# What is a fair amount of tax for the rich to pay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416 "2010-04-26T16:52:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/101 "2010-04-27T22:22:36Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I think that’s a mistake. Which part? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/102 "2010-04-27T22:38:57Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Now, consider a global world, where people can choose to leave the country completely if the federal government becomes too big and taxes too high. You’ll see the same thing in the U.S.: Lower growth, bigger debt, and more innovation and innovators leaving and settling elsewhere. Well, as a Canuck you may not realize this, but Yanks are brainwashed from a young age to love their country & stay through hell & high water. 😛 And the poor can’t move to Lake Como anyway, so somebody has to look out for their interests. We aren’t really all ruling class, & the law has to work for everybody in a democracy. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If you respond to that by stimulating unionization of your work force, you’re going to hurt yourselves even more. You can’t regulate yourself to prosperity. Nor can you tax and spend your way to competitiveness with the rest of the world. If you keep going in the direction some of you want to go, the U.S. is going to get _hammered_. Fifty years from now, you’ll be has-beens - much like what happened to Britain when it embraced that kind of model after WWII. Labor unions have a better record at increasing general prosperity than…anything else. > [@Clothahump](#): > > Sigh. No, Bob, it won’t fuck the economy up worse. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact. > > But the chances of it happening are slim because Congress doesn’t want to give up the games they can play with the income tax, where they slip exemptions to their buddies and screw everyone else. Do you even realize that wealthy persons use their wealth for non-retail expenditures? Consumption taxes don’t tax money spent on stocks & bonds. Under a national consumption tax, a poor person would pay taxes on all his income, a middle-income person would pay taxes on some large portion of his income, a very rich person would barely pay taxes at all, & a captain of industry could just buy companies whose products he like & get free samples & pay NO taxes. (This is an exaggeration. Somewhat.) > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Which part? I think it’s time for an annual tax on net worth of ~2.5% ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/103 "2010-04-27T22:48:13Z")
[quote=“Sam\_Stone, post:72, topic:537416”] I just can’t stop… [quote] You should probably quit while you are behind. **Top States by Median Income** New Jersey Maryland Hawaii Connecticut New Hampshire Alaska Massachusetts Minnesota Utah Virginia **Bottom States by Median Income** North Carolina Tennessee South Carolina New Mexico Montana Oklahoma Kentucky Alabama West Virginia Louisiana Arkansas Mississippi **States with the most incarcerations** Texas California New York Michigan Ohio Illinois Georgia/b Pennsylvania Louisiana North Carolina Virginia **States with the fewest incarcerations** Nebraska West Virginia Rhode Island/a Montana South Dakota New Hampshire Vermont/a Wyoming Maine North Dakota **Highest federal per capita tax receipts** Delaware Connecticut Minnesota New Jersey New York Massachusetts Rhode Island Nebraska Illinois Arkansas **Lowest federal per capita tax receipts** North Dakota Utah Arizona Kentucky Alabama Maine Montana South Carolina New Mexico Mississippi West Virginia This includes individual and corporate income taxes, of course. Boy, I can do this all day. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/104 "2010-04-27T23:00:01Z")
Except that your data (other than perhaps median income) is irrelevant. And your data on tax receipts just says that those are the states with the highest taxes. If your point is that correlation doesn’t imply causation, I would agree, but it is a strong hint if the correlation has a plausible causative connection and you can make enough of them. But that’s why I also included regression data from Fraser. I wasn’t writing an academic paper here, merely providing data to be considered when evaluating tax levels. That’s a damned sight better than most of the wild speculation and ‘feelings’ based analysis that usually goes on in discussions like this. There are much more detailed analyses out there that show the same thing. I read a paper a while ago comparing Texas to California which was just filled with data showing how Texas is now eating California’s lunch. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/105 "2010-04-27T23:00:56Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Interestingly enough, you seem to be making the point that in America the very wealthy end up paying very little taxes. > > Huh. > > Someone in GQ is using your name arguing that the wealthiest Americans are carrying the rest of us with all the income tax they pay. You may want to check that out. > > Anyway. In general the very wealthiest do owe much of their real wealth to capital appreciation which is only income when they sell it. But. [Bill Gates](http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/21/technology/gates_pay/), as your example, had a salary of $901,667 in fiscal 2004 (the year I could easily find) and $175.6 million in dividend income. So maybe not the best example of no income. > > [Warren Buffett](http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton_buffett/index.htm) claims an income of a more modest $46 million/year (which is taxed at 17.7%) > > [Larry Ellison](http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/ceo-pay-compensation-lead-bestbosses08-cx-sd_0430ceo_intro.html) "drew just a $1 million salary, but realized $182 million from the exercise of vested stock options " (in 2006) > > They _are_ claiming incomes, sizable incomes, just incomes that are not taxed so high. Relatively low even. Actually, (and I may not have said this often enough for you to grasp it, so please feel free to repeat at night several times or perhaps write it on your hand for review) the top 1% of wage-earners in the US pay about 40% of the federal income tax burden and the top 10% pay something like 60% of it. I’m glad I’m not your teacher, as your confusion is so persistent it begins to grate. In the GQ (and I’m pretty sure I made this clear) I made the point repeatedly that in the US the wealthy pay most of the federal taxes and therefore it is incorrect to say taxes are low “especially for the rich.” Since they pay most of the taxes, it makes no sense to say taxes are low for them (versus everyone else paying taxes) unless you think they should pay even more, which is quite an arbitrary standard. I’d be fine with **Der Trihs** saying, “In the US, taxes are low, and what federal taxes there are, are paid mostly by the rich.” Now, if you are talking about the taxation system in general, and the fairness of it, you need to understand the difference between wealth and income. I am quite aware of Bill’s actual salary and I’m pretty sure my post made it clear that I was using a hypothetical example with his name to show what could be done if you were rich and wanted to do it. Still, if you are one of those people who think we should tax “the rich” more, you have to be able to distinguish wealth from income, or else the wealthy will dodge your redistribution bullet. They might still feel overtaxed, and might still pay most of the taxes compared with society, but taxing income doesn’t get at wealth very well. Bill is a good example; you could tax his entire dividend income and that would represent only 1/250th of his net worth. He’d still be paying a boatload of taxes ($175M or so) and still be carrying the rest of us, but it wouldn’t be a big load on his total wealth. As to whether or not $175 million should be considered “low” for one guy to pay–well that’s a subject of debate, isn’t it? What’s not up for debate is that the wealthy carry the rest of us here in the US. Thank goodness there are so many of them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Facts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@The\_Facts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Facts)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/106 "2010-04-27T23:06:33Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Bob is an ace Doodad salesman. His annual income is $10 million USD. So he’s quite well off. > > Disregarding any write offs, deductions, tax shelters, etc., what is the fair amount of income tax Bob should pay on exactly $10 million? I’m talking total (income tax for federal, state, county, and city). What is a fair number for the collective governments to confiscate from Bob? This is the best formula I’ve ever heard: Start with the average income. I think it was like $50,000 last year. Every dollar over that gets taxed at 50%. Every dollar over twice the national average ($100,000) gets taxed at 75%. And so on. By the time you reach millionaire level, the rate is 99%. The income you generate from this would be enough that you could raise the income of the people at the bottom: by law, nobody should make less than half the average income (so, $25,000), whether they work or not. Low-income people will be able to choose what they want to work at based on their interests and abilities, and not have take some job they hate because it pays a dollar an hour more. For people at the top, salary is more about a bragging right than it is they actually need the money. They can still talk about how much they make, but the income will be going to better uses. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/107 "2010-04-27T23:15:08Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Is this predictable? Is it even a direct function? I reckon Yanks break the law to avoid lower taxes at a higher incidence than Europeans break the law to avoid higher taxes. (Granted, Europe has Sark & Monaco; we just have Delaware.) I’d preface it with ‘all else being equal’. Government has the guns, and can stop capital flight if it really wants to. But at what cost? There are perfectly good and valuable reasons why we want capital to be able to move around the world. > [@](#): > > But if capital is allowed to move at all, there will ALWAYS be capital flight & race to the bottom. This is an argument either for international cooperation (collusion?) on tax rates or for protectionist policies against moving capital. In the same sense that teenage crime is a good argument for shooting children on sight. Yes, you’ll eliminate teenage crime, but the cost is rather high. World standardized tax rates and protectionism would destroy the world economy, in proportion to how serious we were about enforcing it. > [@](#): > > It is not remotely an argument for unilaterally lowering tax rates, unless one wishes to sabotage other countries (a little) & one’s own (a lot). You think allowing people to keep their own money is ‘sabotage’? Wow. And you think that lower taxes will wind up hurting countries? Double wow. There’s zero evidence to believe that. > [@](#): > > This doesn’t mean what you think, you’re conflating psychological “incentive” with the economic use of the term. A man who makes less money _per annum_ has less incentive (economic) to show up for work, but more incentive (psychological)–because he has less cushion to fall back on without the job. I was talking about _marginal_ rates, not total income. If you raise the marginal rate, you reduce the incentive for people to work harder. This causes people to drop out at the margin. This isn’t radical theory, it’s econ 101. > [@](#): > > This is an incredibly strong argument for global norms in taxation if not world government itself. Given that I can’t think of anything more destructive to human freedom, wealth, and happiness than a world government, I’d have to say you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > Or the government could fund entrepreneurs with grants. Right. Because governments are just _awesome_ at knowing where to invest. They’d never do something like give millions of dollars in development money to politically-connected crooks, or throw money at those groups with the most political pull instead of the those with the best ideas. And they’d know exactly how much money to give, and how to judge the success of something, and when to declare failure and give up, even though they’ve staked their political reputations on it. Where do you get this faith in the ability of government? Just what evidence do you have that governments can be successful at this sort of thing? You’re willing to throw your hat in with a world government just to soak it to the rich, and yet all the evidence we have is that such governments are at best ineffective and at worst destructive to human beings. > [@](#): > > It’s been easier for the South to grow, inasmuch as it’s just catching up. If Haiti were to be straightened out & join the First World, it would have enormous economic growth while still being poor & sick in comparison to Europe. Oh, come on. Texas isn’t Haiti. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/108 "2010-04-27T23:21:32Z")
> [@The\_Facts](#): > > This is the best formula I’ve ever heard: Start with the average income. I think it was like $50,000 last year. Every dollar over that gets taxed at 50%. Every dollar over twice the national average ($100,000) gets taxed at 75%. And so on. By the time you reach millionaire level, the rate is 99%. The income you generate from this would be enough that you could raise the income of the people at the bottom: by law, nobody should make less than half the average income (so, $25,000), whether they work or not. Low-income people will be able to choose what they want to work at based on their interests and abilities, and not have take some job they hate because it pays a dollar an hour more. > > For people at the top, salary is more about a bragging right than it is they actually need the money. They can still talk about how much they make, but the income will be going to better uses. Well, I didn’t realize this was a joke thread…your earnestness over the idea that such a severe redistribution of money constitutes “better uses” is a bit over the top for humor, though. Is the general idea that Other People’s money is not only easier for me to get but funner for me to use? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/109 "2010-04-27T23:41:54Z")
> [@The\_Facts](#): > > This is the best formula I’ve ever heard: Start with the average income. I think it was like $50,000 last year. Every dollar over that gets taxed at 50%. Every dollar over twice the national average ($100,000) gets taxed at 75%. And so on. By the time you reach millionaire level, the rate is 99%. So… Why would anyone ever try to earn more than a million dollars? Why would anyone take a risk and start a business? What exactly do you think millionaires do with their money, anyway? > [@](#): > > The income you generate from this would be enough that you could raise the income of the people at the bottom: by law, nobody should make less than half the average income (so, $25,000), whether they work or not. Oh for God’s sake. What incentive would anyone have to work at any job that pays less than $25,000? For that matter, if you could sit on your ass and earn $25,000, would you go to work full-time to make $35,000? You’d be making less than minimum wage. Do you think wealth just appears by magic? As for those taxes being enough to pay for such a thing… You’re so far wrong I don’t even know what to say. The _Total Taxable Income_ for everyone earning over one million dollars per year in the United States in 2007 came to about 1.4 trillion dollars. If you took every dollar of it, you couldn’t even balance the current budget. If you lower your sights and take everything from everyone earning more than $500,000, you’ll get another 441 billion. Now you can just barely pay the deficit. Except that you can’t, because if you tried to take it all, you’d rapidly find that there’s nothing to take. No one’s going to work for free. All you’ll accomplish is to push money and people out of the country, or cause people to stop trying to achieve. In the meantime, about 23 million households in the U.S. earn less than $25,000. Add in the people who would be getting a guaranteed income who aren’t working, and those who are in the next quintile but would drop out if they could be guaranteed $25,000, and you’re probably talking about providing an income for maybe 40-50 million people. That’s going to cost you well over a trillion dollars. But that’s not even the worst effect. What about all the industries that rely on lower income workers? Are you just going to shut down all the Wal-Marts, the 7-11’s, and all the other low-paying industries? > [@](#): > > Low-income people will be able to choose what they want to work at based on their interests and abilities, and not have take some job they hate because it pays a dollar an hour more. Why do I see a future of professional porn viewers and message board posters, and not so many garbage collectors? Do you have any idea what kind of destruction would be caused by letting people just work at whatever they want? > [@](#): > > For people at the top, salary is more about a bragging right than it is they actually need the money. They can still talk about how much they make, but the income will be going to better uses. Okay, this is just ridiculous. I don’t even know where to start with this. Are you of working age? Have you ever worked in a real company? Do you actually know anyone who’s making a good salary? I feel like I’m reading the opinions of someone from another planet. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/110 "2010-04-27T23:44:14Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You’d be wrong. The total share of wealth held by the richest Americans has been falling for some time. I’ve posted on this numerous times. It was higher than it currently is at points in the 1920’s, the 1960’s, and the 1980’s and 1990’s. The overall trend line from 1929 on is slightly down, but could be said to be essentially flat. It tends to go up in boom times, and down in weak economies. > > And if two countries start at a GDP level of $30,000 per person, and one of them lags the other by just 1% of GDP growth because of its socialist policies, then in 50 years the first country will have $30,000 per person, but the second will have $49,000 per person. And that’s pretty much what’s happened with the U.S. as compared to Europe and Canada. Less socialism, more growth. Everybody is doing a good job of pulling Sam’s usual nonsense to bits but I thought I’d jump in anyway. The last time Sam was telling us about wealth inequality in America he ended up claiming that because almost all the gains in weallth have over the past couple of decades gone to the top 10% that means that there hasn’t been an increase in wealth inequality. It’s amazing he keeps repeating the same old nonsense. Here are some facts and evidence about wealth and income that are worth a look : > **[15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America](https://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4)** > > Explore 15 charts that illustrate wealth and inequality trends in America, shedding light on economic disparities. [http://www.epi.org/economic\_snapshots/entry/webfeatures\_snapshots\_20060823/](http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060823/) And the bit about America getting richer over the past half century because other countries are socialist is, as usual for you, complete rubbish. Here is GDP per capita, adjusted for differences in price levels (PPP), [from the IMF](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita), for the United States and the five most populous countries in Western Europe:[INDENT]United States 47,440 United Kingdom 36,358 Germany 35,539 France 34,205 Italy 30,631 Spain 30,589 [/INDENT]Okay, but look at the same [table using data from 110 years ago](http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190-economy-gdp-per-capita-1900):United States 4,320 Germany 3,134 France 2,849 Italy 1,746 Spain 2,040 Was this due to socialism in pre-socialist Europe or perhaps the job-killing impact of universal health care and cap-and-trade? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/111 "2010-04-28T00:16:33Z")
Would you stop it? Once again, you’re using irrelevant data to claim that I’m wrong about wealth. You bailed on the last two threads where we had this discussion. I’ve posted the raw data, I’ve linked to the graphs, I’ve sourced it straight back to census and IRS data. You just run away, and then come back in a future thread with the same crap. It’s starting to really piss me off. As for your GDP statistics, there have been two world wars and major reallocations of wealth in Europe in that period. Your statistics are pretty much irrelevant. Which made me wonder… Why would you use that very old data, instead of the data from 1973 on the same site, which would be more useful? A quick look at the data shows that in 1973, France had a per capita PPP about 78% of the U.S.'s. Currently, it’s about 72%. Germany had a PPP of 79% of the US’s, and now it’s 70%. Canada had a PPP 82% of the U.S.'s, and now it’s 79.7%. Every one of them lost ground to the U.S. in the last 25 years. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/112 "2010-04-28T00:47:41Z")
> [@The\_Facts](#): > > This is the best formula I’ve ever heard: Start with the average income. I think it was like $50,000 last year. Every dollar over that gets taxed at 50%. Every dollar over twice the national average ($100,000) gets taxed at 75%. And so on. By the time you reach millionaire level, the rate is 99%. > … > They can still talk about how much they make, but the income will be going to better uses. You forgot the other half of the plan so as to spread the pain equally: Start with the average income: e.g. $50,000 This **average** is the benchmark of income you must earn. You _must_ find an employer to pay you this $50k. If you are self-employed, you _must_ provide enough value to customers to bring in revenue of $50k. You must convince your fellow humans that you bring $50,000 of value. If you are unable to provide $50k of value to society, you owe 10 hours of community service for each $1k you are short of $50k. For example, if you were only able to earn $20k in income, you now owe the state 300 hours of community service the following year ($30,000 shortfall multiplied by 10 hours for each $1,000). This state obligation can be fulfilled nights & weekends if necessary. Of course if you are unemployed, there can be reasonable caps on the state community service hours. If you are not able to meet the $50k standard, clearly your time can be put to better use on behalf of the state. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/113 "2010-04-28T00:56:25Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Oh for God’s sake. What incentive would anyone have to work at any job that pays less than $25,000? For that matter, if you could sit on your ass and earn $25,000, would you go to work full-time to make $35,000? You’d be making less than minimum wage. If there is a universal negative income tax, there’s always a utility to going to work–unlike with welfare only for the needy. As for $25,000 being too much, why should anyone work such a job now, other than desperation? Income floors force wages upward, which I would think even you would consider an economic good, Sam. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/114 "2010-04-28T01:12:25Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Would you stop it? Once again, you’re using irrelevant data to claim that I’m wrong about wealth. You bailed on the last two threads where we had this discussion. I’ve posted the raw data, I’ve linked to the graphs, I’ve sourced it straight back to census and IRS data. You just run away, and then come back in a future thread with the same crap. It’s starting to really piss me off. > > As for your GDP statistics, there have been two world wars and major reallocations of wealth in Europe in that period. Your statistics are pretty much irrelevant. > > Which made me wonder… Why would you use that very old data, instead of the data from 1973 on the same site, which would be more useful? > > A quick look at the data shows that in 1973, France had a per capita PPP about 78% of the U.S.'s. Currently, it’s about 72%. Germany had a PPP of 79% of the US’s, and now it’s 70%. Canada had a PPP 82% of the U.S.'s, and now it’s 79.7%. Every one of them lost ground to the U.S. in the last 25 years. You’ve posted a load of rubbish you found on some sociologist’s webiste. And the guy who the dociologist claims he got the data from, an actual expert on wealth, disagrees totally with you. He says there’s been a massive increase in wealth inequality over the past 30 years : \*\*\*MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years? \* Wolff: \*\*We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976. Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s. Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn’t gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality. > **[Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA](https://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html)** Now you can make all kinds of claims about how you analysed data and whatnot but I think if people reading have the choice between believing an actual credentialled and endlessly referenced expert on the subject in his own words and some guy on the internet with a long track record of posting disingenuous nonsense then I think I know which guy most people will believe. Here’s the last time we discussed it. As always you ran away from the thread. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=555477&page=4](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=555477&page=4) You can reply any time you like, I’m interested in hearing you explain how all the increase in wealth going to the top 10% doesn’t mean wealth inequality is increasing. And since 1980, per capita real GDP has risen at about the same rate in America and in the E.U. 15: 1.95% a year in America; 1.83 percent in Europe. If there’s a big difference in certain numbers like between America and Germany then there’s normally a good explanation, in Germany’s case they absorbed East Germany, the equivalent of America absorbing Mexico. Absorbing Mexico would have affected America’s GDP numbers too. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/115 "2010-04-28T01:20:13Z")
[http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090) You can expect an economic boom. The taxes the richest pay have been plummeting. Therefore you can expect some fantastic innovations and inventions. Any day now. All is well. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/116 "2010-04-28T01:31:38Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > As for $25,000 being too much, why should anyone work such a job now, other than desperation? Income floors force wages upward, which I would think even you would consider an economic good, Sam. No, I don’t think _forcing_ income upward is an economic good at all. I think it’s a crazy manipulation of the labor market that would backfire dreadfully. Tell me - where the money coming from? You know, at some point you start running out of other people’s money. The U.S. is already in debt up to its eyeballs, there’s no plan to get out of it, and the entitlement crunch is just starting. I already showed that you can’t get to a $25,000 guaranteed income even if you confiscated all the wealth of everyone who makes over half a million dollars. In fact, I was way too conservative with the number, because I neglected to deduct the tax those people already pay. You can go read the tax data at the IRS as easily as I can. In 2007, the entire taxable income from people making $500,000 or more was 1.842 trillion dollars. That happens to be just slightly more than the current U.S. deficit. But of that, they already paid 413 billion in tax. Let’s forget the cockamamie 100% tax thing, which will never happen and which would destroy the economy if it did. Let’s say you just double their tax. Well, you’re only getting another 413 billion from them, then. That won’t even cover 1/3 of the current deficit. I don’t think you guys have any appreciation for how big a hole you’re already in. The deficit is 1.6 trillion dollars. Do you know how much income you’d have to confiscate to pay for that? Here’s a hint: The TOTAL income tax collected from individuals in 2007 was 1.115 trillion dollars. You couldn’t even pay the deficit even if you doubled the entire nation’s income tax burden. The entire taxable income of individuals in the U.S. was 5.94 trillion dollars in 2007. Your deficit alone is 26% of all the personal taxable income in the United States. But of that 5.94 trillion, 1.11 trillion was already taxed, leaving 4.83 trillion in the hands of the American people. Now, let’s assume you don’t want to increase taxes on anyone earning say, a government bus driver’s salary. Call it $75,000. You’ve just lost another trillion and a half dollars in potential money. Now you can barely even pay your deficit if you confiscate the rest. Keep that in mind when planning your multi-trillion dollars wealth redistribution schemes. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/117 "2010-04-28T01:36:23Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > You’ve posted a load of rubbish you found on some sociologist’s webiste. And the guy who the dociologist claims he got the data from, an actual expert on wealth, disagrees totally with you. He says there’s been a massive increase in wealth inequality over the past 30 years : > > \*\*\*MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years? \* > Wolff: \*\*We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976. > Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s. > Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn’t gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality. You know, you keep quoting this, and I keep bringing up the point that the data came from Wolff himself, and not the socologist, and also that he chose 1975-1976 as his high point because it’s an OUTLIER. IT"S THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE CHART, BY FAR. IT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TREND. HE IS LYING WITH STATISTICS. You refuse to acknowledge this. You either aren’t capable of understanding, or you’re refusing to acknowledge it because it would force you to admit you’re wrong. So you’re just going to keep repeating it over and over again. Either way, I’m done with you. I’ve explained it in the simplest terms I know how, and you still keep repeating it. There’s no point in discussing this with you any further. I do encourage anyone else reading this to go back to the thread Dick linked to if you think he might be right about this. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/118 "2010-04-28T01:47:45Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > I’ll take a stab at this. > > The median income for a family of three in the US is roughly 50k. Bob personally (we have no information on his marital status) makes 200 times the average income for a family. **He takes home enough money to fully support 600 people a year** at a reasonable standard of living. Obviously it would be unfair to charge bob two hundred times the standard tax rate or have him foot the bill for 400 working adults, Interesting enough, total tax receipts for the Federal gov’t was about $2.4 trillion. With a population of about $300million, that gives a total tax obligation, per person, of just a bit under $8k. If Bob was responsible for footing the bill of the 600 people his income is equivalent too, he’d have to pay about $4.8 million in taxes, or about 48%. Of course, that’s assuming the 600 people he’s footing the bill for aren’t contributing anything. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Facts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@The\_Facts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Facts)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/119 "2010-04-28T03:00:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So… Why would anyone ever try to earn more than a million dollars? Why would anyone take a risk and start a business? Ego. Power. The usual shit. > [@](#): > > What exactly do you think millionaires do with their money, anyway? Um, to buy shit? > [@](#): > > Oh for God’s sake. What incentive would anyone have to work at any job that pays less than $25,000? For that matter, if you could sit on your ass and earn $25,000, would you go to work full-time to make $35,000? You’d be making less than minimum wage. I’d do something I wanted to do, instead of just something I had to. If nobody wants to pick up garbage for a low wage, you pay them a high wage. > [@](#): > > Do you think wealth just appears by magic? No, it’s usually stolen. > [@](#): > > As for those taxes being enough to pay for such a thing… You’re so far wrong I don’t even know what to say. > > The _Total Taxable Income_ for everyone earning over one million dollars per year in the United States in 2007 came to about 1.4 trillion dollars. If you took every dollar of it, you couldn’t even balance the current budget. > > If you lower your sights and take everything from everyone earning more than $500,000, you’ll get another 441 billion. Now you can just barely pay the deficit. > > Except that you can’t, because if you tried to take it all, you’d rapidly find that there’s nothing to take. No one’s going to work for free. All you’ll accomplish is to push money and people out of the country, or cause people to stop trying to achieve. > > In the meantime, about 23 million households in the U.S. earn less than $25,000. Add in the people who would be getting a guaranteed income who aren’t working, and those who are in the next quintile but would drop out if they could be guaranteed $25,000, and you’re probably talking about providing an income for maybe 40-50 million people. That’s going to cost you well over a trillion dollars. > > But that’s not even the worst effect. What about all the industries that rely on lower income workers? Are you just going to shut down all the Wal-Marts, the 7-11’s, and all the other low-paying industries? > > Why do I see a future of professional porn viewers and message board posters, and not so many garbage collectors? Do you have any idea what kind of destruction would be caused by letting people just work at whatever they want? > > Okay, this is just ridiculous. I don’t even know where to start with this. Are you of working age? Have you ever worked in a real company? Do you actually know anyone who’s making a good salary? I feel like I’m reading the opinions of someone from another planet. Blah, blah, blah. Dude, I’m a college graduate. The person that I heard explain that system and how it would work was a professor. I think I’ll take his knowledge over yours. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Facts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@The\_Facts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Facts)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416/120 "2010-04-28T03:03:49Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > You forgot the other half of the plan so as to spread the pain equally: > > Start with the average income: e.g. $50,000 > > This **average** is the benchmark of income you must earn. You _must_ find an employer to pay you this $50k. If you are self-employed, you _must_ provide enough value to customers to bring in revenue of $50k. You must convince your fellow humans that you bring $50,000 of value. If you are unable to provide $50k of value to society, you owe 10 hours of community service for each $1k you are short of $50k. For example, if you were only able to earn $20k in income, you now owe the state 300 hours of community service the following year ($30,000 shortfall multiplied by 10 hours for each $1,000). This state obligation can be fulfilled nights & weekends if necessary. Of course if you are unemployed, there can be reasonable caps on the state community service hours. > > If you are not able to meet the $50k standard, clearly your time can be put to better use on behalf of the state. wtf? I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, dude. This is obviously some kind of stupid fascistic scheme, and the stupidest thing ever. I guess you’re making some kind of metaphor or something, but hell if I know what it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-a-fair-amount-of-tax-for-the-rich-to-pay/537416.md?page=7)