What Could Raising Taxes on the 1% Do? Surprising Amounts

New York Times ^ | OCT. 16, 2015 | PATRICIA COHEN

[expat_panama]

“Right now, the wealthy pay too little,” Hillary Rodham Clinton said at this week’s Democratic debate in Las Vegas, “and the middle class pays too much.”

But what could a tax-the-rich plan actually achieve? As it turns out, quite a lot, experts say. Given the gains that have flowed to those at the tip of the income pyramid in recent decades, several economists have been making the case that the government could raise large amounts of revenue exclusively from this small group, while still allowing them to take home a majority of their income.

It is “absurd” to argue that most wealth at the top is already highly taxed or that there isn’t much more revenue to be had by raising taxes on the 1 percent, says the economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel in economic science, who has written extensively about inequality. “The only upside of the concentration of the wealth at the top is that they have more money to pay in taxes,” he said.

The top 1 percent on average already pay roughly a third of their incomes to the federal government, according to...

[snip]

By comparison, the band of taxpayers right below them, in the 95th to 99th percentile, pay on average about $1 out of every $4. Those in the bottom half pay less than $1 out of every $10.

[Toddsterpatriot]

They most certainly did.

How?

[Rodamala]

And the reason that Congress is wrongly appropriating taxes for many things not expressly indicated in Section 8 is this.

In light of Iran just being handed 100 BILLION DOLLARS, I fear I may be subjected fines and imprisonment under the Federal Laws against directly or indirectly funding terrorism.

What do I do to comply? Stop paying taxes?

[Toddsterpatriot]

That $2.5 Trillion is PAPER MONEY. It means NOTHING.

When Greek or Cypriot depositors went to get their money, the banks had none. Our banks have over $2.5 trillion. It doesn't mean nothing.

At the end of the day, there isn't enough hard currency to cover the outstanding liabilities of our banking system.

Why would our banking system need hard currency to cover all its liabilities? That's silly.

If enough depositors came to a bank and demanded $20s, the bank could order FRNs and pay for them with their excess reserves. Then what?

[cherry]

if they want to increase taxes, increase it on everybody....there are no free rides....

get rid of EIC....

[Amendment10]

"In light of Iran just being handed 100 BILLION DOLLARS, ..."

Another freeper had noted that the money given to Iran actually belonged to Iran, Iranian funds having been frozen in USA(?) banks by Congress. Corrections welcome.

[Osage Orange]

Shut up and take it serf!!

[Rodamala]

Then who is covering the interest due to the Iranians? Me? I am so screwed.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Wrong. Businesses don't pay taxes, CONSUMERS of those business’ products and services do.

That's why “I” included in “my taxes” the money that went directly from my employer to the governments. It's still a tax, even if the payroll dept (and not Washington directly) sent the bill.