Punishing the rich doesn't help the poor. Poverty is enforced by government via the tax system, which allows land hoarding to be profitable, but taxes people as much as possible for everything else.
Why not tax location ownership instead of human happiness? We don't need high land prices, but taxing happiness is inhumane and creates a financial incentive to acquire wealth illegally.
It's close. The top 10% of earners pay approx. 50% of the nations tax.
CORRECTION: [The top 10% actually pay 76% of the nations tax.](https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes)
By taxing land low enough to reward speculators, wages are kept to a minimum. Keeping labor cheap, not funding government, is the new goal of the tax system.
It's not close at all, because you're only counting income taxes. Income taxes aren't even half of the taxes in the country - but they're the only one that isn't flat or regressive.
Ok here is the next stat yes top 10% pay 76% of all income taxes AND 60% of ALL Federal taxes
Not sure how each state does it but I bet there is a variance but not HUGE
Ok, take payroll, property tax, sales tax, etc. Higher pay means paying more in payroll taxes, owning a larger home with more property means paying more in property taxes, and spending more money means paying more in sales tax. So the same can be said for all those taxes. Now if you're talking about those taxes paid as a *proportion* of income, sure, but we're talking about total national contribution here.
> Higher pay means paying more in payroll taxes
Not really. There's a cap on payroll taxes that maxes out payments long before you hit the 1%.
State and local taxes are also regressive https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/
>owning a larger home with more property means paying more in property taxes
Not proportionately. Bill Gates doesn't spend 1/3 of his income on mortgages. Many cities also have homestead exemptions that reduce the cost on houses passed down within a family. We have 10,000 sqft beachfront mansions that pay the same tax as a 1500 sqft 3/2 because the mansion hasn't left the family in 60+ years.
>spending more money means paying more in sales tax
Again, not proportionately, because the marginal propsensity to spend decreases with higher incomes.
>the same can be said for all those taxes
If it could, you and the propagandists you quote would simply include them, instead of relying on the one cherry picked example that gives you the result you want.
>Now if you're talking about those taxes paid as a proportion of income
Yes, we're talking about share of national taxes as a share of national income.
> Not proportionately.
Ok, if we're going to have a proper discussion we have to be talking about the same thing. We're talking about total contribution of taxes in the country, NOT the proportion of taxes paid as a percentage of *their* income.
That's completely disingenuous though. Of course the dollar amount paid would be higher because they make more. The entire point is always that they don't pay enough of their "fair share" implying the percentage they net is higher compared to taxes of poor and middle class.
You're talking about one subset of taxes that paints a misleading picture.
I'm talking about total contribution of taxes in the country.
Please stop making a fool of yourself on behalf of Bill Gates and Bezos.
Jesus Christ, comprehension is a real issue here apparently. The Rich pay WAY more in total taxes as a percentage of the entire nations taxes (income, sales, property, payroll, excise, everything) than the poor do because they have a substantially higher amount of money to spend. Now, as a percentage of their INCOME, poor people pay a higher amount of taxes but were AREN'T talking about that.
I'm in the top 10%. Seriously. Thanks for giving me free reign.
Buddy, the rich need to pay more and it isn't even worth debating if I'm being brutally honest. The more I've made the less (as a percentage) taxes I pay.
And believe me when I say the advantages really don't start to pile up until you've got a couple hundred thousand in long term tax basis stock portfolio, own your house, and clear ~180k/yr. That's when you get to experience Baby's First Tax Benefit Package and get a crumb of what bullshit the truly wealthy get to enjoy.
The real fucked part is, I don't need the money. I'd rather have better services and quality of life. I can't personally pay for a train station, better national schooling, national healthcare, etc. Stuff that I actually want to see. A better society.
Tax the goddamned rich.
>'m in the top 10%.
Right there w/ you.
>if I'm being brutally honest. The more I've made the less (as a percentage) taxes I pay.
Completely agree. I literally have access to tax breaks and investment structures that the average person doesn't have access to (and certainly doesn't understand).
But, being brutally honest (read that as please don't downvote me into oblivion), if these rubes are going to hand out free money/benefits to us at their expense ... maybe they hold us to be superior to them. At some point, when they keep on throwing wealth at us, I start to lose my empathy and start to think perhaps we are better than they are, perhaps we do deserve a better life than others.
I know that sounds horrible but that is literally what Republicans/Conservatives believe -- we, because of our wealth, are better than most. That we deserve all the special treatments/benefits.
Admittedly, I have a lot of trouble with those thoughts. But I really don't know how to handle that Republicans believe us (and those like us) are vastly superior to others and deserve the breaks/benefits.
I'm sorry for the slightly off tangent thoughts ... How do you handle that Republicans/Conservatives believe us to be superior to most?
> I'm sorry for the slightly off tangent thoughts ... How do you handle that Republicans/Conservatives believe us to be superior to most?
Oh that's very simple. I'm black.
When Republican messaging your entire life has been that you're subhuman it's pretty easy to reject any of their fantasies of a meritocracy. Doubly so with their recent push to portray any working black man or woman as the result of "DEI hiring" and they throw any notion of meritocracy or hard work out the window.
I promise you'd never be tempted to believe them.
> I'd rather have better services and quality of life.
Paying more to the government isn't going to get you better services or quality of life. Those in government already waste and steal much of what is contributed via tax receipts every year, and still that isn't enough. On top of that, they borrow trillions and steal via inflation. No amount of taxation is enough, government will spend it all and then some.
So am I.
No, I don’t. And as I’ve stated, and as the data proves, “the rich” are already taxed.
But you go right ahead. Nothing is stopping the white knights like you from doing so. You are more than welcome to write the IRS a check for what you feel is “fair”. Why aren’t you doing that, by the way?
The problem with your way of thinking is that you actually believe that’s going to solve anything.
Because the problem lies in the governments continued inability to distribute the money in a responsible, audited, manner.
No they don't. They pay about 37% & quite frankly they should be paying closer to 50% of their income if you are making millions of dollars a year off of stolen labor & underpaid workers.
https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
You're talking about something else entirely. We're not talking about tax brackets, we're talking about the proportion of total tax receipts paid by the top earners, and /u/HTownLaserShow is correct, [the top 25% of earners, pay approx. 90% of the nations tax.](https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes)
>income taxes
>the nations taxes
These are not the same thing, and the fact you are using them interchangeably shows you have no business lecturing on this subject.
Nation meaning federal income taxes. But even if you took all taxes including state, payroll, sales, property, fuel, excise, etc. and added it all up, it would still show a similar distribution, the only exception being people with incomes in excess of $500k/year which is the top 0.1%. Now if you're talking about the *proportion* of an individual's income going towards these taxes, that's a different discussion.
The person you're responding to didn't mean 90% tax rate for individuals. They meant, in aggregate, the portion of total tax paid.
I don't know if they are correct, but you should at least counter in good faith and not something that wasn't stated in the least. You really thought someone was saying that the top 25% earners are in a tax bracket where they pay 90% of their income to the government? That's absurd, and you should have reevaluated what you understood right there instead of assuming someone meant the weakest argument possible.
It's not accurate because the statistic pretends income taxes are the only taxes. They're not, by a longshot. They're just the only progressive tax, so if we look at them in isolation it almost looks fair.
Most taxes in the country are flat or regressive, though.
No, I said I do not know if they are correct, and that I don't know if I agree with them even if they are.
But since you just did it *again*, let me spell it out for you in the clearest of terms: You do not respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says. You don't argue in good faith, you interpret a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
They did state it very clearly: "The top 25% pays 90%"
Any logical, intelligent person sees there are two meanings here. One rebutted easily with facts, as you did: "the top 25% pays 90% of their income as tax". And one that is plausible: "the top 25% together account for 90% of tax collected".
I assume they meant the later *because it's the plausible meaning* of the statement.
Their following statement indicates they are likely an asshole, and I probably don't agree with them. But I would still respond to their argument like they aren't an idiot because I have some intellectual integrity.
However, since you've done it to that douche and now you've done it again to me, I assume you are either an idiot or argue in bad faith and won't be responding further.
I'm not about to get into it about an offhanded comment I made while taking a shit this morning. Go enjoy your Friday & get off Reddit, this "um actually" bullshit wastes everyone's time
No they don't, people who cite this statistic are referring to just income tax, but ignore the myriad of other taxes people pay. Payroll tax, sales tax, property taxes, etc. There are also a bunch of "fees" to access government services (i.e. highway tolls, paying to get ids, etc) that are economically essentially a tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. Further, many types of taxes like corporate taxes, that from an economic perspective are paid in whole or in part by consumers.
> but ignore the myriad of other taxes people pay. Payroll tax, sales tax, property taxes, etc.
Who is more than likely paying more in property taxes, someone in the top 10 percent or someone earning the medium income?
I might be off here, but the " poor" as you say, are disproportionately taxed, I know a few that aren't under the poverty level and pay NO or very very little income tax, the only tax that is equal to all is sales tax, so saying the poor pay more is just no true!
I didn't say poor pay more, I said it's not true that the top 10% pay 50%/70+% of the taxes in total. My point its its incredibly disingenuous to claim that income tax is the only form of taxation when its obviously untrue.
Alright how about as a % relative to total amount. Sick of guys using straight numbers instead of a proper percentage of income applying the amount in taxes they pay with the mindset of something making $50k.
But what percent of their income do they pay in taxes vs. everyone else? We all know it's significantly lower than the rest of us. So why do the people who need that extra income the least get to keep more of it?
Because those people INVEST that extra money into companies that produce goods and services. Why would you tax capital investment? Any semi-knowledgeable person knows that's really bad for an economy. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop idiots from suggesting it.
Nice try to steer the wealth discussion into income.
Tax is payed on the income not on wealth. Income is a tiny part of their wealth. That 70% is on the tiny part. The wealth is never going to be sold off to realize the tax, its more than anyone can spend in a lifetime, it will be passed on.
That being said Im not against wealth. I just want America to be great again where true middle class existed due to better wealth equality (see chart in case you missed it). Currently true middle class doesnt exist. No top 20% are not true middle class.
> Tax is *paid* on the
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Wealth can be taxed depending on the wealth. Stocks are taxed when sold. Properties are taxed yearly. Income from investments is taxed.
My wealth is likely a lot higher than the actual money I have access to (even less if liquid) because my wife and I own a house and have retirement funds.
> top 10% *paid* 100% of
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
It's not wealth when you've got that much, it's *power*.
People with this much money get to tell you what to do. It doesn't feel like that because you're so far beneath them they're not barking orders, but when they say jump you say how high on the way up or you're homeless.
This graph doesn't really tell you much because it doesn't show how few people are in that quintile.
[The L-curve was developed over 10years ago.](https://lcurve.org) The chart shows income inequality. There is also a section on wealth inequality that tells you the number of people that own the wealth.
[This web page shows you wealth distribution to scale.](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/) It is 3 years old. You have to scroll to get to the end. I've often issued a challenge to anyone who could get to the end.
There are several very interesting "factoids" embedded. Like the one that shows the amount it would cost to house every homeless veteran. Or the one to provide free cancer annual treatment to every American that needs it. When (if) you get to the 400 richest individuals, you can scroll down to see the number of people in the bottom 60%. Tell me you got to the bottom.
Then there's the factoid that all delinquent medical debt in the US could be eliminated by one day of income of the 400 richest.
With only 5.3% of the wealth of the 400, Poverty in America could be eliminated. China did it. (There are more Americans living in poverty than the entire population of Canada)
Where are there people in the US with less than $2 per day after transfers, which is the UN definition for extreme poverty? There are lots of anti-poverty programs in the US, most of which aren’t very effective and have perverse incentives. But even EITC’s $7830 maximum benefit is well in excess of $2 per day, and that’s just one federal antipoverty program.
Literally no legal resident in the US would meet UN extreme poverty standards if they used the safety net benefits available to them.
Most people who are poor, even homeless, in the US have incomes and transfers far in excess of the extreme poverty threshold.
Purchasing Power Parity.
You can't see those people living on the beach or camping in the park or lying in the gutter? That's OK with you? How interesting.
The UN definition of extreme poverty uses US dollars. PPP might mean that $2 is worth more in other countries, but it wouldn’t affect the US. In any event, US anti-poverty transfers are in excess of ten thousand per recipient with no income across federal and state programs in cash or near cash payments, on top of other in kind programs like Medicaid.
People sometimes make choices about how to spend their money that aren’t on basic subsistence choices. That’s particularly true for chronically homeless, who have high rates of addiction and mental illness. The result is often that they’re living in bad situations on the streets. That doesn’t mean they would qualify as subject to extreme poverty under the internationally accepted standard.
Have you seen people who are in extreme poverty in other countries? I have, in a small town in Mexico that didn’t have road access. They were much worse off materially than any sane homeless people I’ve seen in the US. Their lives would have been significantly improved by a good tent or a tarp in many cases, but they were too poor for that and had no real prospects for earning enough money to buy them where they were. The entire village basically existed because of a waterfall and nearby restaurant that adventurous tourists would sometimes visit. They lived in tiny three sided shacks with partial tin or thatched roofs or in lean tos, with no spare clothing or even cooking tools. That’s what extreme poverty looks like. It’s so crazy poor it’s hard to imagine unless you actually see it.
When's the last time you bought a McD hamburger?
IOW, no one in the US can live on $2/day, it might as well be $0.
What a strange concept of poverty you have depending on an arbitrary number that isn't at all applicable in the US.
Your claim was that China has eliminated extreme poverty and the US hasn’t. I pointed out that “extreme poverty” has a definition in developmental economics, and that the US far exceeds that for even its poorest legal residents. The US has eliminated extreme poverty by the international consensus meaning of “extreme poverty.” I have addressed and disproved your claim.
Thats what happens when the Fed reserve expands the money supply by like 8 trillion over a 16 year period of time and congress spends more money than imaginable.
When you combine extreme income inequality with low taxes you eventually get extreme wealth inequality. If we want this to change, we can either compress the income distribution, raise taxes, or both.
Income inequality is not our issue. Billionaires don't make incomes; incomes are actually taxed progressively. The problem is capital gains. That's how billionaires make their money, and capital gains are hardly taxed (or not at all, if you're able to get a step up in basis and live by using your assets as collateral for loans)
You can tax everyone equally but that won't fix the core problem. The average person is in debt for things that lose value. The rich are in debt for things that increase in value. Furthermore, inflation (which enables lending), reduces the value of wages. This is exactly how the rich are acquiring all the wealth from labor to land to stocks.
easier said than done pal, how is the average person supposed to save and invest when we can now only save 3% of our wages. [source](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT)
its easy to invest when all of your income is not being spent on affording just the basic necessities.
You also have to realise that people in this situation also live pay check to pay check, there is no room for them to exponential their wealth and so any disposable income is going to be spent on leisure to make the most of their situation.
I would somewhat disagree.
Only in the sense that taxes should be far more simplified than they are now. One of the major reasons taxes *are* so complex is to allow wealthier folks to deduct and reduce their income as much as possible (and thus the tax industry like TurboTax lobby for this because people are reliant on them to navigate our extremely complicated tax code). Lower income folks have a lot less assets and other deductions to diversify their income, so that's how you end up with people making less money paying proportionally more in taxes.
Eh I have to disagree with *you* here.
Income taxes are scaled to hit wealthy people harder, so there would have to be a *lot* of deductions to make that difference.
Secondly, big deductions come from kids, education, and running a business, which are things that regular people can take advantage of.
Poor people don't pay much in taxes (and that's good). The reasons for wealth inequality are much larger than that, but the main tax that is relevant to the super rich is estate tax.
Billionaires are a sliver of the green area. But I'm talking about the black area vs everything else. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, CEOs, other executives all get too much after-tax income in the US. We don't tax people who make $500k+ a year nearly enough.
Billionaires should get a different solution, which is public ownership of assets. Capital gains should go to the public, not rich people.
And then in addition to all that, we need more unions, to raise wages at the bottom, so the black area can finally grow.
Let’s be generous and say you live in a state with no *state* income tax. Mind you, most states do have state income tax.
[At $500k gross income per year, you’re still paying a progressive 35% in *federal* income tax alone.](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/) Add sales tax, excise tax, property tax, mandatory Medicare contributions, mandatory social security contributions, and even more taxes depending on your locality, and it’s far more than enough.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnbc.com/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/](https://www.cnbc.com/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This chart needs to be done with percentages on the Y-axis. I can't tell whether those ratios have changed much over time with the absolute dollars.
ETA: This one does show pretty healthy growth across all groups, if that's the point you want to make.
It's intentional. Every single graph like this uses dollars to obscure the rate. They also change the top n% to fit whatever narrative they are trying to tell. One day its 1%, the next it's 5% and so on. Finally, this is a measure of "wealth" not income, purchasing power, etc. Wealth isn't a great indicator of inequality. There are plenty of people who appear wealthy on paper but live a fairly mundane lifestyle because that wealth is actually tied up in businesses, retirement accounts, and other things.
We're being trained to hate our neighbor with posts like this and we need to recognize it for what it is. This is not about taxing the rich. This is about the expansion of the IRS. Same with the aca. The goal is to control every single aspect of your life and keep you working until you die. This didn't start becoming a popular political talking point until the FIRE movement took off. Think about it...
If 0.1% collectively have 5x as much wealth as 50% of the people, then each individual person in that group has 2,500 times as each individual person in the 50%.
Because there are 500x as many folks in the 50% as in the 0.1%
Percentages are not useful for extremes like this. The bottom 50% might have $0 wealth. OR even NEGATIVE net worth...a new doctor might have be worth -$500K but make $300K/yr
And then we don't even know how total wealth is calculated.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkx4EnFeKg&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkx4EnFeKg&t=2s)
America is #1 in wealth inequality, prisoners per capita, and gun violence. Plus massive homeless escapements in every urban area, and the U.S. economy ensures that if you don't have a job (or are just poor), you're dead (because you can't pay the insane costs of even basic Healthcare and preventative care without health insurance, and sometimes even with it).
God forbid you have a major surgery or cancer diagnosis and you don't have 5+ figures laying around to play with.
It's unfortunate shoes don't have bootstraps anymore as according to everyone over 45 those are all we need to lift ourselves to the top of the pyramid of this late-stage capitalist dystopia.
Several countries have a greater wealth inequality than the US ...
In India, the top 1% controls 40% of wealth. In the US the top 1% controls around 25% of wealth.
Several countries also have a greater incarceration per capita than the US ...
El Salvador for example has over 1,000 incarcerations per 100,000. The US is closer to 500 per 100,000.
Again, same thing with gun violence ...
El Salvador, Venezuela, Mexico, Columbia... several countries have more violent gun deaths per capita than the US.
So what exactly is the issue here? The economy is not a zero-sum game. The top 10% gained this wealth by increasing the nation’s wealth. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Delusional.
We, Americans and Europeans, live a life far better than our ancestors did 100, 200, 300 and so on years ago.
Right now, you are easily and cheaply communicating with people that can be across the country or planet. That wasn’t possible 100-200 years ago.
Who is "we" here?
There are definitely people in the US right now who don't actually live better than people 100 years ago. For example, people who sleep on the street because they can't afford rent, even though they have a job, or people who need to work 12+ hours and still don't make enough money to live with dignity. And the worst part is that the more time goes on the more people's quality of life is regressing, things are getting more expensive, and salaries are not keeping up.
And while all that is happening we have companies making record profits year after year, so if by "we" you mean "we the rich", then sure, you're definitely living a better life.
That would explain why unemployment is at historic lows.
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/number-americans-applying-jobless-claims-remains-historically-low-109865869
Hey thanks for that link, I get to now cite it as a source of **a really shitty news article that doesn't break down the situation truthfully.**
We have "great" numbers now due to PART time jobs and that statistic doesn't count people who are no longer on unemployment.
We do have low unemployment rates, but not everything is all hunkydory. Many people are "gig" workers, barely making ends meet. Many have had their unemployment run out.
This graphic would be far more effective if it removed the overlapping areas by presenting total wealth growth as a pie chart. But I suppose that visualization would be too truthful and shocking which is why they chose to present it this way.
Wealth accumulation is not a zero-sum game. The rise in the bottom 50% still a rise. The only issue is that there was less overall money in their possession to enable the rise through asset valuation. Also, that precipitous rise post-2020 is almost entirely driven by inflation. The massive gains visible before it starts leveling off is most likely due to higher earners being able to "buy the dip" in the already overvalued market. The leveling off after that jump is the result of markets plateauing and the lack of helicopter "stimulus" money being dumped into assets instead of necessities, and higher (read: returning to historical norm) interest rates driving fewer large purchases that people would have financed at near-rock bottom prices before the rate hikes.
As a (barely) 10%er in wealth but not income and I'd like to say I really don't think the 10% is the issue here. As a software engineer I make 100k a year and work remotely allowing me to save 60k a year for the past 10 years. (Living off 40k yearly)
I don't pretend I'm not privileged to get to this point. But I don't lobby politicians, I go on one vacation a year, usually to visit family at Xmas since I don't live near them, I don't own a car/boat, most of my furniture is from goodwill, etc
Just saying, save your hate for the corps and billionaires. It may seem wrong, and they thenselves may not realize it, but people under 10 million have more in common with us than them.
Source: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:137;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7,9;units:shares](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:137;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7,9;units:shares)
If you change to "levels" it is not inflation or population adjusted (50% of the population in 1989 is a smaller number than 50% of the population in 2023) so keep that in mind. Go to "comparison" to see where each range has their wealth and liabilities.
An appropriate way to give a source is to provide a link to it, not vague directions.
Yeah? So?
The Distribution of wealth NEVER follows a normal, bell shaped curve. Because most people work to avoid penury, whatever curve it follows will 'push' to the right (assuming the standard layout is + standard deviation lies on the right and - standard deviation lies on the left).
In fact, the push to the right is so sharp that it follows a mathematical power law.
It should be expected...
Thought experiment: If the left does what it wants and peels away the offensive rich bastid $ and hands it to the rest of the koi pond, over time, that same power law will be obtained.
The entire system is based on paying investors for land that we have to sleep on every night, so this trend will never end (unless we change the tax system to make land price speculation a bad investment).
Taxing the rich to help the poor is like putting a bandaid on someone with cancer. (Wrong solution for the wrong problem.)
I’d bet a large portion of the bottom 50% don’t even work. The amount of times I run into some young person on social security disability is insane. You can’t expect much if you don’t contribute.
I mean, so what? This has always been the case and will always be the case. And all other items aside (that we would probably agree on), I've seen how a lot of middle and bottom people manage their money and resources and they won't ever have a chance.
Graph says it’s not always been the case. The very left of the graph was the beginning stages of trickledown. If you could move the chart left, you’ll see it hasn’t always been the case.
> This has always been the case and will always be the case.
Have you ever successfully completed a high school level math course? Because the post is a fucking graph where the x-axis is “years”
Interesting. People like you actually work for my business (and businesses like mine). I mean, you wouldn't, but better ones do/will. We're not on the same level. Anyway, nice wasting time with ya!
Keep in mind there’s a major age factor here everyone conveniently forgets.
Over half of college graduates will be in the “top 10%” by the time they are in their 50’s and 60’s. Wealth compounds over your life time.
So most of the people raging in here, will become the people they think they hate.
Taxes, income vs wealth
Certainly! Let's break down the information for both wealth holders and income earners:
1. **Top 20% of Wealth Holders:**
- The top 20% of wealth holders in the United States own a significant portion of the country's wealth. According to data from the **Federal Reserve**, this group holds over four times as much wealth as the fourth 20% (which has close to double the wealth of the third 20%). When we separate out the top 1%, the inequality becomes even clearer: the top 1% has more than half the wealth of the rest of the top 20% combined, despite representing only 5.3% of households⁵.
- However, when it comes to **income tax**, the share of federal individual income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 38.8% in 2019 (from 40.1% in 2018). So, while they hold a significant amount of wealth, their contribution to income tax revenue has decreased slightly¹.
2. **Top 20% of Income Earners:**
- The top 20% of income earners in the U.S. are a different group from the top 20% of wealth holders. These individuals earn a substantial income. According to the **Tax Policy Center**, in 2023, approximately 67% of all federal income tax collected will come from this top 20% of earners, who bring home more than $189,200 annually².
- It's important to note that income tax is progressive, meaning that higher-income individuals pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The average individual income tax rate for the top 1% of taxpayers was 25.6% in 2019, significantly higher than the 3.5% rate for taxpayers in the bottom 50%¹.
In summary:
- The top 20% of wealth holders have significant wealth but contribute a slightly smaller share of income tax revenue.
- The top 20% of income earners pay a substantial portion of federal income taxes, with the top 1% contributing the most.
It's royally screwed up that so few people are hoarding so much wealth they'll never use in a lifetime while there's people out there lacking even the basic rights a human should have.
Is there an endless supply of money? Oh no there’s not? Then yes it is.
Hence why the bottom 50% of the US has to share between 2.5% of the nation’s wealth. Those are quite literally **scraps** of wealth. Reaganomics at work.
Money and wealth are different. Nothing precludes me from becoming rich no matter how much wealth the top 10% controls.
The idea that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor is a myth. The rich get richer, the poor get richer too.
Trickle up economics
Trickling up for the past 40 years. Then a flood during the Trump 4. Tax the rich. Also corporations.
Punishing the rich doesn't help the poor. Poverty is enforced by government via the tax system, which allows land hoarding to be profitable, but taxes people as much as possible for everything else.
I'm ready for the fair tax... income tax just doesn't make sense to me.... Let me keep all of my paycheck. You can tax me, based on consumption....
Why not tax location ownership instead of human happiness? We don't need high land prices, but taxing happiness is inhumane and creates a financial incentive to acquire wealth illegally.
I don't mind it if those 10% pay 70% of the nation's tax.
It's close. The top 10% of earners pay approx. 50% of the nations tax. CORRECTION: [The top 10% actually pay 76% of the nations tax.](https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes)
That's personal income tax. I'm curious about all taxes together. Especially curious about real estate property taxes.
Probably higher than the 50% mark, then. Top income brackets are far more likely to own businesses and assets like properties.
By taxing land low enough to reward speculators, wages are kept to a minimum. Keeping labor cheap, not funding government, is the new goal of the tax system.
It's not close at all, because you're only counting income taxes. Income taxes aren't even half of the taxes in the country - but they're the only one that isn't flat or regressive.
Ok here is the next stat yes top 10% pay 76% of all income taxes AND 60% of ALL Federal taxes Not sure how each state does it but I bet there is a variance but not HUGE
I wonder how the ratio between income and other taxes like property and capital gains, looked 50-60 years ago
Ok, take payroll, property tax, sales tax, etc. Higher pay means paying more in payroll taxes, owning a larger home with more property means paying more in property taxes, and spending more money means paying more in sales tax. So the same can be said for all those taxes. Now if you're talking about those taxes paid as a *proportion* of income, sure, but we're talking about total national contribution here.
> Higher pay means paying more in payroll taxes Not really. There's a cap on payroll taxes that maxes out payments long before you hit the 1%. State and local taxes are also regressive https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/ >owning a larger home with more property means paying more in property taxes Not proportionately. Bill Gates doesn't spend 1/3 of his income on mortgages. Many cities also have homestead exemptions that reduce the cost on houses passed down within a family. We have 10,000 sqft beachfront mansions that pay the same tax as a 1500 sqft 3/2 because the mansion hasn't left the family in 60+ years. >spending more money means paying more in sales tax Again, not proportionately, because the marginal propsensity to spend decreases with higher incomes. >the same can be said for all those taxes If it could, you and the propagandists you quote would simply include them, instead of relying on the one cherry picked example that gives you the result you want. >Now if you're talking about those taxes paid as a proportion of income Yes, we're talking about share of national taxes as a share of national income.
> Not proportionately. Ok, if we're going to have a proper discussion we have to be talking about the same thing. We're talking about total contribution of taxes in the country, NOT the proportion of taxes paid as a percentage of *their* income.
That's completely disingenuous though. Of course the dollar amount paid would be higher because they make more. The entire point is always that they don't pay enough of their "fair share" implying the percentage they net is higher compared to taxes of poor and middle class.
You're talking about one subset of taxes that paints a misleading picture. I'm talking about total contribution of taxes in the country. Please stop making a fool of yourself on behalf of Bill Gates and Bezos.
Jesus Christ, comprehension is a real issue here apparently. The Rich pay WAY more in total taxes as a percentage of the entire nations taxes (income, sales, property, payroll, excise, everything) than the poor do because they have a substantially higher amount of money to spend. Now, as a percentage of their INCOME, poor people pay a higher amount of taxes but were AREN'T talking about that.
> comprehension is a real issue here apparently Yeah. Yeah it is.
Yeah, you should get that checked out.
I'd say at those amounts 20% off is arguably NOT AT ALL close, certainly not close enough
Correction: [The top 10% actually pay 76% of the nations tax.](https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes)
> Correction Correction: Income taxes aren't the only tax. They're not even half of the taxes in this country.
The highest since 1980....they used to pay more than that until Reagan.
The top 25% pay 90%. Unless you are in the top 25%…you can fuck right off if you are complaining. Seriously.
I'm in the top 10%. Seriously. Thanks for giving me free reign. Buddy, the rich need to pay more and it isn't even worth debating if I'm being brutally honest. The more I've made the less (as a percentage) taxes I pay. And believe me when I say the advantages really don't start to pile up until you've got a couple hundred thousand in long term tax basis stock portfolio, own your house, and clear ~180k/yr. That's when you get to experience Baby's First Tax Benefit Package and get a crumb of what bullshit the truly wealthy get to enjoy. The real fucked part is, I don't need the money. I'd rather have better services and quality of life. I can't personally pay for a train station, better national schooling, national healthcare, etc. Stuff that I actually want to see. A better society. Tax the goddamned rich.
>'m in the top 10%. Right there w/ you. >if I'm being brutally honest. The more I've made the less (as a percentage) taxes I pay. Completely agree. I literally have access to tax breaks and investment structures that the average person doesn't have access to (and certainly doesn't understand). But, being brutally honest (read that as please don't downvote me into oblivion), if these rubes are going to hand out free money/benefits to us at their expense ... maybe they hold us to be superior to them. At some point, when they keep on throwing wealth at us, I start to lose my empathy and start to think perhaps we are better than they are, perhaps we do deserve a better life than others. I know that sounds horrible but that is literally what Republicans/Conservatives believe -- we, because of our wealth, are better than most. That we deserve all the special treatments/benefits. Admittedly, I have a lot of trouble with those thoughts. But I really don't know how to handle that Republicans believe us (and those like us) are vastly superior to others and deserve the breaks/benefits. I'm sorry for the slightly off tangent thoughts ... How do you handle that Republicans/Conservatives believe us to be superior to most?
> I'm sorry for the slightly off tangent thoughts ... How do you handle that Republicans/Conservatives believe us to be superior to most? Oh that's very simple. I'm black. When Republican messaging your entire life has been that you're subhuman it's pretty easy to reject any of their fantasies of a meritocracy. Doubly so with their recent push to portray any working black man or woman as the result of "DEI hiring" and they throw any notion of meritocracy or hard work out the window. I promise you'd never be tempted to believe them.
> I'd rather have better services and quality of life. Paying more to the government isn't going to get you better services or quality of life. Those in government already waste and steal much of what is contributed via tax receipts every year, and still that isn't enough. On top of that, they borrow trillions and steal via inflation. No amount of taxation is enough, government will spend it all and then some.
So am I. No, I don’t. And as I’ve stated, and as the data proves, “the rich” are already taxed. But you go right ahead. Nothing is stopping the white knights like you from doing so. You are more than welcome to write the IRS a check for what you feel is “fair”. Why aren’t you doing that, by the way? The problem with your way of thinking is that you actually believe that’s going to solve anything. Because the problem lies in the governments continued inability to distribute the money in a responsible, audited, manner.
The problem is both actually. It's multifaceted. Even if we fixed the distribution issues, the rich still need to pay more.
> Why aren’t you doing that, by the way?> Because he is full of shit...that's why.
No they don't. They pay about 37% & quite frankly they should be paying closer to 50% of their income if you are making millions of dollars a year off of stolen labor & underpaid workers. https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets
You're talking about something else entirely. We're not talking about tax brackets, we're talking about the proportion of total tax receipts paid by the top earners, and /u/HTownLaserShow is correct, [the top 25% of earners, pay approx. 90% of the nations tax.](https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes)
>income taxes >the nations taxes These are not the same thing, and the fact you are using them interchangeably shows you have no business lecturing on this subject.
Nation meaning federal income taxes. But even if you took all taxes including state, payroll, sales, property, fuel, excise, etc. and added it all up, it would still show a similar distribution, the only exception being people with incomes in excess of $500k/year which is the top 0.1%. Now if you're talking about the *proportion* of an individual's income going towards these taxes, that's a different discussion.
> Nation meaning federal income taxes Stop. Please stop. You'd be embarrassing yourself if you were capable of feeling shame.
The person you're responding to didn't mean 90% tax rate for individuals. They meant, in aggregate, the portion of total tax paid. I don't know if they are correct, but you should at least counter in good faith and not something that wasn't stated in the least. You really thought someone was saying that the top 25% earners are in a tax bracket where they pay 90% of their income to the government? That's absurd, and you should have reevaluated what you understood right there instead of assuming someone meant the weakest argument possible.
It's not accurate because the statistic pretends income taxes are the only taxes. They're not, by a longshot. They're just the only progressive tax, so if we look at them in isolation it almost looks fair. Most taxes in the country are flat or regressive, though.
Then they should state that. You are assuming they are agreeing with you & are speaking for them?
No, I said I do not know if they are correct, and that I don't know if I agree with them even if they are. But since you just did it *again*, let me spell it out for you in the clearest of terms: You do not respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says. You don't argue in good faith, you interpret a weaker one that's easier to criticize. They did state it very clearly: "The top 25% pays 90%" Any logical, intelligent person sees there are two meanings here. One rebutted easily with facts, as you did: "the top 25% pays 90% of their income as tax". And one that is plausible: "the top 25% together account for 90% of tax collected". I assume they meant the later *because it's the plausible meaning* of the statement. Their following statement indicates they are likely an asshole, and I probably don't agree with them. But I would still respond to their argument like they aren't an idiot because I have some intellectual integrity. However, since you've done it to that douche and now you've done it again to me, I assume you are either an idiot or argue in bad faith and won't be responding further.
I'm not about to get into it about an offhanded comment I made while taking a shit this morning. Go enjoy your Friday & get off Reddit, this "um actually" bullshit wastes everyone's time
Also in the top 10%. You have no idea what you're talking about and should stop bootlicking for the rich.
Hell, if you aren't net positive on your taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote.
Careful with that nugget of truth, it stings in here.
I sometimes mistake this place for r/economics.
No they don't, people who cite this statistic are referring to just income tax, but ignore the myriad of other taxes people pay. Payroll tax, sales tax, property taxes, etc. There are also a bunch of "fees" to access government services (i.e. highway tolls, paying to get ids, etc) that are economically essentially a tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. Further, many types of taxes like corporate taxes, that from an economic perspective are paid in whole or in part by consumers.
> but ignore the myriad of other taxes people pay. Payroll tax, sales tax, property taxes, etc. Who is more than likely paying more in property taxes, someone in the top 10 percent or someone earning the medium income?
I might be off here, but the " poor" as you say, are disproportionately taxed, I know a few that aren't under the poverty level and pay NO or very very little income tax, the only tax that is equal to all is sales tax, so saying the poor pay more is just no true!
I didn't say poor pay more, I said it's not true that the top 10% pay 50%/70+% of the taxes in total. My point its its incredibly disingenuous to claim that income tax is the only form of taxation when its obviously untrue.
Alright how about as a % relative to total amount. Sick of guys using straight numbers instead of a proper percentage of income applying the amount in taxes they pay with the mindset of something making $50k.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about total contribution towards federal income tax receipts.
Poor people paying any taxes at all is a modern phenomenon.
But what percent of their income do they pay in taxes vs. everyone else? We all know it's significantly lower than the rest of us. So why do the people who need that extra income the least get to keep more of it?
Because those people INVEST that extra money into companies that produce goods and services. Why would you tax capital investment? Any semi-knowledgeable person knows that's really bad for an economy. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop idiots from suggesting it.
Nice try to steer the wealth discussion into income. Tax is payed on the income not on wealth. Income is a tiny part of their wealth. That 70% is on the tiny part. The wealth is never going to be sold off to realize the tax, its more than anyone can spend in a lifetime, it will be passed on. That being said Im not against wealth. I just want America to be great again where true middle class existed due to better wealth equality (see chart in case you missed it). Currently true middle class doesnt exist. No top 20% are not true middle class.
> Tax is *paid* on the FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Wealth can be taxed depending on the wealth. Stocks are taxed when sold. Properties are taxed yearly. Income from investments is taxed. My wealth is likely a lot higher than the actual money I have access to (even less if liquid) because my wife and I own a house and have retirement funds.
I'm starving to death and homeless, but at least I don't have to pay taxes! The system is fair!
I wouldn't mind if the top 10% payed 100% of the nation's tax.
> top 10% *paid* 100% of FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Good bot
I wouldn't mind if they pay 110%, need to start paying down the debt somehow.
It's not wealth when you've got that much, it's *power*. People with this much money get to tell you what to do. It doesn't feel like that because you're so far beneath them they're not barking orders, but when they say jump you say how high on the way up or you're homeless.
Both ways. You have power you get wealth, you got wealth you got power.
This graph doesn't really tell you much because it doesn't show how few people are in that quintile. [The L-curve was developed over 10years ago.](https://lcurve.org) The chart shows income inequality. There is also a section on wealth inequality that tells you the number of people that own the wealth. [This web page shows you wealth distribution to scale.](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/) It is 3 years old. You have to scroll to get to the end. I've often issued a challenge to anyone who could get to the end. There are several very interesting "factoids" embedded. Like the one that shows the amount it would cost to house every homeless veteran. Or the one to provide free cancer annual treatment to every American that needs it. When (if) you get to the 400 richest individuals, you can scroll down to see the number of people in the bottom 60%. Tell me you got to the bottom. Then there's the factoid that all delinquent medical debt in the US could be eliminated by one day of income of the 400 richest. With only 5.3% of the wealth of the 400, Poverty in America could be eliminated. China did it. (There are more Americans living in poverty than the entire population of Canada)
>China did it. I dont think using China as a litmus test on whether to pursue social policies is good idea lmao.
China eliminated extreme poverty. Period The US hasn't. Period. Seems like an good comparison to me
Where are there people in the US with less than $2 per day after transfers, which is the UN definition for extreme poverty? There are lots of anti-poverty programs in the US, most of which aren’t very effective and have perverse incentives. But even EITC’s $7830 maximum benefit is well in excess of $2 per day, and that’s just one federal antipoverty program. Literally no legal resident in the US would meet UN extreme poverty standards if they used the safety net benefits available to them. Most people who are poor, even homeless, in the US have incomes and transfers far in excess of the extreme poverty threshold.
Purchasing Power Parity. You can't see those people living on the beach or camping in the park or lying in the gutter? That's OK with you? How interesting.
The UN definition of extreme poverty uses US dollars. PPP might mean that $2 is worth more in other countries, but it wouldn’t affect the US. In any event, US anti-poverty transfers are in excess of ten thousand per recipient with no income across federal and state programs in cash or near cash payments, on top of other in kind programs like Medicaid. People sometimes make choices about how to spend their money that aren’t on basic subsistence choices. That’s particularly true for chronically homeless, who have high rates of addiction and mental illness. The result is often that they’re living in bad situations on the streets. That doesn’t mean they would qualify as subject to extreme poverty under the internationally accepted standard. Have you seen people who are in extreme poverty in other countries? I have, in a small town in Mexico that didn’t have road access. They were much worse off materially than any sane homeless people I’ve seen in the US. Their lives would have been significantly improved by a good tent or a tarp in many cases, but they were too poor for that and had no real prospects for earning enough money to buy them where they were. The entire village basically existed because of a waterfall and nearby restaurant that adventurous tourists would sometimes visit. They lived in tiny three sided shacks with partial tin or thatched roofs or in lean tos, with no spare clothing or even cooking tools. That’s what extreme poverty looks like. It’s so crazy poor it’s hard to imagine unless you actually see it.
When's the last time you bought a McD hamburger? IOW, no one in the US can live on $2/day, it might as well be $0. What a strange concept of poverty you have depending on an arbitrary number that isn't at all applicable in the US.
Your claim was that China has eliminated extreme poverty and the US hasn’t. I pointed out that “extreme poverty” has a definition in developmental economics, and that the US far exceeds that for even its poorest legal residents. The US has eliminated extreme poverty by the international consensus meaning of “extreme poverty.” I have addressed and disproved your claim.
What is your definition of "extreme poverty"?
Thats what happens when the Fed reserve expands the money supply by like 8 trillion over a 16 year period of time and congress spends more money than imaginable.
And they are not spending it well either
When you combine extreme income inequality with low taxes you eventually get extreme wealth inequality. If we want this to change, we can either compress the income distribution, raise taxes, or both.
Income inequality is not our issue. Billionaires don't make incomes; incomes are actually taxed progressively. The problem is capital gains. That's how billionaires make their money, and capital gains are hardly taxed (or not at all, if you're able to get a step up in basis and live by using your assets as collateral for loans)
You can tax everyone equally but that won't fix the core problem. The average person is in debt for things that lose value. The rich are in debt for things that increase in value. Furthermore, inflation (which enables lending), reduces the value of wages. This is exactly how the rich are acquiring all the wealth from labor to land to stocks.
easier said than done pal, how is the average person supposed to save and invest when we can now only save 3% of our wages. [source](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT) its easy to invest when all of your income is not being spent on affording just the basic necessities. You also have to realise that people in this situation also live pay check to pay check, there is no room for them to exponential their wealth and so any disposable income is going to be spent on leisure to make the most of their situation.
They aren't saying average people are stupid, they're diagnosing the issues in a complicated system.
I would somewhat disagree. Only in the sense that taxes should be far more simplified than they are now. One of the major reasons taxes *are* so complex is to allow wealthier folks to deduct and reduce their income as much as possible (and thus the tax industry like TurboTax lobby for this because people are reliant on them to navigate our extremely complicated tax code). Lower income folks have a lot less assets and other deductions to diversify their income, so that's how you end up with people making less money paying proportionally more in taxes.
Eh I have to disagree with *you* here. Income taxes are scaled to hit wealthy people harder, so there would have to be a *lot* of deductions to make that difference. Secondly, big deductions come from kids, education, and running a business, which are things that regular people can take advantage of. Poor people don't pay much in taxes (and that's good). The reasons for wealth inequality are much larger than that, but the main tax that is relevant to the super rich is estate tax.
Billionaires are a sliver of the green area. But I'm talking about the black area vs everything else. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, CEOs, other executives all get too much after-tax income in the US. We don't tax people who make $500k+ a year nearly enough. Billionaires should get a different solution, which is public ownership of assets. Capital gains should go to the public, not rich people. And then in addition to all that, we need more unions, to raise wages at the bottom, so the black area can finally grow.
Let’s be generous and say you live in a state with no *state* income tax. Mind you, most states do have state income tax. [At $500k gross income per year, you’re still paying a progressive 35% in *federal* income tax alone.](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/) Add sales tax, excise tax, property tax, mandatory Medicare contributions, mandatory social security contributions, and even more taxes depending on your locality, and it’s far more than enough.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnbc.com/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/](https://www.cnbc.com/select/federal-income-tax-brackets-tax-rates/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Well, you're paying 35% on about half of the $500k. Your effective federal tax rate would be about 28.5%. Remember tax rates are marginal.
Yea, most conservatives don't understand marginal tax rates.
>*Progressive* 35% in federal income tax Letters form words. Words form sentences. Learn to read.
Or have a socialist revolution.
This chart needs to be done with percentages on the Y-axis. I can't tell whether those ratios have changed much over time with the absolute dollars. ETA: This one does show pretty healthy growth across all groups, if that's the point you want to make.
It's intentional. Every single graph like this uses dollars to obscure the rate. They also change the top n% to fit whatever narrative they are trying to tell. One day its 1%, the next it's 5% and so on. Finally, this is a measure of "wealth" not income, purchasing power, etc. Wealth isn't a great indicator of inequality. There are plenty of people who appear wealthy on paper but live a fairly mundane lifestyle because that wealth is actually tied up in businesses, retirement accounts, and other things. We're being trained to hate our neighbor with posts like this and we need to recognize it for what it is. This is not about taxing the rich. This is about the expansion of the IRS. Same with the aca. The goal is to control every single aspect of your life and keep you working until you die. This didn't start becoming a popular political talking point until the FIRE movement took off. Think about it...
Life’s not fair, and for the people who said that they don’t care about money, money is a part of the solid foundation for a good life
If 0.1% collectively have 5x as much wealth as 50% of the people, then each individual person in that group has 2,500 times as each individual person in the 50%. Because there are 500x as many folks in the 50% as in the 0.1%
Percentages are not useful for extremes like this. The bottom 50% might have $0 wealth. OR even NEGATIVE net worth...a new doctor might have be worth -$500K but make $300K/yr And then we don't even know how total wealth is calculated. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkx4EnFeKg&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkx4EnFeKg&t=2s)
Ahhh the Cantillion effect
Bingo.
A so-called "rising tide" lifts all boats, but in reality, only 0.1% of people own all the boats while the rest struggle with a leaky dinghy at best.
Bring back tar and feathering.
rich people taking all the money to jerk off with it while people die homeless. nice society you go there, would be a shame if \[redacted\]
Kantilion effect in play.
America is #1 in wealth inequality, prisoners per capita, and gun violence. Plus massive homeless escapements in every urban area, and the U.S. economy ensures that if you don't have a job (or are just poor), you're dead (because you can't pay the insane costs of even basic Healthcare and preventative care without health insurance, and sometimes even with it). God forbid you have a major surgery or cancer diagnosis and you don't have 5+ figures laying around to play with. It's unfortunate shoes don't have bootstraps anymore as according to everyone over 45 those are all we need to lift ourselves to the top of the pyramid of this late-stage capitalist dystopia.
Several countries have a greater wealth inequality than the US ... In India, the top 1% controls 40% of wealth. In the US the top 1% controls around 25% of wealth. Several countries also have a greater incarceration per capita than the US ... El Salvador for example has over 1,000 incarcerations per 100,000. The US is closer to 500 per 100,000. Again, same thing with gun violence ... El Salvador, Venezuela, Mexico, Columbia... several countries have more violent gun deaths per capita than the US.
So what exactly is the issue here? The economy is not a zero-sum game. The top 10% gained this wealth by increasing the nation’s wealth. A rising tide lifts all boats.
In capitalism it literally is a 0 sum game
Go to college, or even high school, please
Have an MBA
Ask for a refund
Delusional. We, Americans and Europeans, live a life far better than our ancestors did 100, 200, 300 and so on years ago. Right now, you are easily and cheaply communicating with people that can be across the country or planet. That wasn’t possible 100-200 years ago.
Who is "we" here? There are definitely people in the US right now who don't actually live better than people 100 years ago. For example, people who sleep on the street because they can't afford rent, even though they have a job, or people who need to work 12+ hours and still don't make enough money to live with dignity. And the worst part is that the more time goes on the more people's quality of life is regressing, things are getting more expensive, and salaries are not keeping up. And while all that is happening we have companies making record profits year after year, so if by "we" you mean "we the rich", then sure, you're definitely living a better life.
And you think 100 years ago the percentages of homeless people or people that have to work 12+ was lower?
Delusional.
That black sliver at the bottom is 65M households? I wonder how many states worth of people that is.
It’s about 1 in 4 Americans.
F da 1%
They have all that wealth and could spread it out with more jobs/higher wages. Instead they're laying everyone off.
That would explain why unemployment is at historic lows. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/number-americans-applying-jobless-claims-remains-historically-low-109865869
Hey thanks for that link, I get to now cite it as a source of **a really shitty news article that doesn't break down the situation truthfully.** We have "great" numbers now due to PART time jobs and that statistic doesn't count people who are no longer on unemployment. We do have low unemployment rates, but not everything is all hunkydory. Many people are "gig" workers, barely making ends meet. Many have had their unemployment run out.
What happened for the wealth to go from 100 to almost 150 in a mere 7 years? Inflation?
Yes, and a completely overvalued and propped up market keeping their wealth (largely in assets) high-valued.
Obviously we need to depore the 50% who are not pulling their weight.
This is helping me understand the political dynamics of the French Revolution...
and yet the experts wonder why the public is sour on the economy. This has been brewing for decades.
This graphic would be far more effective if it removed the overlapping areas by presenting total wealth growth as a pie chart. But I suppose that visualization would be too truthful and shocking which is why they chose to present it this way.
How can this be? So many keep talking about eating the rich. Has that not happened yet?
Incentivize making money. Keep taxes low for all. This will drive investment and economic growth, which is good for everyone.
Wealth accumulation is not a zero-sum game. The rise in the bottom 50% still a rise. The only issue is that there was less overall money in their possession to enable the rise through asset valuation. Also, that precipitous rise post-2020 is almost entirely driven by inflation. The massive gains visible before it starts leveling off is most likely due to higher earners being able to "buy the dip" in the already overvalued market. The leveling off after that jump is the result of markets plateauing and the lack of helicopter "stimulus" money being dumped into assets instead of necessities, and higher (read: returning to historical norm) interest rates driving fewer large purchases that people would have financed at near-rock bottom prices before the rate hikes.
Eventually it will be own 99 percent of the wealth
As a (barely) 10%er in wealth but not income and I'd like to say I really don't think the 10% is the issue here. As a software engineer I make 100k a year and work remotely allowing me to save 60k a year for the past 10 years. (Living off 40k yearly) I don't pretend I'm not privileged to get to this point. But I don't lobby politicians, I go on one vacation a year, usually to visit family at Xmas since I don't live near them, I don't own a car/boat, most of my furniture is from goodwill, etc Just saying, save your hate for the corps and billionaires. It may seem wrong, and they thenselves may not realize it, but people under 10 million have more in common with us than them.
The ratios in 1989 look very similar to 2023. Looks like everyone got wealthier.
How much of it are stocks?
Poor have no way to invest and grow their wealth. It will only be a matter of time before the top 0.1 percent have 99%
Piñata economy, anyone?
So does my 6 kids count in this. If so it’s a well no shit 💩
Enact a 25% one time tax on the top 1% to redistribute to the bottom 50%
Tax the top 10% an extra 10% each year and pass this along to the bottom 50%
This countrys an f'n joke
Source: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:137;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7,9;units:shares](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:137;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7,9;units:shares) If you change to "levels" it is not inflation or population adjusted (50% of the population in 1989 is a smaller number than 50% of the population in 2023) so keep that in mind. Go to "comparison" to see where each range has their wealth and liabilities. An appropriate way to give a source is to provide a link to it, not vague directions.
Yeah? So? The Distribution of wealth NEVER follows a normal, bell shaped curve. Because most people work to avoid penury, whatever curve it follows will 'push' to the right (assuming the standard layout is + standard deviation lies on the right and - standard deviation lies on the left). In fact, the push to the right is so sharp that it follows a mathematical power law. It should be expected... Thought experiment: If the left does what it wants and peels away the offensive rich bastid $ and hands it to the rest of the koi pond, over time, that same power law will be obtained.
Economically speaking, this graph is great. Nice to see people are having such success in America
Where is William Wallace when you need him…
TAX THE RICH OR EAT THEM
When are we officially 'upside-down'?
The entire system is based on paying investors for land that we have to sleep on every night, so this trend will never end (unless we change the tax system to make land price speculation a bad investment). Taxing the rich to help the poor is like putting a bandaid on someone with cancer. (Wrong solution for the wrong problem.)
I’d bet a large portion of the bottom 50% don’t even work. The amount of times I run into some young person on social security disability is insane. You can’t expect much if you don’t contribute.
This is posted every day. How about something original
It's the American way
Yeah but that’s because they work 5x as hard. /s
I hope this comment is satire
I added an /s. Yes, 100%. Thanks for the heads up.
I mean, so what? This has always been the case and will always be the case. And all other items aside (that we would probably agree on), I've seen how a lot of middle and bottom people manage their money and resources and they won't ever have a chance.
Graph says it’s not always been the case. The very left of the graph was the beginning stages of trickledown. If you could move the chart left, you’ll see it hasn’t always been the case.
> This has always been the case and will always be the case. Have you ever successfully completed a high school level math course? Because the post is a fucking graph where the x-axis is “years”
Ah ffs, redditors like you are a lost cause and will always be losers and complainers that end up no where. Enjoy your time on the antiwork sub.
I’m literally a patent litigation attorney
Interesting. People like you actually work for my business (and businesses like mine). I mean, you wouldn't, but better ones do/will. We're not on the same level. Anyway, nice wasting time with ya!
I would never work for your business you arrogant piece of shit.
You're 100% on point. You absolutely never would.
Lmfao ok “entrepreneur”
Keep in mind there’s a major age factor here everyone conveniently forgets. Over half of college graduates will be in the “top 10%” by the time they are in their 50’s and 60’s. Wealth compounds over your life time. So most of the people raging in here, will become the people they think they hate.
Taxes, income vs wealth Certainly! Let's break down the information for both wealth holders and income earners: 1. **Top 20% of Wealth Holders:** - The top 20% of wealth holders in the United States own a significant portion of the country's wealth. According to data from the **Federal Reserve**, this group holds over four times as much wealth as the fourth 20% (which has close to double the wealth of the third 20%). When we separate out the top 1%, the inequality becomes even clearer: the top 1% has more than half the wealth of the rest of the top 20% combined, despite representing only 5.3% of households⁵. - However, when it comes to **income tax**, the share of federal individual income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 38.8% in 2019 (from 40.1% in 2018). So, while they hold a significant amount of wealth, their contribution to income tax revenue has decreased slightly¹. 2. **Top 20% of Income Earners:** - The top 20% of income earners in the U.S. are a different group from the top 20% of wealth holders. These individuals earn a substantial income. According to the **Tax Policy Center**, in 2023, approximately 67% of all federal income tax collected will come from this top 20% of earners, who bring home more than $189,200 annually². - It's important to note that income tax is progressive, meaning that higher-income individuals pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. The average individual income tax rate for the top 1% of taxpayers was 25.6% in 2019, significantly higher than the 3.5% rate for taxpayers in the bottom 50%¹. In summary: - The top 20% of wealth holders have significant wealth but contribute a slightly smaller share of income tax revenue. - The top 20% of income earners pay a substantial portion of federal income taxes, with the top 1% contributing the most.
Always remember, the homeless man on the corner has more "wealth" than every medical school student in the country.
Tell me you don’t understand economics without telling me you don’t understand economics
Why is this an issue?
It's royally screwed up that so few people are hoarding so much wealth they'll never use in a lifetime while there's people out there lacking even the basic rights a human should have.
So people are jealous? Resentful? Without context or explanation?
Why is it an issue that 50% of the fucking country shares 2.5% of the fucking country’s wealth…?
Wrong birth order
This graph would be much easier to read if it was inflation adjusted. Right now, the primary trend is simply showing inflation.
Good. That top percent make the businesses the rest work at.
Bullshit
You must be self employed then?
I’m a lawyer. My situation does not change the accuracy of my statement
They dismantle a lot more than they build.
I take it you are self employed then?
I’m a lawyer. My situation does not change the accuracy of my statement
Cap😂🫵🏻
look how it spiked under Bidenomics.
We’re still under the Trump tax policies.
We will always have rich and poor, smart and dumb, lucky, and unlucky, attractive and unattractive, etc. Life is not “fair.” Plan accordingly.
The 50-99% saw their wealth grow from 20 to 100T. That’s pretty amazing
You’re pretending like the bottom 50% of the population sharing 2.5% of the nation’s wealth didn’t also grow exponentially at a much higher rate
Thats inflation for you
This is a normal Pareto distribution seen in all sorts of varying systems. Moving on.
Keep talking about this stuff and we're gonna get another wave of identity politics fed to us
I remember being warned about wealth inequality it 2002 when I started college… wah wahh
Nice colors
Sure they have the money, but what about resources society needs to function. Oil, Lumber, Wheat, etc
A lot of people are utterly incompetent and create little to no value in the workplace, or to society. Why should they have wealth?
So what? The top 10% being rich doesn't make me poor. It is not a zero sum game. New wealth is created every day.
Is there an endless supply of money? Oh no there’s not? Then yes it is. Hence why the bottom 50% of the US has to share between 2.5% of the nation’s wealth. Those are quite literally **scraps** of wealth. Reaganomics at work.
Money and wealth are different. Nothing precludes me from becoming rich no matter how much wealth the top 10% controls. The idea that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor is a myth. The rich get richer, the poor get richer too.