Income Distribution

#2
#2
It will be interesting to see what happens to the data when 2008 (stock market decline) is factored in.

The percentage of taxes paid by this group has also been going up.
 
#3
#3
volinbham said:
]It will be interesting to see what happens to the data when 2008 (stock market decline) is factored in.[/B]

The percentage of taxes paid by this group has also been going up.
Click to expand...

It should be interesting. I know many of those who were heavily invested in real estate lost just about everything. Not that they are destitute or anything but they lost their shirts nonetheless.
 
#4
#4
volinbham said:
It will be interesting to see what happens to the data when 2008 (stock market decline) is factored in.

The percentage of taxes paid by this group has also been going up.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert here, but is the justification for a progressive tax system? According to these numbers, the 90th to 99th percentile saw an average increase that is over 10 times what the bottom 90% saw. The top 1% is 500 times and the top .1% is 3500 times....

So is the rationale that with that kind of disparity, the top wage earners pay higher percentage in taxes?
 
#5
#5
To me, that statistic is as simple as this: Wealthy people buy assets/poor people buy liabilities. When the economy booms, people that own assets see their wealth increase exponentially, people that don't own assets see marginal increases.
 
#6
#6
I heard a report today that said a Dem Senator is blaming the tax revenue shortfall on the wealthy NOT spending enough....isn't that rich?
They want both ends of our money.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
rjd970 said:
I'm not an expert here, but is the justification for a progressive tax system? According to these numbers, the 90th to 99th percentile saw an average increase that is over 10 times what the bottom 90% saw. The top 1% is 500 times and the top .1% is 3500 times....

So is the rationale that with that kind of disparity, the top wage earners pay higher percentage in taxes?
Click to expand...

Not sure it's the justification in and of itself. Most (many) accept the notion of a progressive tax system.

Red's comments are spot on. There was considerable asset appreciation via the stock market and housing during the time period of the study. Owning assets in an upswing makes a huge difference. The stock market blew up in the 90s and in the 2000s. With the housing bubble and the stock decline I bet adding 2008 in (and 2009) will bring the number down significantly.
 
#8
#8
rjd970 said:
I'm not an expert here, but is the justification for a progressive tax system? According to these numbers, the 90th to 99th percentile saw an average increase that is over 10 times what the bottom 90% saw. The top 1% is 500 times and the top .1% is 3500 times....

So is the rationale that with that kind of disparity, the top wage earners pay higher percentage in taxes?
Click to expand...
regardless of the reasoning, any arrangement that precludes the risk element inherent at the high end of the range is the problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top