In 2020:
Top 1% paid 42% of all collected income taxes. (1.5 million tax payers paid $722 Billion)
Bottom 50% paid 2.25% (78 million tax payers paid $1.7 Billion)
The trend that is more troubling is the effective tax rate for the 1% of earners is falling (34.47% in 1980 vs 25.99% in 2020) yet their share of total taxes paid is rising (19.05% in 1980 vs 42.31% in 2020). This just highlights the growing income gap between the 1% and everyone else.
The top 1% had almost 40% of the wealth in the US, in 2012.
And that video is from 2012, from before Covid, now it's much, much worse, because since 2020 the top 1% have captured about 66% of the extra wealth created.
It's not just the expense of getting around taxes, but also the difference in sources of income. If most of the income is on a W-2, there are just not as many ways to get around any income taxes. But if it's mostly business or investment income, that's like Minecraft for accountants.
And a lot of people always throws around terms like "almost nothing" without defining it in terms of actual dollars. Is it like 50M is nothing compared to their 10B net worth? What are we talking about/comparing here?
Privately, I know how to make investment income go to zero if you have enough of it. It’s all rather fascinating. Really, the top 5% of the top 1% could do it. But if you have less than $1m income (or cap gains), then it’s likely not worth it.
"In 2020, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.2 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 22.2 percent of total AGI and paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes."
According to https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income....
Why do people like you always exclude payroll taxes and state taxes in counting who paid the most taxes. You only cherry pick the most progressive piece of the entire taxes paid
I'm not even American mate. I was just interested in the statistics and looked it up online (maybe poorly) and posted it here since I assumed others would be. I didn't even comment whether this was good or bad!
Do you have the numbers you talk about?
I'm glad you pointed this out. The parent comment to yours is the equivalent of people seeing a big red map of the US during the presidential race and saying "how come the Democrats win when there's so much red?!", as if land can vote -_-
Still not land voting. Seeing as RI gets the same number of votes as AK. And both senate candidates are selected by popular vote in the state, so even if most of the state is red, big blue cities can swing the vote.
RI has the same approximate population as AK. What people mean when they say land votes, is AK compared to NY. AK has a population of < 1M while NY has a population of > 8 million. Proportionally, Alaskans have > 8x the representation in the senate that New Yorkers have.