40k in newyork pay 50% of the taxes?

[liquid_cool]

i was rappin with a buddy of mine today and he stated to me that the mayor "Bloomberg" of new york said that 40,000. people pay 50% of the taxes out of 18 million people?..wholy crap! wonder what there income/tax bracket is?..my buddy said they were talking about raising taxes on em..man..they pay enough..its crazy..then i got to thinking!..what if those 40,000. people got pissed off they raised taxes...and mooved!..then what would happen to NY City?

[liquid_cool]

no thoughts?

[480sx]

Sorry man you gotta do better than your buddy said X for us to talk about it lol.

[szh]

This older thread has some facts (not NY state - it is real national data from the government) that sheds some light on how many people pay taxes to support the majority of people in this country: zerothread/362976.

Z

[liquid_cool]

This older thread has some facts (not NY state - it is real national data from the government) that sheds some light on how many people pay taxes to support the majority of people in this country: zerothread/362976.

Z

thanks for the link..that was a good read..allthou..the question is.."What if the 40,000. people paying the tax burden in NY city..well..leave?" what if?..if anyone feels free to expand on it..have at.

[Armelius]

I didn't think Leona Helmsly's dog had that many puppies.

[smockers83]

If those 40,000 people left, the city would lose a lot of income.

But it's not like 40,000 pay a 50% tax rate to the city. It's just the sheer amount of money they make along with tax rates and/or mills that allows that statistic the come about.

I was watching Geithner testify and he was saying that the Obama administration wants to make the tax system more fair. Knowing the things presented in this thread, how does lowering taxes on middle income America and raising taxes on the rich make it more fair? Riddle me that one Batman.

[audtatious]

It's all perception. There are more "poor" that may vote than "rich" that vote, so there is a vested interest in getting the larger majority to support your stances. You also have to think that each level perceives the next as "rich". Take someone on welfare and they may perceive a family making 40k/yr as rich, that family making 40k/yr may think someone making 100k as rich, the 100k sees someone making 250k as rich, 250k see's 500k as rich, etc etc etc.

My daughter is 23, has 2 kids, does not work and they are living solely on her hubby's pay and money is super-tight. During a conversation about this she made the statement that I'm rich because I have a house and nice things. When I asked her if I should be penalized for my "success", which came from hard work and making proper decisions, and be forced to give others my money she became upset about the possibility. After that conversation she realized that people do make it places based on effort and choices, although she has yet gotten a job to help get themselves ahead

[Jacko3]

i was rappin with a buddy of mine today and he stated to me that the mayor "Bloomberg" of new york said that 40,000. people pay 50% of the taxes out of 18 million people?..wholy crap! wonder what there income/tax bracket is?..my buddy said they were talking about raising taxes on em..man..they pay enough..its crazy..then i got to thinking!..what if those 40,000. people got pissed off they raised taxes...and mooved!..then what would happen to NY City?

Nice question! Another 40,000 people or more, would replace them, very easily. Getting pissed off in a competitive market and then holding the nation hostage doesn't work well in such a condition. Someone will come up with a soultion that works. Those who don't wanna pay taxes, can take a hike to Jupiter.

The taxes I pay helps to put a pay check in the hands of our good military folks who fight to protect our nation. The taxes I pay helps to pay for some veterans education and housing, after they have served this nation honorably. I love paying my taxes. It is good for this nation. We call it patriotism.

Perhaps we should worry more about those who have to spend the tax dollars. Under agency theory, politicians have only the influence of self-interest to deal with as they spend the tax dollars. They have no obligation to align their interest as agents with the interest of the principals (tax payers).


Modified by Jacko3 at 1:02 PM 3/4/2009

[szh]

politicians have only the influence of self-interest to deal with as they spend the tax dollars. They have no obligation to align their interest as agents with the interest of the principals.

Exactly the problem with politicians in this country, yes.

[smockers83]

The other thing with politicians is that they try to do something noble, or something that at least sounds noble, and disregard the consequences in order to gain votes.

So yes, in effect, self-interest is served via votes.

This is how democracy has collapsed in previous civilizations.

[Jacko3]

The other thing with politicians is that they try to do something noble, or something that at least sounds noble, and disregard the consequences in order to gain votes.

So yes, in effect, self-interest is served via votes.

This is how democracy has collapsed in previous civilizations.

Exactly! We call that "agency problem", where the interestest of the agents are misaligned with the interests of the principals partly as a result of assymetric information.

[Looneybomber]

I was watching Geithner testify and he was saying that the Obama administration wants to make the tax system more fair. Knowing the things presented in this thread, how does lowering taxes on middle income America and raising taxes on the rich make it more fair? Riddle me that one Batman.

Well, the rich make more money and can afford to pay more in taxes. It's called the Ability-to-pay principle. It states that taxes should be levied on a person according to how well that person can shoulder the burden.

The principle leads to two corollary notions of equity: vertical equity and horizontal equity. Vertical equity states that tax payers with a greater ability to pay taxes should contribute a larger amount. Horizontal equity states that taxpayers with similar abilities to pay should contribute the same amount.

Here's some stat's from my econ book right next to me.in 2001...The top 1% of the US had an average income of $1,050,100They were taxed at 31.1% of their total incomeThey accounted for 14.8% of the total income in the US (that's 1% of the people)They paid 21.5% of the total tax.

The lowest quintile (bottom 20%)Had an average income of $14,900Average tax rate of 5.5%They accounted for 4.2% of the total US incomeThey paid 1.1% of total tax dollars.

However, because of all the government handouts (welfare, medicaid, ect...) that bottom quintile, instead of being taxed at 5.5% they were actually taxed at -30%. In other words, their income is about 30% higher than it would be without govt. assistance.

So who's better able to pay? The one's that make more money or the one's that make less?

We could do a lump-sum tax and just charge everyone the same amount? In 2005, the national govt spent nearly 8,000 per person in the US. What we could do is just tax everyone $8k per year, so that those making 10k per year will then instead only make 2k and those that make a million will still basically make a million. Sound fair?

[Looneybomber]

what if those 40,000. people got pissed off they raised taxes...and mooved!..then what would happen to NY City?

It won't happen. People in that city make their BIG money in real estate, and/or wall street. If they move, there goes their income and someone else will then fill their shoes.

[audtatious]

Well, the rich make more money and can afford to pay more in taxes. It's called the Ability-to-pay principle. It states that taxes should be levied on a person according to how well that person can shoulder the burden.

Shoulder who's burden? Does a rich person use more Gov resources than a non-rich person? If you are talking about a socialized society where those who make good choices or are better off must "shoulder the burden" for those who do not or don't care then I would agree that they should be penalized and forced to equalize the lower levels. If that's the case then maybe the Gov should determine what people have and simply set a median salary for every citizen. While not fair to those who busted butt to get where they are it should make others happy to the point that they may not call 911 due to McDonalds not having any McNuggets in stock.

[smockers83]

Well, the rich make more money and can afford to pay more in taxes. It's called the Ability-to-pay principle. It states that taxes should be levied on a person according to how well that person can shoulder the burden.

The principle leads to two corollary notions of equity: vertical equity and horizontal equity. Vertical equity states that tax payers with a greater ability to pay taxes should contribute a larger amount. Horizontal equity states that taxpayers with similar abilities to pay should contribute the same amount.

Here's some stat's from my econ book right next to me.in 2001...The top 1% of the US had an average income of $1,050,100They were taxed at 31.1% of their total incomeThey accounted for 14.8% of the total income in the US (that's 1% of the people)They paid 21.5% of the total tax.

The lowest quintile (bottom 20%)Had an average income of $14,900Average tax rate of 5.5%They accounted for 4.2% of the total US incomeThey paid 1.1% of total tax dollars.

However, because of all the government handouts (welfare, medicaid, ect...) that bottom quintile, instead of being taxed at 5.5% they were actually taxed at -30%. In other words, their income is about 30% higher than it would be without govt. assistance.

So who's better able to pay? The one's that make more money or the one's that make less?

We could do a lump-sum tax and just charge everyone the same amount? In 2005, the national govt spent nearly 8,000 per person in the US. What we could do is just tax everyone $8k per year, so that those making 10k per year will then instead only make 2k and those that make a million will still basically make a million. Sound fair?

What? No that doesn't sound fair because that's a regressive tax. That's not what I was getting at.

The assumption that rich people can afford to pay higher taxes is essentially assuming that their cost of living is equal to that of someone who is lower class. If you're rich, you have much higher bills to pay than someone who is not rich.

If everyone's cost of living was the same, then sure, someone who made more money could afford to pay more taxes.

Making the tax code more fair by lowering taxes for middle class Americans and raising taxes on upper class Americans? Why and how is it fair to do that. Why can't the upper class pay the same percentage as the middle and lower classes? That would be fair wouldn't it? If everyone paid 20%, the top 1% is still going to pay a good chunk of the taxes just as they do now.

What your econ book isn't telling you is that while you are on welfare, you are still taxed on those benefits.

Yeah, I can pull stats out of several econ books, too, but you have to think about them, what they mean, and where they come from.

[audtatious]

Nobody should get paid for work. Everyone should be provided for from the Gov as they will make all the wise choices for us.

[nissangirl74]

Nobody should get paid for work. Everyone should be provided for from the Gov as they will make all the wise choices for us.

Harrison Bergeron, here we come...

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html