[SovietDissident]

This was my reaction as well.

When she tells the story about the gentleman who is wary of academics concerned with income inequality, I think it's interesting that she seems to be writing precisely the kind of account that may lead to further scrutiny of his assets and people like him. I would say his concern is well-placed!

There are two ways to look at this issue. First, these rich people are just fleecing the "system" and governmental powers should be increased to prosecute them. Or, the "progressive" tax system is particularly punitive for high net worth individuals, and they will continue to shell out millions to wealth managers while tax laws are actively hostile to their assets. (Tax collections have been ~19% throughout U.S. history, even when tax rates were as high as 90%.[0]) On a purely "practical" level, tax codes should be simplified and taxes lowered so that it's more economical for those of high net worth to comply with the intent of the law, rather than skirt it. As an added bonus, it would also help economic growth generally.

[0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487035149045756029...

[tankenmate]

When some people's effective tax rates are lower than the lowest tax band in a progressive tax system it can hardly be claimed that the system is "fleecing" them.

[SovietDissident]

If someone were very rich in NYC, between federal, state, local, sales taxes, etc. they would pay ~60% of their income in taxes. Now, many of them pay capital gains, have wealth managers who set up different financial vehicles, and whatnot. But this is exactly the point: individuals will pay as little tax as possible, and the rich spend more money than most getting around these punitive taxes. Further, it should be noted that the wealthy are the most mobile; if they don't like tax policy in a certain country, they will move their assets off-shore (see the original article). What I'm saying is that on a "practical" level, these high taxes don't work! (Hence the consistency in the tax revenue coming in per year despite tax levels, as I cited.) You're better off having lower taxes and actually having the rich pay them.

Practically speaking, high taxes are not an effective way to tax the wealthy, but they are an effective way to send capital overseas. If you want another example, look at the $2.1 trillion in U.S. corporate cash being held abroad, which hasn't been repatriated because companies refuse to pay the high U.S. corporate taxes, and use it to buy foreign companies/assets like Minecraft for a couple billion instead.[0]

[0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-compan...

[wooter]

Your conjecture isn't true though. In the US, the top 10% pay 68% of all federal taxes - the top 1%, 35%.

So how are they effectively paying the lowest band?

[gknoy]

The GP is talking about the percentage of their income being spent on taxes.

If you make 1 million dollars per year, and I make 100k, and my taxes are 30k per year while yours are 100k/year (numbers made up), you'd be paying more total taxes, and a larger slice of the total tax dollars paid.

However, my taxes are 30% of my income, whereas yours would be only 10% of your income. If we paid at the same "band" of taxes, you would be paying $300k instead of $100k.

Because the tax bands tax you at a lower percent the higher up you go, making more money leads to less proportion of taxes.

Consider also that the people who pay the most tax (in dollars) often have a substantial amount of their wealth in real estate, stocks, or stock options, rather than cash income, and those are all taxed differently than the kind of income that most of us have.

[wooter]

Not to be mean, but this is still all false conjecture and no source. The top 1% earn 19% of income yet pay 35% of all Fed Income Tax. The top 10%, 12% of earned, 12% of paid. The bottom 50% earn 12% but pay 3%.

And thats at the federal level. State income taxes vary from place to place, but nowhere is what you are saying true. And a state would have to apply a substantial effective negative income tax rate for high earners which is laughably unheard of.

[devonkim]

The argument is not complete only looking at the amount paid - you must account for what assets and income people get taxed upon. If the top 10% own 80% of all the income and assets, if they're paying about 40% of all the income and assets in the country (not an actual figure, just using for sake of cohesive argument), they are not paying their fair share. Then there's the fact that most high net worth individuals do not have most of their income from direct work anymore as much as passive income through stocks - the few exceptions are Hollywood celebs and similar that wind up getting taxed quite heavily. For example, most people's assets are primarily a single home and a retirement account in the form of a 401k or fixed income via pensions and social security, but this isn't similar to the asset distribution of the wealthy today almost ever. In fact, I remember someone noted how pro athletes that spend their money like how normal people do in direct proportion would wind up bankrupt quickly.