It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
originally posted by: SBMcG
originally posted by: Snarl
We'll see how long it lasts. When the rich move to Texas from Minnesota ... ah, well ...
In the meantime, the Governor's office can make up any numbers they want to suit their agenda. Some fake news agency will make it all sound real.
LOL
In 2015, an investment group I work with asked me to look into an energy field recovery services company in rural NW Minnesota. I spent several weeks looking things over, but the bottom line almost 80% of their revenue came from contracts in North Dakota.
We bought part of the company and promptly sold it to another company in Williston (ND). But I've seen enough. Minnesota is NOT a good place to do business.
This was an interesting read. It is from Twin Cities Business Magazine.
tcbmag.com...
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Who cares if Minnesota is below or above.... tax the rich.....
You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...
World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: SBMcG
You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...
You know what makes ME really angry?
World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
And NOTE: This does NOT include the banksters.
originally posted by: SBMcG
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Who cares if Minnesota is below or above.... tax the rich.....
How much?
I'm not "rich", but I use what capital I have to make my living. I do that by investing. I can tell you that at a certain point I would STOP investing and live off passive investments if my taxes were much higher. And there are millions of me out there...
The "rich" already pay most of the taxes. The top 10% of earners already pays 70% of the taxes.
You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...
So how much should the "rich" pay?
In the U.S., between 1978 and 2015, the income share of the bottom 50% fell to 12% from 20%. Total real income for that group fell 1% during that time period.
originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: SBMcG
Prepping for the 2018 gubernatorials, are we?
Just so ya know, Two-term Governor Mark Dayton is eligible to seek re-election, but has stated that he would not do so. ...But Jesse Ventura might go for it.
pokeprodpickle
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: SBMcG
originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Who cares if Minnesota is below or above.... tax the rich.....
How much?
I'm not "rich", but I use what capital I have to make my living. I do that by investing. I can tell you that at a certain point I would STOP investing and live off passive investments if my taxes were much higher. And there are millions of me out there...
The "rich" already pay most of the taxes. The top 10% of earners already pays 70% of the taxes.
You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...
So how much should the "rich" pay?
Income share for the bottom 50% of Americans is ‘collapsing,’ new Piketty research finds
In the U.S., between 1978 and 2015, the income share of the bottom 50% fell to 12% from 20%. Total real income for that group fell 1% during that time period.
Per capita income in the U.S. was $29,979 in 2015
If you look at filings...
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?
44.7% of income tax filers earned (approximately) per capita income or less (under $29,999) and paid approximately 1.5% of taxes.
An additional 39.3% of income tax filers earned between $30,000 and $100,000, and paid 19% of taxes. A further 13.3% earned between $100,000 and $250,000, and paid 27.8% of taxes. A scant 2.7% of filers earned more than $250,000 and paid the remaining 51.6% of taxes.
So, you seem to have this question of fairness... let's look at the math:
148,686,586 U.S. individual income tax returns were filed in 2014, for a combined total income of $9,667,712,667,000 and paid a total of $1,419,614,722,000 in taxes (14.68%).
36,181,194 (24.33%) people earned (under $15,000) a combined $90,803,715,000 (0.94%) and paid $4,589,290,000 in taxes (0.32%)
30,321,571 (20.39%) people earned ($15,000-$30,000) a combined $667,974,467,000 (6.91%) and paid $22,143,346,000 in taxes (1.56%)
26,110,889 (17.56%) people earned ($30,000-$50,000) a combined $1,023,194,198,000 (10.58%) and paid $61,946,032,000 in taxes (4.36%)
32,327,738 (21.74%) people earned ($50,000-$100,000) a combined $2,311,371,626,000 (23.91%) and paid $214,416,953,000 in taxes (15.10%)
17,534,600 (11.79%) people earned ($100,000-$200,000) a combined $2,365,294,280,000 (24.47%) and paid $311,455,047,000 in taxes (21.94%)
2,192,340 (1.47%) people earned ($200,000-$250,000) a combined $486,433,760,000 (5.03%) and paid $83,885,543,000 in taxes (5.91%)
4,018,255 (2.70%) people earned ($250,000 and up) a combined $2,722,640,621,000 (28.16%) and paid $721,178,510,000 in taxes (50.80%)
So, what are the tax rates of these brackets - how much tax paid versus how much income earned:
(under $15,000): 5.05% (it really is higher than the next bracket)
($15,000-$30,000): 3.31%
($30,000-$50,000): 6.05%
($50,000-$100,000): 9.28%
($100,000-$200,000): 13.17%
($200,000-$250,000): 17.25%
($250,000 and up): 26.49%
Speaking of earnings, let's look at income share versus population share:
(under $15,000): 0.94% / 24.33% = 0.04
($15,000-$30,000): 6.91% / 20.39% = 0.34
($30,000-$50,000): 10.58% / 17.56% = 0.60
($50,000-$100,000): 23.91% / 21.74% = 1.01
($100,000-$200,000): 24.47% / 11.79% = 2.08
($200,000-$250,000): 5.03% / 1.47% = 3.42
($250,000 and up): 28.16% / 2.70% = 10.43
To put this particular ratio into perspective... it shows how wealth is concentrated (higher ratio = higher concentration) - and it's quite a concentration - the over $250k bracket averages to $677,567.90 annually; stopping it at $250k just doesn't capture how skewed it is nearer the top. Under $15k is skewed badly as well... it averages out to about $2,509.69; ideally, the brackets would have a ratio close to 1 (as the $50k-$100k bracket is nearly).
One last thing - how does tax share compare to the income share/population share ratios?
(under $15,000): 0.32% / 0.04 = 0.0800
($15,000-$30,000): 1.56% / 0.34 = 0.0459
($30,000-$50,000): 4.36% / 0.60 = 0.0727
($50,000-$100,000): 15.10% / 1.01 = 0.1495
($100,000-$200,000): 21.94% / 2.08 = 0.1055
($200,000-$250,000): 5.91% / 3.42 = 0.0173
($250,000 and up): 50.80% / 10.43 = 0.0487
This could be considered a perspective of tax fairness - an answer to your ultimate question.
The poorest bracket has the third highest ratio, that's pretty bad... recall from above the bizarrely higher tax rate for under $15k bracket compared to the next and you will see how this relates. The under $15k bracket averages ~$2.5k and $15k-$30k bracket averages ~$22k, but under $15k bracket (despite not being a lot larger in population) pays more than 1/5th what the higher bracket does in taxes - even though the higher bracket earns 8.8 times as much; this corresponds to about 80% higher (the ratio above is about 74% higher; factoring in taxes/population puts it within 2%). The lower the ratio, the further it is from being in line with wealth concentration.
Clearly, tax burdens are not distributed fairly - interestingly, the $200k-$250k range is especially low; the $250k+ is a lot fairer, but still on the low end.
originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: Greven
I can't address this until I know whether these tax rates are based upon gross income or AGI.
Until then, the question remains: How much should the "rich" pay in taxes, and at what tax rate do the "rich" stop employing, investing, and spending?
I can answer the above question. I think EVERYONE with earned income should pay some tax -- even the poor. I think there should be a 3-tier flat tax starting at about 8% for anyone (single filer) earning $1 - $30,000, 15% $30,000 - $150,000, and 25% beyond that. The only deductions I would allow would be for healthcare, mortgage interest, and property taxes. No more EITC idiocy.
My money is NOT someone else's money. If it came down to it and I was taxed about 10% more than I am right now, I would cease all earned income-related activities and simply live off passive investments (capital gains). If Bill Clinton's wife had won instead of the far superior Donald Trump, I probably would have done just that.
I have a friend my age (early 50's) and my former business partner who is truly wealthy (9-figure net worth). He has already gone into early retirement because he's tired of working so others don't have to. In the past. he's created thousands of jobs, built hundreds of income-producing properties, and probably paid hundreds of millions in taxes along the way.
Now he sits at home day-trading...
I don't think the wealth-grabbers on the Left have any idea how quickly private capital would vanish if they ever really tried to implement their loony redistributionist plans.