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.
When F. Scott Fitzgerald pronounced that the very rich "are different from you and me," Ernest Hemingway's famously dismissive response was: "Yes, they have more money." Today he might well add: much, much, much more money.
The people at the top of America's money pyramid have so prospered in recent years that they have pulled far ahead of the rest of the population, an analysis of tax records and other government data by The New York Times shows. They have even left behind people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Call them the hyper-rich.
They are not just a few Croesus-like rarities. Draw a line under the top 0.1 percent of income earners - the top one-thousandth. Above that line are about 145,000 taxpayers, each with at least $1.6 million in income and often much more.
The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.
The share of the nation's income earned by those in this uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980, to 7.4 percent in 2002. The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell.
Next, examine the net worth of American households. The group with homes, investments and other assets worth more than $10 million comprised 338,400 households in 2001, the last year for which data are available. The number has grown more than 400 percent since 1980, after adjusting for inflation, while the total number of households has grown only 27 percent.
The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.
The Times set out to create a financial portrait of the very richest Americans, how their incomes have changed over the decades and how the tax cuts will affect them. It is no secret that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown, but the extent to which the richest are leaving everyone else behind is not widely known.
The Treasury Department uses a computer model to examine the effects of tax cuts on various income groups but does not look in detail fine enough to differentiate among those within the top 1 percent. To determine those differences, The Times relied on a computer model based on the Treasury's. Experts at organizations representing a range of views, including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Citizens for Tax Justice, reviewed the projections and said they were reasonable, and the Treasury Department said through a spokesman that the model was reliable.
The analysis also found the following:
¶Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
¶Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.
¶The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million - thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.
The tax system in this country baffles me, truly.
Corporations pay about 200 billion a year, give or take, on their earnings.
Taxpayers meanwhile pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 billion to keep the country running, and that's just from income tax.
The facts are clear, the individual is an endangered species, being pushed to the limits of the window of survivability by corporate predators.
Originally posted by AlexofSkye
The tax system in this country baffles me, truly.
Corporations pay about 200 billion a year, give or take, on their earnings.
Taxpayers meanwhile pay somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 billion to keep the country running, and that's just from income tax.
The facts are clear, the individual is an endangered species, being pushed to the limits of the window of survivability by corporate predators.
It is a mistake to believe that corporations represent some kind of independent source of wealth, just waiting to be tapped for tax revenue so that citizens can pay less. This is a favourite myth of the left.
The truth is, it takes a certain sum of money to run the government, and that money comes out of the economy. If you tax corporations more, they raise their prices in order to maintain the rate of return they need to justify their capital investment.
The only way to reduce taxes is to reduce government spending. Raising corporate taxes only means the government is adding it to the cost of your purchases instead of deducting it from your paycheck.
Originally posted by lmgnyc
Just look at the percentage of people ensnared by the damn AMT. This was enacted in the late sixties to ensure that the wealthy weren't escaping paying taxes via loopholes... well, guess who is paying it now?
Originally posted by eazy_mas
The econnomy onlly helps the rich to be richer not for the poor or middle class people
Originally posted by Skibum
Originally posted by eazy_mas
The econnomy onlly helps the rich to be richer not for the poor or middle class people
That would be because the vast majority of the poor and middle class have the mindset that they will only survive if they work FOR someone else. They have no chance of becoming rich unless they hit the lottery.
Could Joe the janitor who cleans the office become a millionare highly unlikely because he is trading the hours of his life for money, he only has 24 hours per day and therefore can only make so much money.
Now lets say Joe through his experience as a janitor develops a remarkable cleaning product, he decides to start his own business marketing this product. Guess what he has just put himself into a position to possibly become rich. He has created new jobs and should be allowed to reap the rewards from his endeavors because he is the one who put himself on the line to start out on his own.
The sad part of the story is that it seems like the vast majority of people have resigned themselves to working for someone else. They grow up thinking "I'll get a decent education and when I grow up I'll get a nice safe job working for someone else where I can get a guaranteed paycheck and have little risk to my life."
Most people want to be rich, but other than buying a lottery ticket every week they don't do much to put themselves in the position to become rich, they continue to go to work for their employer and turn in their 8 hours a day and get their paycheck at the end of the week.
usually for those people ( middle class and poor ) they cant have a limit in reaching something because usually if you have and idea and want to you use it onther guy with much power and money than you will take your idea and use it for his use.
Originally posted by skippytjc
Flat tax!!!! On ALL income, including interest. Same for everybody, no tax breaks on anykind.
No other way to do it.
I am perplexed we as voters and TAX PAYERS have tolerated anything else all these years.
Why should somebody earning triple my income pay a different % on thier taxes? One reason: We the sheeple have alowed it to happen.
FLAT TAX!!! And no breaks or incentives...EVER.
Originally posted by Skibum
Absolutely, lets raise the taxes on the poor and lower them on the rich.
How much? Id say a decent percentage.
But an entire tax system overhaul would need to accompany a switch to flat tax, so its not that simple as "how much".
I think overall, your total taxes (all taxes) including state or regional taxes shouldn’t be more than 30-35% your income combined. But, whatever it is, it needs to be the same for everybody.