Do the Rich Pay a Lot of Taxes?


Toro
#1
Yes, very much so, according to a paper by the Tax Foundation.

Quote:

America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households receives roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid. Households with middle-incomes receive $1.30 per tax dollar, and America’s highest-earning households receive $0.41 per tax dollar.







 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#2
Yeah. I believe the richest 10% of Canadians pay more than 50% if the personal income tax collected by the gov't. I would imagine they also pay their fair share of provincial and GST taxes (among others), as well.
 
Kreskin
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Yeah. I believe the richest 10% of Canadians pay more than 50% if the personal income tax collected by the gov't. I would imagine they also pay their fair share of provincial and GST taxes (among others), as well.

They often pay double. In BC any house purchase is 1% provincial tax to 200k and 2% thereafter.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#4
Yeah, that, too.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#5
It's certainly agreed that the poor benefit substantially from redistribution. However, that category of $99 000 plus is as wide as the Atlantic. Do you have stats on the millionaire club and their better heeled brothers? To get a better grasp of the issue it's likely that percentage of real income paid in taxes is probably a better indicator than lump sum comparisons for all groupings.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#6  Top Rated Post
The Tax Foundation? Joseph O. Luby of Exxon is a member of its board and he fails to mention the billions in subsidies and other forms of welfare corporations receive.
 
Toro
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

The Tax Foundation? Joseph O. Luby of Exxon is a member of its board and he fails to mention the billions in subsidies and other forms of welfare corporations receive.

C'mon Gopher

As a tax man, I thought you'd come up with something more damning than this!
 
Toro
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by tamarin View Post

It's certainly agreed that the poor benefit substantially from redistribution. However, that category of $99 000 plus is as wide as the Atlantic. Do you have stats on the millionaire club and their better heeled brothers? To get a better grasp of the issue it's likely that percentage of real income paid in taxes is probably a better indicator than lump sum comparisons for all groupings.

I had read somewhere that the top 1% of earners pay 25%-30% of all taxes.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
I have done so on other threads. It is a topic that keeps coming up on this forum for some reason so I decided against re-posting all of my earlier links.
 
Toro
#10
Really?

Taxes paid by the rich?

How come I haven't seen them?
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
Selective viewing.
 
GenGap
#12
Hmmm, Can we have that in Canadian?
 
Curiosity
#13
OK Gopher

Do Gates, Buffett and Soros - they ought to be easy to find.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#14
what taxes did they pay -- or fail to pay -- because of reliefs, incentives, abatements, subsidies, inducements, and preference items?
 
tamarin
Conservative
#15
What the rich should face is onerous estate taxes. The money accrued by various robber barons was never earned by their kids. Let the kiddies have no more than a hundred grand each and let the rest be put into general accounts. The feds and provinces and municipalities can work out their share. Various charities can expect a dividend as well but percentages will have to be vetted before legislation is passed.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#16
Nah. Put all the money in a big pile and then each person grabs an equal share.
 
Curiosity
#17
Well Gopher.... I don't know the answers ... I was asking you...

I think Buffett and Gates are trying to purchase Africa in their charitable tax breaks...

Soros is trying to buy the U.S.A. (is that a tax break?)

Is this cool?
 
jimmoyer
#18
Income group % of federal personalincome taxes paid
............................................1990.. ........2002
50% with lowest incomes..............6.7%..........4.4%
40% with intermediate incomes.....47.3%........43.0%
10% with highest incomes............46.0%........52.6%

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of not believing the above stats or pushing the idea that the rich don't pay
enough or that the rich don't pay other types of taxes (which is a myth) why not consider
that the above stats are a double edge sword --- they indicate four things:

1. the rich really are paying the lion's share of taxes, not just income taxes
2. this picture really shows how lopsided the distribution of wealth is
3. begs the question on what is fair and who is worthy
4. begs the question on whether you compare the wealth inequality of today
with how everyone was doing as a whole in the past : in other words did all boats
rise from the lower levels of the past ?
 
Curiosity
#19
JimMoyer

Personally I'd still rather operate on an incentive basis with charitable attachment than equal distribution of wealth because humans couldn't function with that kind of equality and everyone
would stop working....and the economy would hit the deep end.

Every man for himself kind of gives an incentive to succeed which in turn breeds a vibrant style
of economic wealth.
 
jimmoyer
#20
I agree with you Curiosity.

However the liberal left is correct about its general distrust. For example, had the capitalists and the rich in Venezuela been much more charitable and caring
then capitalism would not look
like the rape it seems to the ever popular Hugo Chavez grandstanding all his
re-distribution socialist schemes.
 
BitWhys
#21
yeah ok

counterpoint to the OP

Quote:

The most notable and deeply disturbing fact that stands out from the Statistics Canada study — and the fact that the press should have reported, but didn’t — is that the rich have been getting a lot richer, even after the imposition of income taxes. We ought to be thinking seriously about the social and economic problems that will be posed by the emergence of a new plutocracy.

 
jimmoyer
#22
he rich have been getting a lot richer, even after the imposition of income taxes. We ought to be thinking seriously about the social and economic problems that will be posed by the emergence of a new plutocracy.
----------------------------------------------------------Bitwhys-----------------------------------------------

That first part about the rich getting a lot richer even after the imposition of income taxes
is very true.

It's a fact.

What now is in real and sincere dispute is what to do about that.

Income group % of federal personalincome taxes paid
............................................1990.. ........2002
50% with lowest incomes..............6.7%..........4.4%
40% with intermediate incomes.....47.3%........43.0%
10% with highest incomes............46.0%........52.6%
Last edited by jimmoyer; Apr 11th, 2007 at 09:37 AM..
 
BitWhys
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer View Post

...What now is in real and sincere dispute is what to do about that...

we could probably start by not using dollar signs to figure out what needs fixing.
 
jimmoyer
#24
we could probably start by not using dollar signs to figure out what needs fixing.
----------------------------------BitWhys------------------------------------------------------------

We won't be able to get away with the Dollar Signs because that's one of the first priorities
of existence in social science Mazlo's Heiarchy of Needs.

However, as Jesus said, Man does not live by Bread Alone.

I would say ultimately you are right BitWhys, but I would like to translate what you posted
into something with a little more focus.

We should encourage a CULTURE.

It, culture, above all else is the zeitgeist that rules even the ruler.
It is stronger than an ephemeral vote.
It has peer pressure.
It is more effective than laws requiring fairness.
It rules the rulers.

We should encourage a culture that is less greedy, more helpful.

With capitalism as the engine, culture can be the distribution, making people realize such
a combination is greater than socialism, central planning, government by fiat.
 
BitWhys
#25
Laissez-faire has not ever, can not ever and will not ever stand alone. but kudos for the idealism.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer View Post

........We should encourage a culture that is less greedy, more helpful.

With capitalism as the engine, culture can be the distribution, making people realize such
a combination is greater than socialism, central planning, government by fiat.

Heckuva nifty idea, Jim. It'd also be a heckuva challenge.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

Laissez-faire has not, can not and will not ever stand alone. but kudos for the idealism.

Exactly.
 
BitWhys
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Exactly.

unfortunately. also unfortunate is the likely truth that relying exclusively on constitutionalism for balance ultimately turns the same old same old into an ineffective paper chase. the constantly changing tension between capitalism and socialism isn't the problem. its the solution.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

........the constantly changing tension between capitalism and socialism isn't the problem. its the solution.

Wouldja mind lucubrating on that a bit, Bit?
 
jimmoyer
#30
If one would consult Adams again in his 1776 Wealth of Nations book on Laissez-faire, one would be very surprised to find out how much he condemns a culture of greed
and that it is a seed that kills the SILENT HAND that creates wealth.
 

Similar Threads

37
It is not any sin to be rich.
by eanassir | Oct 5th, 2019
7
How Rich is Too Rich for Democracy?
by edgerunner | Oct 2nd, 2019
37
How Rich Are You?
by I think not | Jan 18th, 2007
21
You Are Rich !!!
by jimmoyer | Jan 12th, 2007