Who pays a higher % of taxes?
Teachers or the 1% (everyone who makes $362,000+, not just the heavy hitting CEO's in the top 0.01? My teacher said the lower and middle class pays more taxes PERCENTAGE wise than the 1% but I disagreed. Who's correct? Today, my APWH class had a discussion about taxes and if the government should do more to try and make everyone financially equal and everyone who spoke except for me said yes. I'm not trying to say their wrong but these guys are just ignorant, they all say Obama is a great president but when I ask them what makes him good, they can't respond. They all say the rich white people are racist, people who make $100k+ PAY NOTHING and the poor pay the most (lolwut), and that the government should run ALL the companies as the rich "owners" are racist. I try to argue against them but they just call me stupid and agree w/ everything my teacher says because she works and is older. Keep in mind this is a HS full of spanish/ AA kids from Washington Heights, Brooklyn, and Harlem so most are lower/middle class which is probably why they have this opinion. IDK why I'm telling you this but it feels good getting it off my chest :D.
EDIT: Someone said I have the views of an "American", lolwut?
Nobody hides from the IRS...unless you are breaking the law by hiding your income.
If that 362k is coming all from capital gains, then, yeah, he pays 15%. Even then, although the teacher's marginal rate may be higher, her total rate is likely lower. She can benefit even more by using mortgage deductions, contributing to a tax-deferred retirement account, using a HSA, etc.
It is very hard for me to imagine a scenario in which the guy making 362k pays a lower rate than the teacher.
Maybe it could be done: an expat living in Dubai gets about 90k exempted, only pays federal taxes, and can claim some additional exemptions. With the AMT, he could get away paying around 15%. But, it is lower because he does not pay sales tax or FICA (he is living in Dubai...)
Compare that with a senior teacher in Manhattan who rents, smokes and drinks a ton (sin taxes will get you), and drives a gas guzzler. She might pay something like 30%, assuming she spends all her income and doesn't buy health insurance.
It is a crazy scenario, and probably has never occurred.
In reality, it's the upper middle class and working rich who get screwed by the tax code, i.e. the same people whose kids can afford to spend a semester camping in the FiDi.
The top 1% bears triple the share of federal tax burden versus the bottom 75% (36.7% v. 12.7%). I'm guessing in most states, except for union hellholes like new york and california, teachers fall outside of the top quartile (~$66,000). Your teacher can suck it.
For 2009...the most recent data available...
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$343,927
36.73
Top 5%
$154,643
58.66
Top 10%
$112,124
70.47
Top 25%
$66,193
87.30
Top 50%
$32,396
97.75
Bottom 50%
Here is the truth.
The poor don't pay shit in this country. It's great to be poor and working poor (lower middle class) in the US and especially in the larger welfare states of the NE and Cali. The uber rich can find ways to lower their burden and pay very little as a percentage of their net worth.
The middle middle and the upper middle class gets fucked in the US. $363k is still upper middle class. $1MM is still upper middle class.
The ones who get fucked the most out of the above group are the upper middle. Too wealthy to pay a lower marginal rate and too poor to implement tax avoidance schemes.
The poor steal from the middle. The wealthy steal from the middle. What's new?
Only in a select few areas is making $1mm a year upper middle class. That is wealthy everywhere else if you ask me
And here's the scary conclusion from this...
Imagine the OWS people get their way and everyone gets paid more or less the same. How high would taxes have to be (as a % of income) to still generate the same revenues? Answer: much higher.
So yes, 90% of America would receive a higher gross salary but after tax, the difference would not be that noticeable net of tax.
"The government should run ALL companies"?? Jesus - what is our education system coming to? Honestly, go to your nearest Barnes & Noble, buy a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and give it as a gift to your teacher.
I agree with many of the posts above. The top 1%, 5%, and 10% afford this country with a disproportionate amount of revenue for the government.
Whenever a government meddles to make society more economically equal, then that society suffers a lot of perverse effects. Many of my liberal friends advocate for higher taxes for the rich to make society more "equal" or raise gov't revenue. This is a terrible approach. The top 1% are not constrained by national boundaries, and they could easily move many of their assets elsewhere. Raising taxes for the top income earners would simply disincentivize them and, all else being equal, curb economic growth. The country as a whole would be worse off.
Lastly, meritocracy and competition are fundamental pillars for innovation. Ultimately, it is innovation that moves tthis country forward.
Whoa.
Just Whoa.
First off, the middle, upper middle and "rich" pay all of the Federal taxes. Fact. I am not talking about SSI, but taxes that pay for the various agencies and federal budget. The lower half pay nothing through a combination of tax credits or whatever. This is well documented.
Second, making $500K a year is rich. There are varying degrees of rich, but to say someone pulling in half a million a year is simply middle class is to ignore basic income demographics in not only the USA, but the world.
How the fuck is $500K not rich? Outside of NYC, $500K can pay for a nice house, two cars, college for kids and a ton of money in the bank. This whole idea that rich means mansion in Connecticut and a helicopter is grade school.
Newsflash, most people in finance will be lucky if they pull in $500K a year consistently. You are not going to get near that until almost VP level (or VP level outside of NYC if even that) and most people leave finance after one year.
Here is how you get rich. You save your fucking money and you start your own business. Even if you are making $1MM a year you are still working for someone else.
Then we simply have different definitions of rich. Yours is wrong though.
500k pre tax is very comfortable. It's not rich. It can turn into rich but so can a government worker double dipping with the right moves. Possible but not likely.
Is a guy driving a benz that much better off than the dude in the Accord? Is a 1MM house that much better than a 500k one? Same shit except these people get screwed the worst via taxes.
You might think 500K is a decent living, but income distribution in the USA does not agree with you. Making 500K per year puts you in the 1.5% of earners in the USA by a far amount.
http://www.paycheckcity.com/calculator/netpay/us/pennsylvania/result.ht…
500K, married, 2 kids (3 deductions with head of household) is over 6K a week. If you can't build wealth (savings) and have a nice house you are doing something wrong.
There are different degrees of "rich", but half a million per year makes you very affluent.
Opinions are not wrong or right, they are opinions.
Ea omnis quis culpa nihil minima deleniti sit rerum. Dolor molestiae autem necessitatibus aut odio et. Ipsam sit dolorem sed non doloremque et. Nisi non repellendus enim qui. Amet reiciendis voluptas magni.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...