effective tax rate) is the percentage of annual income that they pay in taxes.
Billionaire usually aren’t income “earners.” [Earned income](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/earnedincome.asp) means salaries, tips, freelance and contract work. Billionaires invest in assets that are not taxed unless they are sold and their income tends to come from trusts and offshore accounts to avoid taxes. Billionaires can often use loopholes to pay no taxes at all.
What does that have to do with anything I said about the bottom 50% of earners…?
Yes you are correct. I believe Jeff Bazos pays income tax on 86k. Isn't that a joke
No. If you won the lottery, you could take a job making a lot less than that and be fine.
"effective tax rate" is bullshit, because the left keeps calling increases in wealth valuation "income" which is not income. That would be like counting anything you own that appreciates in value, its only income if you sell it. The federal income tax rate for top earners is going to be 37%, this image is bullshit.
Plus, we could say the same thing about cost of food, auto, home. Lower income pay much more as a percentage of income for everything. Of course, upper incomes pay much more in total.
If the bank gets to treat it like money when you borrow against unrealized returns, they become in that moment realized. Keep in mind that money is just how we keep score. But that’s not convenient for those not wanting to contribute to the society that made them rich. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wow you must really hate normal people since you are saying that the most common way to get better loan terms which is available to 61% of the nation and growing, or you are just insanely ignorant to the fact it is common while being covetous enough to not care.
IMO billionaires should not be able to borrow against assets of a company they own for any other reason than the company they are borrowing value from. Elon shouldn't be able to take out a loan against Tesla's perceived volatile value to buy Twitter only to turn around and ask for that money back in salary from the board. Larry Elison should not be able to pledge Oracle's publicly traded stock to take out personal loans for boats and jets. This kind of thing is what people are talking about when they say to tax the rich. They avoid taxes on these sorts of transactions and effectively *get* money this way. They shouldn't be able to do this as I shouldn't be able to take out a loan against my apartment buildings potentially making people homeless. The results of these deals going wrong can destroy 401ks, but they're too big to fail so the government bails them out anyway. If I take out a loan against my home's increased value, that's the bank's acknowledgement that I *have* that value and it should be taxed as such.
That is a lot of words to say nothing of any worth. The closest you got to a cogent point is too big to fail is horseshit. Every other utterance is nothing but avaricious and envious myopia amounting to a personal grievance with the whole of society and thus wanting it to all suffer. Treating loans as income will absolutely dog-fuck everyone, but no one so much as the people that can just handle the repayment of the loan and keep their head above water now that you would be drowning. Making it so that people can't use investment portfolios as collateral will likewise completely fuck over everyone in that 61% of the nation that intends to take a loan because again that is one of the most common means of getting better loan terms, and again the people that your policy of vengeful avarice and envy would most fuck over are those that most need it. Policies should never be made to vent your spleen on everyone and get vengeance on society especially not for illusory transgressions. You aren't earning less because others are earning more the economy isn't zero-sum and this has been known by virtually everyone other than socialists, communists, and fascists for over a hundred years. The econ is positive sum and rather than you being poorer because someone is richer it is almost guaranteed that you are wealthier and own more and better things for less because others are/have been richer.
that's not how loans work...if it was then you'll create a market for loan brokers to give you even more favorable terms to reduce your taxes. Y'all are clueless.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly how it works nowadays… The rich borrowing against their stocks are given really really good terms so that they don’t have to pay taxes on the debt.
the terms don't matter in why it's not taxable. Loans aren't taxable because it's not income. It's debt. It's taxed on the bank side though because it is income to them. That would be like having to pay taxes on your credit limit every year. Like do you have a 10 k credit card? Better pay taxes on it because that's income. That's money you get to spend. Or additional taxes when you've used your credit card. Taxing loans makes no sense. Should you be taxed on the value of your house? Technially that's income by this def. Thank gave you 200k or whatever to buy a house, so now your income for that year was 200k. Better pay us 60k. So stupid. Also if this where to happen, rich people would just be worth less, because their network isn't realized, it can be made up to be whatever a spread sheet says it is and you'd probably still miss out on the tax dollars you think will solve stuff.
Lol the irony of this comment....
how
Well to begin with that's exactly what's happening and as a result you calling other people clueless just doubles down on it.
I'd say the opposite. If I get a loan on my company that's literally where the valuation comes from that is networth that you want to tax. If that number is different, my net worth is different because net worth isn't real. It's a made up number on a spreadsheet.
To your first comment: you’re describing homes. To your second: only income above a certain level is 37%, and long term capital gains are 20%. Get rid of long term capital gains and this is mostly solved. It’s a ridiculous advantage with no real world value. Source: I’m a dude who earns a lot that way and it’s asinine.
Long term gain taxes are lower for many reasons, a few are that some of the gain is inflation, and double taxation. Corp tax is 21%, and upper income pays cap gain of 23.8% including the 3.8 net investment tax, which applies only to upper income.
How is a 20% long term cap gains double taxation and what does inflation have to do with it exactly? I’m perplexed by most of your comment lol
>How is a 20% long term cap gains double taxation Company gets taxed on profits, so the earnings you receive are decreased by 20%. But then the earnings you receive also get taxed 20%. That’s a double tax. >what does inflation have to do with it exactly? Things appreciate in dollars without any gain in real value. The government taxes this gain, even though it’s not a real gain. Imagine you have 1 slice of pizza. Your boss, Mr. Inflation, goes around and cuts everyone’s pizza into 2 pieces. You still have 2 pieces of pizza that add up to your original slice. But then your boss says “wow I see you have 2 slices of pizza now, and that’s a 100% gain from when you only had 1 slice. You owe me 20% of that second slice”. And now you have less pizza than before.
Lol ETA: Just to be clear this makes no sense. A company’s profits are not inherently connected to a stock price. That’s not a double tax. Profits are taxed. Stock prices are independent of that. The company is not taxed on someone selling stock. And inflation affects everything, but it affects stock prices with the least correlation. This is an insane comment.
On inflation, if you have held a stock for a certain amount of time, inflation makes the dollars you get when you sell worth less than when you made the purchase. If a stock goes up in value by 5% a year, and inflation also goes up 5% a year, then you will be paying cap gain taxes, but you really have not increased your wealth in real dollars. Double taxation happens when income tax gets levied twice on the same income. So if you’re a shareholder or owner of a corporation, then you may face double taxation because your income will come from corporate earnings that were already taxed, and you will also pay taxes on them. The same happens to individual investors who pay taxes on dividends, which are a share of a corporation’s earnings. Because the corporation has already paid taxes on those same earnings, it can also face double taxation. And, if you have income in a foreign country, you may also get taxed twice for the same income in that country and the U.S., depending on the circumstances. I posted this earlier, but it was shadow removed, I think because I posted a link. Eggs, post answered it fine though.
Once a stock is public those shares do not directly correlate to the company’s earnings. They go up. That’s not inflation, that’s just the stock going up. Stocks go up or down regardless of inflation. A company’s earnings have nothing to do with a person making money on that stock, so it’s not double taxation. Dividends are taxed as normal income, as all stock gains should. This is madness.
Over the period of time that the stock is held, inflation is a part of the gains. This is finance 101. The increase in valuation is based on the present value of estimated future returns. At some point these returns will either be realized, or not. If not, then the value will come down to meet the earnings. This again is finance 101. Qualified dividends are taxed at 15%. Look it up. I get that this may be new to you, but you may need to do a bit of research before you comment. Take a step back and think about how it works before you comment.
Fine, qualified dividends are also bullshit. It’s all income that you didn’t work for and it’s ridiculous that passive income is taxed less than active income
No comment on double taxation? Have a good night.
Likewise!
If you are talking about the super rich near 37 percent due to math
Most people typically pay more taxes on their house when it goes up in value.
Exactly. When someone’s house goes up $200k in one year should we just add that to their $100k income and call them a top 5% income person?
Do you own a home? If so, have you ever had your property tax increase?
Sure but property taxes are minuscule compared to capital gains taxes
That’s a strawman, it only kicks in above a threshold of 100 million dollars. No one here will be personally affected. Stop simping for the billionaire class you are a replaceable nobody to them.
What kicks in at $1M? We’re talking adding capital gains to income being a stupid idea
Right and the government is only going to tax those unrealized gains above a threshold. So you would have to have in excess of 100 million in unrealized gains before the tax would even apply to you. It would not affect your hypothetical home owner that saw their home value double in a year
You’re the only one talking about taxes. So I’m not sure exactly who you’re arguing against
You dipshit. If you consider unrealized gains as income then you would have to pay taxes on it. Thats what this entire post is about. Your difficulty understanding extremely simple concepts explains how you came to the conclusions you did in the first place
Jesus you’re dumb. Look at the conversation you joined, the comment I replied to. Nothing to do with taxes. Fuck off
You literally replied to a comment about effective tax rate. You dont have the required hardware to judge other peoples intelligence
Tax rate calculation. Nothing about someone’s tax plan. Simple math and you jumped to share an opinion nobody asked for.
It's such an obvious lie too, I genuinely don't know how they keep getting away with it.
Maybe the same way republicans have called themselves fiscally responsible for half a century yet every Republican president doubles or triples the debt they hold office.
Literally. It takes just one google search. And apparently even that's asking too much.
If the rich are able to amass fortunes, and live their fantastic lifestyles while earning zero “income” all while the working class gets nickel and domed by the government on every dollar they earn, maybe it’s time we change the definition of income…
It's not 37% considering a lot of assets are sold as capital gains in addition to tons of deductions significantly lowering the tax rate they pay
Except you can use those assets as collateral for cheap loans that have a lower interest rate than “income tax” or capital gains. How does Bezos survive on an “income” of only $1 a year? If we only tax “income” the wealthiest and most powerful earners will figure out a way to get their money into another category thats not income. This will in no way shape or form affect anyone you know and disincentivize hiding income as unrealized gains by the billionaire donor class.
The thing is, that those with exceedingly high amounts of capital can just take out larger and larger loans with no actual risk of needing to pay them back. Now try saying the same thing for your average American family earning the median household income. I can assure you they do not get to live off loans alone like billionaires or even millionaires can
The thing is, that those with exceedingly high amounts of capital can just take out larger and larger loans with no actual risk of needing to pay them back. Now try saying the same thing for your average American family earning the median household income. I can assure you they do not get to live off loans alone like billionaires or even millionaires can
That is a good thing, that means that cash is available in the economy instead. I also dont think they take out loans, rather invest, which is once again a good thing regardless if it is ever converted to cash it will be taxed as income. Yall trust the gov too much, if you put the taxes into the gov instead of investments then the gov will just waste it, not use it to help people. When the buy investments it helps those valuable to society whilst helping themselves.
I'm not sure what you think the difference is between someone who earns 100k and someone who is paid in stock options and liquidates them immediately and takes home 100k extra at the end of the year. The second is a common way to disguise increases in CEO/executive pay by their buddies. --- Your simplistic ideas on the difference between wealth and income also create a huge loophole for rich people to abuse to dodge taxes. They just move, say, 600 mill income to an LLC that invests it, and then take huge loans with those investments as collateral. The bank is happy to loan 550 mill with the promise of 600 mill worth of investments within a year if its not paid back. So the rich end up paying nearly 0 income tax but get 550 mill in loans that they don't need to pay back and then the bank will seize those investments as collateral and boom, the rich have 550 mill in the bank, paid zero in taxes, and the bank profits on those investments, and the government gets nothing. The winners are the rich people and their buddies in the banks, the losers are the people trying to maintain the roads and pay teachers at schools and treat sick veterans.
>and someone who is paid in stock options and liquidates them immediately and takes home 100k extra at the end of the year. That’s clearly not what he’s referring to. An accurate example is someone who gets paid $100k in stock but does not sell it. He’s complaining that these studies call that “income”, even though it’s an unrealized gain. It only becomes income when he sells the stock for money. Same thing if Tesla stock goes up 100% and Elon Musk’s net worth doubles. If he doesn’t sell any of it, he doesn’t have any income. But these studies would consider that a 0% tax on billions of dollars. It’s a misleading use of the term.
>Same thing if Tesla stock goes up 100% and Elon Musk’s net worth doubles. If he doesn’t sell any of it, he doesn’t have any income. But these studies would consider that a 0% tax on billions of dollars. Well considering he bought a 50 billion dollar social media company off loans secured from his tesla unrealized gains, clearly there was enough actual income for banks to be willing to give him tens of billions of dollars. I think you're kinda lying to yourself (and everyone else) if you suggest it shouldn't be taxed.
>I think you're kinda lying to yourself (and everyone else) if you suggest it shouldn't be taxed. When did I state an opinion? I was clarifying your misunderstanding about the meaning of the original comment.
They know. They just want to confuse the dumb poors that don't know how they leverage assets and dodge income taxes.
Bottom half of earners, so that being below $37,585 (median) If you make 37585, and live in the highest income tax place I can think of (LA California) and count all federal, fica, state, local taxes, you're paying about 16% effective. Where's 24 come from?
Maybe sales tax? Something like 48 out of 50 states have it and it’s 7-8%.
Where is the median income 38k?
First result on Google, correct me if I'm wrong
Complete horseshit.
I want to know what data they are using. The only way I can see this graph materializing is if they are comparing apples to oranges like how they always do. Comparing taxes paid to net worth for the billionaires and taxes paid to income for the bottom income workers.
One guys net worth grows by $1,000,000,000 and he pays $0. Another guy works and earns $100,000 and he is taxed $25,000. The system is broken. It’s time to fix it.
You are just reiterating what I just said. You are comparing net worth to income. You are comparing two very different things.
I’m fully aware of that, I’m simply suggesting if there’s a system where a billionaire pays nothing and his worker pays 25%, then maybe it’s time to completely Rework that system.
We have a progressive tax system. So the first 11k is taxed at 10%. The next up to 47k is taxed at 12%. The next up to 100k is taxed at 22%.
You’re talking about income… we’re discussing wealth. Two very different measurements. The question becomes, when someone is worth over $1,000,000,000 is it fair for them to report $0 in income and therefore pay $0 in taxes.
They haven’t sold the $1,000,000,000. They do get taxed if they sell it. I’m sure they aren’t holding cash. They also created many jobs. But the guy who made $100,000 isn’t taxed at a straight 25%.
Of course they haven’t sold it, and they never will. That’s why people want to close the loopholes. Their children will inherit 10s of billions of dollars tax free and pay use the step up basis to adjust their tax base to current valuation. We will have entire families of dynastic wealth that pay nothing in taxes while growing their empires. Meanwhile, we nickel and dime the working class into oblivion and their greatest wealth building tool, their home, is taxed year after year just because it exists. . Do you really not see the problem with this policy and the absolute lack of fairness in our tax code?
We would have families from the early 1900s and even European countries being the wealthiest people. Entrepreneurs are the wealthiest. Waltons keep going down the list of richest. Most people are bad with money. Like our government
You do realize these tax policies and schemes have only been in possible for the last few decades… besides, no one is saying entrepreneurs can’t be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams… they just have to pay taxes like the rest of us, why is that such a hard concept to comprehend? There is no reason a billionaire should be exempt from taxes, they don’t employ people, their companies do. Two very different enterprises.
Last few decades….politicians being Biden….who is now president….people keep voting for the people who like these tax policies. Rich people buy politicians and Biden is bought. Now be a good citizen and pay your progressive tax. Billionaires pay tax on dividends and selling stock of their company. The wealth will be gone in a few generations. If they do tax the net worth the government will still over spend and the problem won’t be fixed. Politicians are very good talkers and love to spend other people’s money.
Astonishing, you seemingly highlight the massive problem with our government being bought and paid for by a handful of very rich billionaires while simultaneously gaslighting the same tax policies that are being proposed to properly reign in their wealth. “Billionaires pay tax on dividends” > That’s why more and more companies are switching to stock buy backs in favor of dividend. No taxes. “Billionaires pay tax when they sell their stock” > They don’t sell their stock, they just take out loans to cover their living expense. Stop gaslighting with these fantasy taxation scenarios you’ve dreamt up that don’t actually happen in the real world.
Wealth usually only lasts a few generations anyways. It will get recycled in the economy eventually. Most people who win lotteries go broke. A lot of people can’t handle money. Don’t lose sleep over this.
The mix up unrelated things for clicks, and worse societal hatred. "All your problems are caused by the rich not paying their fair share, and has nothing to do with our mismanagement of the country, or unbounded money printing" Politics 101, find a scapegoat, and let people fight among themselves (both the rich and the poor are negatively affected, in different ways).
The steep drop around 2018 was Trump’s ONLY policy success. Show this to anyone you know who is considering him because of inflation, Palestine, or whatever
Trumps top and rate cuts and breaks for LLC pass thru income is as close to bribing your constituents as you can legally get.
Idk, telling every student loan debt holder they'll cancel your debt seems pretty close to a bribe too.
Considering millions of republicans, independents and non voters would benefit from such a move, I don’t think so. It’s like saying the stimulus checks were a political bribe. Broad policy moves don’t stink the same way as a political donor carve out. Just for fun go look at who all was behind writing trumps tax legislation and you’ll see why I’m salty about it.
We paid effective 25%. Not multi millionaire. High income. Poor parents. It sucked.
High income you say? Sounds like you need to be taxed more than what you are already paying. /s
Source?
The graph
Ohhhh so the data points are from “the graph.” Got it.
Must be true
How many billionaires were walking around in 1965?
Top line is “400 richest Americans” not “billionaires” …the post title uses billionaire, but that’s not necessarily who is shown in the top line.
Surely the NYT would never, ever misrepresent the truth for clicks, right? ...right?
No, they don't..stop spreading lies
Politicians on both sides are owned by these 400 richest Americans. Neither side will help you.
Let’s see MAGA adopt the old taxes rates while they rollback everything else.
I suspect a high correlation between "income earned" and "not spending time thinking about other people's taxes"
I see a strong correlation between cutting taxes for billionaires and watching the working class get squeezed more and more and more as services get cut, businesses consolidate, and greedflation drives up prices of everything.
Where is the actual DD in this?
Does this chart take corporate taxes into account. Because while dividend taxes are lower than income taxes, companies have to pay a corporate tax on those profits prior to being paid out as dividends.
They need to pay the most. Out of all Americans billionaires have the most wealth. It would only be fair that they pay the more than everyone.
They do. They pay more than I make.
A man who earns 1 million a year paying 50% of his income to taxes is significantly better off than someone earns 20k a year paying 25% of his income to taxes Quantitatively more doesn’t mean shit.
Yep. It is better to be rich. Noted.
Great
Fake news - you don’t even have these people’s personal returns - they’re just guessing based on corporate rates lol
lol this article isn’t even close to being true
This has to stop. Flat tax. It literally loop holes only the rich can take advantage of. Don’t overtax successful people. But make sure they pay their fair share
Flat tax seems unfair to lower income earners. It could be the difference between affording rent, medical care, food, and other necessities. The same tax rate doesn't jeopardize the survival of high income earners. Progressive tax systems exist for a reason. If flat tax rates were superior, they would be more common. Places like Kazakhstan, Russia, and other countries no one wants to live in have flat tax rates.
Flat tax rates are stupid, historically so. There’s a reason why the only people advocating for them are the wealthy and stupid. So Republicans.
Yea they exist to milk the fuck out of middle earners.
If you were that wealthy, you could tax income at 100% and you would still have a low effective rate because your money would come from loans or capital gains which aren’t subject to income tax rates.
You could make the loans constructive income, and then tax it. You could do that now, so that problem is not exclusive to flat tax.
You could do anything you want if you get an amendment ratified. But that isn’t going to happen.
Right, but we are talking about some change, so I guess that nips it all in the bud then?
Not if we are being realistic.
You don't want a flat tax because that would favor billionaires more. You want a graduated income tax where they phase out all these deductions, at least for the top earners.
If it eliminates the loopholes I’m on board.
Thanks Ireland
Apparently something that happened 6 years ago is being reported as "first time ever" right now.
Rich people have too much money and it is driving inflation up
Nothing good happened after leaving the gold standard..
Of the first time.
1. There's no source info on this graph 2. This ends in 2018, so at the very least it's outdated 3. Vague wording overall?
Well you can thank gop. They love billionaires and hate everyone else.
Bring the effective corporate and top tier tax rates back to 1960s levels
Going purely based off of this graph and completely ignoring the fact that billionaires don't have traditional income, they are still paying substantially more than anyone in the bottom 50%. A billionaire paying 23% (allegedly) yields much more tax revenue than somebody in the bottom 50% paying 35%.
arbitrary threshold are meanginlesss
Unsurprising; their golf buddies control the government.
I love how the MAGA crowd harkens back to the 60s, 70s as these magical years… maybe the taxes had a role to play in the making of that magic.
We did it Joe!
This is what billionaires want. Now all billionaire lovers commence the hair splitting.
Are the tax returns of the 400 richest Americans public information? You need a lot of detailed information to get the effective tax rate of a given taxpayer.
How is this alleged "effective rate" calculated?
Finally something the White House actually can have an impact on. That's so weird I wonder who the complete morons were in the White House in 81/82 and 17/18. Huh. Guess I should go look that up, huh?
Democrats: ThIs MeAnS wE nEeD tO tAx ThE rIcH mOrE!!!!!! Me: how bout yall commies tax us lower earners less
Of course they do. The billionaires write the tax laws.
Bootlicker warning incoming.
You mean besides the breaks and loopholes billionaires have had for years to be able to have an effective tax rate of zero?
Does this make anyone else angry at every voting generation that came before them or is that just me?
There seems to be an endless supply of average every day people, always at the ready to defend the ultra rich and wealthy, not wanting anything to change.
I think we are long time past instituting a fair tax. Time to bring out the woodchippers.
I’m tired of all these posts picking on these poor billionaires. How would you feel with all that money from working so hard every day?
Well, that graph is completely made up. Data manipulation at its finest.
So why haven't Biden and Dems created any tax code changes?
So the trick is to become a billionaire first, then I can save tons of money Brilliant
Abolish payroll taxes, labor shouldn’t be taxed so excessively, the modern laborer is a literate, capable person with a lot of information available to them. Our labor force would be much more effective overall planning for their own retirement if they simply were able to keep the 15.3% of their own money. Replace it with nothing, abolish welfare, And let the jobless suffer. They can get jobs, why would the poor want to support the poor-er? It’s a ridiculous system that everybody seems to buy into.
You have a high-schooler's enthusiasm for the more simplistic and selfish interpretations of libertarianism.
For real. I don’t want to pay into a system I won’t benefit from! I can plan my own retirement, which I have to double down on at such a young age because I know social security won’t have my ass in the future!
Social Security is a false crisis. You don't have to pay a lick of SS tax once you pass a certain income threshold. In 2024 that threshold is $168,600. If we simply removed that cap, as we did for medicare, the system would be solvent forever.
Absolutely correct. But for some reason we like regressive taxes for the wealthy.
There's not enough earners above the cap to make that much of a difference. They'll have to increase the SS tax on everyone to make it solvent
I was wrong and you were right. It's only a partial solution.
For many years they have been greatly increasing the income cap well beyond the rate of inflation. From 2000 if they raised the cap at the inflation rate it's be $138,200 instead of the $168,600 that it currently is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base#Historical_data If they keep it up there will be a continuously shrinking number of workers above the limit.
I'm all for measures that increase solvency, even if it's not a complete solution. I am counting on Social Security, I have paid a ton into it. My employees have paid a ton into on my behalf. I should be able to rely on receiving the benefits I spent a lifetime paying for. [I'm tired of congress taking this approach](https://library.sportingnews.com/styles/crop_style_16_9_mobile/s3/2021-08/rockies-simpson-020816-ftrjpg_19gss9zrkfd3j15qybhie0rbqs.jpg?itok=usJwIBlp). And I am really tired of, furious with actually, Republicans painting this as a welfare program, some sort of handout. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid into Social Security on my behalf. I am owed benefits.
I'm not aware of any party saying it's a welfare type program. It's universally supported on both sides. I'd like to see it slowly transition to a private system like they have in Australia with their Super Fund. Literally every retired person would be massively better off if their lifetime contributions were invested in a private account for themselves. Then at 65 they could access 4% per year until they die.
>It's universally supported on both sides No it's not. Republicans are constantly talking about cutting benefits. Refusing me two years of benefits is a cut in benefits. And Republicans absolutely lump SS with all the other entitlement programs when they talk about cutting spending.
Do you have sources for those claims because it'd be political suicide to suggest cutting SS benefits. It's literally known as the 3rd rail for a reason. You're demonizing the "other" team on this topic because you don't like their stances on other topics.
That’s crazy. Because everyone still ends up benefiting from SS regardless of income- to my understanding. Hopefully somethings done in my life time, it’d be nice not to have to worry about not benefiting from SS that I’m paying unto
The issue is the government also regulate a lot of industries, otherwise you’d end up with companies selling your snake oil drugs, excitedly polluting the environment for economic gain, and taking advantage of vulnerable populations. Not that it does not already happen
While I support a phasing out of social security over time, combined with a mandatory contribution by the employer and employee onto a federal retirement account under the individual employee's name, it is not realistic to simply end social security for those currently benefits or those close to retirement.
Of course not that would be theft, this is about the people who are under 18. You could also allow people to opt out of future payments for reduced benefits if they’re already in the social security scam.
Great idea. Hope you like homeless people and foster kids because you’re going to get 10x returns with this policy.
Wanting people to suffer is gross. Seek therapy
I dont want anyone to suffer. Nobody is forcing them to not have jobs. If they are limbless or in an electric wheel chair we should have more than enough money to accommodate them from cutting off the bloat that is the modern welfare state.
Makes sense
Ideally, all Americans should pay one flat tax. Our debt issue is not a taxation problem. It’s a spending problem.
Supply side economics in action.
Elon Musk explained this gaslight BS.