"Who in God's name is shocked at these results????"

People who don't understand economics.

In order to transfer wealth, it must first be created. Those creators directly tied to the effort obviously gain most. Those that aren't stakeholders should be glad to get anything.

"When I speak of transferring wealth, I refer, among other things, to the use of the tax code allowing the wealthy to pay decreasing taxes while the non-wealthy pay increasing taxes (e.g., the Trump tax cuts)."

If the wealthy are doing what you accuse them of, they are failing miserably. According to the IRS, in 2020, the top 1% paid 42% of all federal income taxes. Bump that up to the top 5% and its 62%.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid ~2%.

It's almost like the opposite of what you said is true, at least according to the IRS.

"Neither. You're referring to the middle man, the CEOs and stockholders who do nothing."

Doesn't the stockholder provide the capital necessary for growth?

And doesn't the CEO determine the vector of that company and what growth is going to look like.

"That would create A LOT more economic activity than not giving them $5 million payment."

If by economic activity you mean inflation, then yes.

"There's no law against raising taxes on those who clearly have far more money than they know what to do with."

Really?

You don't think there are people out there making hundreds of thousands, yet still spending more than they earn?

Maybe tax savings? Or some portion of income not spent.

90% is a figure I pulled out of the air and it's an exaggeration but whatever the real number is it's very high.

It's relatively close.

"Going from nothing to having everything. Statistical data from the National Endowment for Financial Education shows that, believe it or not, 70% of lottery winners go bankrupt and a third even file for bankruptcy."

"For this reason, it's not that the top 1% of income earners must be paying too little in taxes, it's that wealth (with qualified exceptions for properties) isn't generally taxed, so wealth grows exponentially."

Wealth only increases if invested in an enterprise that generates additional wealth. And that wealth is taxed.

"These are superfluous things to own and if they can afford those they can afford to be taxed high above what most people can."

That's your opinion.

The vast majority of everything you own and enjoy would be considered superfluous by billions on this planet.

"- Demographics tell us Millennials, who voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, will outnumber Baby Boomers by 2024, and things only get bleaker for Republicans in future years as voters younger than them enter the process. The GOP is being propped up by older white voters. Time is not the friend of the Republican Party in its current form."

There is nothing wrong with this, but it is not a new phenomenon.

How many USan leftist radicals, even ones who had coined themselves as socialists, went on to plant the seeds of the modern economy.

Being a radical contrarian is fun when you're a college student. Having lots of money is fun once you get out. if the millennials want to tax the hell out of themselves, does it really matter? How many of us here will still be young enough to even be affected by it?

To quote Churchill, "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains."

"Billionaires are now paying a lower tax rate than the middle class, so yes. They finally got what they paid for when they bribed the GQP."

Really.

Things have changed that much since 2015?

Average Federal Tax Rates By Income Group:

Top 1%: 33.3%
Highest Quintile: 26.7%
Fourth Quintile: 17.9%
Middle Quintile: 14.0%
Second Quintile: 9.2%
Lowest Quintile: 1.5%

"Millennials are not turning conservative as they age, unlike previous generations."

Maybe. But once you start to generate income from your work, you begin to wonder why the government should take it and give it to someone else who didn't earn it.

It's easy when your young to feel that prosperity should be shared with all. When it's always someone else's money in question.

I mean, it could happen. If Millennials want to give their money away...it's their choice. In the 1960s, young people were far more likely to embrace far left ideals...but by the 1980s many were setting the stage for what is not the current global economy.

I'll caveat by saying that the political spectrum is not linear. It's two dimensional. I think traditional social conservatism is breathing it's last breaths. That doesn't they are going to embrace some sort of Neo-Marxist platform where the government determines how the wealth they earn should be divided amongst the population.

"We tax transactions. They are easier to capture than the value of an asset at a particular point in time."

That's why most of the western world has embraced the VAT.

"That's not the same as percentage of income paid in taxes, which is what Nixon's post was referring to."

Which would be completely dependent on which state you reside in.

If you want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, this provides the best picture.

"In fact, when taken together, it shows wealth is getting more and more concentrated at the top."

And?

I mean, it seems pretty easy to me...if you want to stop the rich from getting richer...ban them from engaging in those activities that make them richer.

Like investing.

That should cool things off, right?

"Always a good time to remind folks there's one regular poster who year in and year out, pays a higher percentage of his income in federal taxes than anyone else on the DR."

I'm getting ready to retire. I'll remain overseas. As such, I am entitled to an overseas tax exemption on income earned outside of the US, up to $118k. I have run the numbers and determined that my federal income tax rate (5%) will come out to about 5% after the standard deduction.

I still have to pay entitlement taxes though. No one can escape those.

"Not when the claim is Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in federal taxes than Buffett."

So...Buffet is an individual. Not an average.

Consider my last post. My expected income + retirement earnings is anticipated to be $207k per year. My expected taxes for 2023 will be ~$9.6k, or 4.6%. On the chart, that would mean I am somewhere second quintile-ish, where if I didn't get the tax break my taxes would be much higher based on taxable income.

I'm not representative of the average, but far more people are.

"Basically, the US has agreements with other countries which have similar systems to SS. The wages are withheld locally; It's only the self-employment profits which have taxes due back in the states."

Negative. My income is paid by a US company. And under the negotiated SOFA agreement I pay my taxes to the US government. I don't file a tax claim in Germany.

Even if you're deployed to a combat zone and get the "tax free" benefit, you're still required to pay entitlement taxes.

"Funny me, I just believe the tax code should be more progressive."

You're entitled to your beliefs.

"Every other tax we have is either regressive (sales, excise, medicare), or super-regressive (SS)."

Y'mean like the VAT? The tax employed by most of the western European nations progressives claim to want to emulate?

"You might also qualify for a housing exemption. Yuuuuuge."

Not unless it's a rental house.

Under my negotiated SOFA contract, I am not permitted to own property in Germany. If I did, I would be forced to pay German taxes. Also if I were married to a German.

"How did it change your opinion of how you should get paid, which is the government taking money from other people; people who work and pay taxes."

It depends on how you want to do the accounting.

The Air Force is offering lavish bonuses to rated aviators? Why? In order to remain a competitive employer.

Training a new aviator costs millions of dollars. Keeping a trained one doing aviator stuff costs several hundred thousand.

Which business case do you think is stronger?

"So why'd you even mention Average Federal Tax Rates By Income Group?"

Because they're federal, genius.

Not state.

"The fact someone making wages of $160K in 2023 will pay a higher overall percentage of their income in federal taxes than someone making $160 million in rents, dividends, and interest is AN EXAMPLE of the tax code."

On average, someone making $160M a year will pay 33.3%

On average, someone making $160k per year will pay somewhere between 26.7% and 33.3%

"In #109, you suggested federal taxes would depend on your resident state."

Negative. If you wanted to include non-federal income taxes into the mix it would become impossible to create an apples-to-apples comparison. Some states have no state income tax, yet hefty property or sales taxes. federal income taxes are the only ones that apply evenly to all taxpayers, and even that can be gamed when high state taxes are deducted from federal income taxes.

Weren't you one of those throwing a fit at the cap on the SALT deduction?

"Who are these progressives? You're the only person I know who wants a VAT in the US. Except maybe Bernie "I've never passed anything, ever" Sanders."

You misunderstood, good sir. Progressives, like Bernie, often claim that they want to emulate western European and Scandanavian. What they know quite well is that those 'social democracies'' are funded in large part by VATs that range from 19%-25% in most countries. Progressives understand that, if they were to pitch this to American taxpayers, even progressive ones, it would be a non-starter. Which is why the American progressive model is built on lower- and middle-class income earners paying little or nothing in taxes required to fund these social programs, with the bill instead being handed off to higher income earners. Ditto if progressives were to propose the tax rates currently carried by low-income earners in Europe.

That's sorta why Europe works, I think. Because everyone contributes. In that way, places like Sweden are probably less welfare-ish than the US. Even if they're held up by uniformed USan progressives as being 'welfare states.'

"No, just pointing out the four blue states who would be footing the bill, and the fact the tax code was specifically designed to hurt "blue" areas, which the authors admitted."

It just limited how much money states could pilfer from the federal coffers in order to fund their own pet projects.

"Nonsense. www.cnbc.com"

Again, you are focusing on specific individuals. That's fun, but the averages tell a different story. A truer story.

"But that's not dollar for dollar; that's at the marginal rate; hardly gamed."

So SALT didn't bother you?

And wouldn't it be fair if progressive states paid more than their fair share. Set the example, maybe? Rather than follow a do as I say, not as I do model?

"Oh, ffs, if Sanders didn't include a VAT with his M4A plan, he's never going to do it."

Because if he did propose a collective funding solution (like a VAT), it would be dead in the water. So much for democratic socialism.

It only has a shot if a small minority pay for it, while the much larger majority bnenefits.

Why, because for the larger majority, M4A would not be worth the cost of higher taxes imposed upon themselves.

"Define "in large part." VAT in Germany (as an example) only makes up about 17% of the nation's total tax revenue. Additionally, everyday goods and services are taxed at a lower VAT rate of only 7%. So as much as you enjoy characterizing the VAT as some indispensable hit to the poor and middle class that US liberals are unwilling to cope with, that simply does not comport with reality."

So much of what you wrote is wrong.

First, the VAT in DEU is 19%.

Second, very few items or services are subject to the 7% rate. Car repair? 19%. A new TV? 19%. A new car? 19%.

Here is a list of those things that have a 7% VAT:

water supplies
medical equipment for disabled persons
local public transport
books, audiobooks and newspapers
periodicals
writers / composers
agricultural inputs
hotel accommodation
admission to cultural and certain sports events
social services
firewood
take away
medical and dental care
cut flowers and plants
taxation of gold and jewelery

Third, and you were closer here, the VAT represents 18.2% of total tax receipts.

Finally, I think (iirc) you may be the only progressive here who isn't anti-VAT. TYhe problem with VATs is that they don't punish the rich or do anything to put the rich in their place. In the US, taxes generally have as much to do with hitting the rich as they do with providing revenue.