edit: fixed year typo
If they had not been extended the taxes for those high earners would have dropped for 2025 and beyond.
The bottom 50% pay no taxes and the top 1% still pay 40+% of federal taxes.
No. They pay 40% of Federal income tax, specifically.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1...
> The bottom 50% pay no taxes
Same mistake here. They pay plenty of payroll etc. tax.
The top 1% pays 24% of Federal taxes, and the bottom 50% pays somewhere between 7% (bottom 40%) and 16% (bottom 60%).
Also I'm unclear if that source includes only the "employee half" of the 15% FICA.
Brilliant!
> By law, some payroll taxes are the responsibility of the employee and others fall on the employer, but almost all economists agree that the true economic incidence of a payroll tax is unaffected by this distinction, and falls largely or entirely on workers in the form of lower wages.
Who is charged the tax and who pays it are different things.
The "tax" the customer pays in those states is the "pass thru" charge. To make things fun, Hawaii imposes the excise tax (on the business) recursively on any tax charges passed thru to the customer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contribution...
> The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States federal payroll (or employment) tax payable by both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, people with disabilities, and children of deceased workers.
7.65% of your check until you hit the cap. Employer pays a similar amount.
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
But that would also mean uncapping the maximum amount you are eligible for for social security.
But, even if you did it would still help tremendously and possibly still be sufficient. There’s diminishing returns where lower income people get a higher percentage of their income as a social security benefit. As long as that policy is maintained the ultra high wage earners would be contributing far in excess of the benefit they get paid back out
No? Why would it mean that?
Currently, there's also a maximum amount of benefits. That could easily stay.
> Why would anyone support a system that is suppose to be to help you in retirement where you are paying an unlimited amount into a fund and then capping how much you get out?
Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.
> Same reason people pay school taxes if they don't have kids. Because we live in a society, and we tax people to fund things like this.
And educated children, police, roads, etc benefit society and we were all at one point kids who could take advantage of public education, I don’t even have a problem paying more in taxes for universal healthcare that will reduce my + employer expenses on my healthcare.
But paying an extra 12.4% for what was suppose to be a retirement account that I don’t get any benefit from and reduces the amount I can save toward my own retirement is a bridge too far. Since 2018, I’ve been slightly above the increasing social security maximum. So it’s not that I’m one of the 1%.
Our taxes are a way of funding current retirees' (and other SS recipients') benefits, not a way of funding our own individual future benefits.
The fact that paying more in increases our future benefit doesn't make it a retirement account.
"The more you put in the more you get out" is only because that is how your benefit is computed. It is not because there is a certain amount of your money somewhere.
Related: your benefit is calculated on your 35 highest income years, not the total sum of your contributions. [1]
Other thing worth noting: the AARP page about SS myths that literally says: "Myth #7: Social Security is like a retirement savings account." [2]
The trust funds for social security are used to pay for everyone's current benefits and the rest is invested [3]. The fact that it's supposed to remain solvent still doesn't make it a retirement account.
Yes: it feels like a retirement account because you pay in now and (hopefully) cash out later. But that is only a feeling.
And finally, I started my GP comment with "nit" as one of my first three words because I understand the distinction is somewhat hair-splitty, but it is still real and relevant to how we think about it.
1- https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/11/11/social-securi...
2- https://www.aarp.org/social-security/myths-misconceptions-ex...
That perspective could be someone who is willing to say “You know what, I already have enough, let’s make sure the floor is raised for everyone.” Someone who believes more in individualism would probably disagree with that perspective.
it may be technically correct, but it still impacts individual costs/income at pretty much exactly the same amount, because the costs are just passed down the chain.
This tells us nothing unless we know how their relative income shares. If the bottom 50% earns only 20% of all income (just an example) this is quite fair. If they earn 60%, it's unfair.
The number of people who just trot out this statistic without context is quite tiresome.
And of course everyone pays sales tax, property tax (even if they're a renter), payroll tax and so on.
Secondly, just because the median earner pays a 2% average income tax rate while the top 1% pays on average 21% doesn't tell us anything about its fairness. It ignores income share.
These are not the same, which is exactly the problem!
eg: The #1 most wealthy American is Larry Ellison, whose net worth increased $89B today with zero tax implications.
An increase in the estimates value of your real estate holdings does not trigger a capital gain. Your municipality, however, may use it as an excuse to increase their assessment of the value of your property, which is used to calculate the tax they charge.
I imagine there'd be some net worth number, excluding retirement accounts, that policy wonks could work up. You draw the line between "wealthy" and "regular" there. Or, more likely, several lines because there would be wealth brackets similar to income brackets. Without that it would be a regressive tax.
I'm actually against property taxes, or any kind of tax where you risk losing property just because you managed to live another year.
It seems quite reasonable that unrealized capital gains would be treated differently for "a primary residence" vs "a multi-billion-dollar stake in a company controlled by the owner."
A far better question is: Why does my company pay me in cash (40% marginal tax rate) instead of "equity shares of 'special partnership units' representing the value added by verteu's labor" (20% capital gains tax)?
Or: "How did Mitt Romney's Roth IRA grow to $100,000,000 with a $7,000 annual contribution limit?"
The math on taxing unrealized gains or losses doesn't work out for the reasons you pointed out. Property taxes, on the other hand, have been working for a long time.
Does he get a refund if he loses money or is it just tax if you win, tax if you lose, tax if it doesn't move?
I'll give a few feelings about property taxes. They are known up front when the purchase is made. There's an expectation that they remain reasonably consistent year over year. In that way they can be consistently planned for, enough that it's seen as more of a maintenance expense for upkeep of local services rather than a wealth tax. If my neighbor sells their comparable property for double what they paid for it a few short years I don't expect my tax bill to have a massive jump. In my experience the city's assessed values tend to lag the true market value pretty significantly. The goal appears to use the assessed value as a means to have some graduated component to the property tax. Being a local tax, any significant jumps are seem to be avoided by design, lest it trigger angry residents showing up at town hall meetings.
With a wealth tax it can be highly variable year to year and out of one's control. If stocks go way up you're on hook for paying those taxes. Especially if you're Larry Ellison with a controlling stake in Oracle, you could find yourself in the situation of having to liquidate assets to pay taxes, thereby reducing your control of your own company.
My main objection to a wealth tax is many of its proponents see it as a means of reducing inequality and "leveling the playing field". I find these positions to come from a place of envy and reject them of those grounds. Many arguing in favor also assume that federal confiscation of wealth inherently benefits the public, as if its some benevolent charity. The reality is more mixed. There is seemingly no limit to politicians' ability squander money on nice sounding projects that give them good headlines while enriching cronies and delivering questionable actual value. It's nice to imagine that all that money is going to roads, bridges, schools, and research, but a whole lot is also going to spying on the populace, subverting foreign governments, and blowing people up.
It could be designed to be closer to property tax.
> you could find yourself in the situation of having to liquidate assets to pay taxes
Maybe. There are many other ways: the stock pays enough in dividends to cover the tax, the owner has other sources of income, the owner borrows against the stock to pay tax, and so on. In many dual-class structures the privileged class stock becomes common stock when sold so some founders could maintain control even after selling.
Private companies are trickier but still manageable. I don't want to turn this into a long post though.
> many of its proponents see it as a means of reducing inequality and "leveling the playing field".
I see it as a way to reduce income taxes. Welfare states are currently funded by income and payroll taxes aka taxes on labor. For the math to work out you need higher and higher tax rates or more and more workers. And you're fighting an uphill battle because improving productivity constantly reduces the need for workers.
Instead let improved productivity pay for the welfare state. Stop penalizing people for working by taxing them more.
Presumably it would function the same way as realized capital gains taxes (no refund on tax already paid)?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before...
i.e. the US tax system is still fairly progressive despite what many people think.
What? Income deductions are only worth the marginal tax rate on that income -- ~40% on $100k of income deducted is worth ~$40k. (With the $10k SALT cap, he can still deduct $10k, worth about $4k.) The top bracket being reduced from 40% to 37%, and starting at a higher income threshold, likely saved the same high earner more than $36k.
I immediately assumed it was a clear overture to people who are very financially literate and who were expecting within minutes an email from their tax lawyer to explain how payment for their activity happen to quality for a very loose definition of tips. At least the part that wasn’t already tax-free thanks to international montages, blind trusts and creative reporting.
Actually it makes sense based on what income can be reliably taxed. Impossible to verify how much that person actually tipped, so better write $0 on the tax form. As someone else wrote, that only punishes honest people.
People already vastly underreport their tips. This just codifies it in to law. I’m not saying it’s right but I also doubt it’s hitting the IRS’s coffers especially hard.
Logically, it would make sense to me to make it dependent on how much of your income comes from tips. It doesn’t really make sense that wait staff shouldn’t pay taxes on their tips, as it’s basically just their income but paid by third parties. When I was doing wedding photography and someone gave me a tip on top of my normal fee, that feels more like a gift than my income. It was fairly rare and was nowhere near the majority of my income. That, logically, shouldn’t be tipped as long as other gifts aren’t.
But that would be complicated, so here we are.