The NYT’s bad tax stats
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- "I argue that Zucman tried to pull an academic sleight of hand." It's a big accusation, but "I think the evidence is there for it," says economist and author Phil Magness of The Independent Institute.
Watch this full episode of the Just Asking Questions podcast: • Who really pays the mo...
Subscribe to the Just Asking Questions podcast: • Just Asking Questions
UA-cam Music: • Just Asking Questions
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5SpySKA...
"If Socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be Socialists." - F.A. Hayek, economist.
As a former socialist who read all the Marx books, this is absolutely accurate. I stopped being socialist when I started studying economics. Now I subscribe to the Austrian school 😂
@@OnlineEcosystems My man!
Glad to hear it!
@@OnlineEcosystems Wow, that quite the upside down switch. Did your head used to be coming out of your a$$, but then you transplanted it to your neck?
"Selfish, ignorant citizens elect selfish, ignorant leaders. It's that simple."
~George Carlin
If this "research" wasn't manipulated then he could write a fact article not an opinion article.
Statists really would like to simplify the tax code:
1. How much do you make?
2. Hand it over.
The corporate tax rate should be zero. Corporate profits (or revenues) should only be taxed when are transferred to individuals, because that's when the profits become income.
Exactly. The current regime is double taxation
@@bobtuiliga8691 I wonder what unions and so-called pro labor groups would say if profits were taxed before taking out labor costs. I'll bet they would scream bloody murder!
They changed corporations into people so they could tax everybody twice.
Literally realised gains
A progressive college professor would never alter the data. LOL
What I find misleading is the language "..share of America's wealth". What a joke that is. America has no wealth. Americans create wealth through invention and labor. That wealth belongs ENTIRELY to the people who produce it... not to consumers, not to the government (except for government services... and apportioned to their value, which is often precious little when you factor in all the red tape and waste). Also, 'share' suggests a zero sum game, where the wealth in the country is limited, and so if the super rich have a lot, they've somehow taken it from the rest of us. Huge corporations GROW the economy, and they don't take anything, they sell. The super rich are the people driving gigantic corporations that earn 100s of billions by selling expensive products and services to 100s of millions. It's entirely a matter of scale. Apple stock, for example, is 16 BILLION shares of $164 per share. That's a 2.6 trillion dollar "market capitalization,"..basically the value of the company. In return for those earnings, 100s of millions of us have iPhones, iPad, awesome computers, etc. And we all traded honestly with Apple for these incredible products and services. Economists like Zucman and Piketty not only want the awesome products created for "the people," but they want to take back the earnings of Apple et al. and give those to "the people" as well. They're just thieves and parasites.
I would argue that every country *_does_* have wealth, and *_one unit_* (dollar, etc.) of each country's respective currency is *_one share_* of that country's respective wealth.
@@aliendroneservices6621 the number of shares is not static - it goes up and down over time - due to inflation and to economic activity. Also the main point of the OP is that the rich are essential to the economy not detrimental.
Screw apple don't need them don't want them
' Paying Income Tax Is Illegal .'
Not paying income tax is illegal
For here on out can we just say “the top .01%” instead of the “top 1%”. It’s extremely misleading.
There really is no way to figure “personal income taxes” for every individual to use as a comparison. My wife is a partner in a Limited Liability Company. The company’s income taxes are a combination of the company and the three partners. That’s three families’ “personal income tax” that can’t be separated in a way that matches say, the director of a hospital or a senator or a restaurant manager.
10:26 Solution: eliminate taxes on *_both_* wages and corporate-income.
Personally, I don't get the whole comparing percentages thing. If I pay 24% on $100,000 that's still a whole lot less actual dollars than 23% on $1,000,000.
That’s how the top 10% can pay like 60% of the tax revenue and the economic illiterates will still grab their torches and pitchforks.
How about the double (to put it mildly) taxation of corporate profits. Did they count THAT?
Raise their taxes immediately! Don’t they know we have endless wars to fund?
Those wars are a drop in the bucket compared to the social welfare programs.
FFS this doesn't even count consumption taxes, fees and other burdens as a percentage of income. All these guys are full of BS.
Taxation, to the narrow extent it is legitimate, should be used only to fund explicitly Constitutional programs. Not one penny should be used for any other purpose. The tax system should not be used to influence human behavior, either in the form of incentives or disincentives. No group of persons should be singled out for special tax treatment, either to their benefit or their detriment. Every adult should have to have skin in the game, otherwise we are stuck with the system as it currently is, with a very large portion of the populace paying no taxes, yet able to vote for the people who will tax others.
Bro law enforcement influences human behavior
Correction, there - a very large portion of the populace doesn't KNOW that they are paying taxes - much less how much they are paying.
Even if you happen to be in one of the few places that doesn't have a sales tax, you are still paying property tax on your apartment, the property tax on the places where you buy things, the business taxes and fees on those same places, the personal taxes on the owners (so that they have money left over from their profits to buy things), etc.
All hidden from you - even if you TRY to figure out how much you're actually paying, you just can't.
@@youngmanoldman32 He said the tax system. Not other things.
If I make $50k and year go and spend $200 dollars on groceries and someone making $1,000,000 a year goes and buys the exact same cart full of food they won't spend as large a percent of their income as I will. That's called arithmetic or math. That's Maths for you Europeans. It doesn't mean we should punish them for their success. We should ask them how the built that income and emulate them instead of wallow in jealousy.
If you keep on with that line of reasoning, you are definitely not going to be invited to any Democrat party gatherings or meetings. You will be persona non grata with Pocahontas and company 😊
The way to "equity" is that you pay $5 for a sandwich - but somebody who makes $1 million dollars pays $100 for the same sandwich.
@@reality9451 Guess what? They won't buy the sandwich and whoever is selling it will lose out.
@@reality9451 that's socialism, and the million dollar earners normally will take the hundreds of jobs they had created and relocate to a nearby democracy where they are not punished for their success
Why even have a corporate tax? And why are there tax brackets for corporations?
When claims are supported only by percentages ... BEWARE!
Trickery and lies are afoot!
BTW ... when you paid your taxes ... income tax, sales tax, FICA tax, any tax ... did you pay with percentages?
I did not. I was forced to pay with dollars.
I've looked high and low ... but every bill and every coin I've ever seen was denominated in those pesky DOLLARS.
Never in percentages.
Gotta love that vape
It is not a matter of income, it is a matter of outgo?
I'm curious: what is the breakdown of donation to 501(c)3 organizations as a percentage of income between high earners and low? Just because people aren't "donating" to the federal government doesn't mean they aren't affecting society in other ways.
Immediately on seeing the chart i thought " what poor person pays 24% in taxes?
That's why all the tax-happy folks use gross tax rates instead of net tax rates. Extremely misleading
Greed is taxation for special interests, which is anything that goes to a group
These figures are even worse, when you factor in credits for assets and capital gains over time, to wealthy as much as net income after taxes! 😱
One of the last refuges for free market classical liberalism. Keep up the great work.
Congress pay, and any head of a federal department should be equal to the average wage of the American worker.
The whole video is about how the chart was manipulated to deflate the billionaires' effective tax rate, and here I am still shocked by the fact that they removed the earned income tax credit in their calculation of the effective tax rate paid by the bottom half of income earners. That's insane! Being a refundable credit, the earned income tax credit reduces the effective tax rates for almost half of income earners to less than 0%: meaning they don't pay the government taxes, the government pays them! That's the most outrageous manipulation of this chart! Not the corporate tax thing!
If the government really wanted to tax people equally or at least proportionally, get rid of the income tax and institute a national sales tax. Rich people don't get salaries or a lot of other forms of wages. Stock options, loans and dividends do not get taxed like wage and salary income. A national sales tax would be fairer in that the rich could not skate paying it, like they can with income.
Do any of you know what happens to your mandatory Medicare premium (for Part B) when you make money after age 65? How about when you take money out of your IRA. Let's say you take out 60,000 from your IRA to make a major purchase, such as home upgrade or buy a SUV. Guess what happens to the Medicare premium. UP. *A LOT.*
So imagine what happens to a high income earner taking out 120,000 per year in retirement. Answer, he pays much, MUCH more for Medicare, even though he likely paid FAR more into FICA taxes.
Did they count THAT? There are many, many lower income breaks like that. Tons.
@@Bill_Woo that is a fact, it’s my mom to a T. My dad left her in good shape. It’s a better problem than just getting SS
23% is too high.
Hell…just take it all 🤔
Whatcha gonna do next year though?
I'm one of the higher income earners in the US -- I think I'm in the top 5-10% of households. My effective tax rate is 25% Most people are taxed WAY less than that, so I don't even believe the bottom half of Zuckman's chart.
Yes, the corporate income taxe is a form of double taxation on investment combined with the capital gains taxe, that's what we libertarian always explain when the left states that the capital gains rate is lower than the rate paid by workers on wages, I don't understand why now you would oppose allocating the burden of the corporate income taxe to the shareholders.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world to lower his taxes.
Tax was 0% in 1910....
For everyone.
Is there a TL;DR? Like... if this graph is wrong, where's the real one? How wrong is it?
The graph is in the video, watch the whole thing.
Despite these stats the richest Americans still pay the lions share of overall tax revenue. It’s almost as if these graphics are misleading.
Where did they get this idea that people in the bottom half of earners pay upwards of 20% of their income in taxes? I have often seen it shown that the bottom half of Americans have a zero or negative effective tax rate. My effective tax rate was NEGATIVE 19% last year. I am married with four children, last year I made $42k and thanks to the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit my refund was $8000 MORE than I paid in. Hence, negative 19%. I've had years where my effective rate was negative 50%. Even without dependents any individual or household making the average income or less is in the 12% tax bracket BEFORE making the standard deduction.
I suppose if they include things like sales taxes on common purchases, DMV and other government fees, and property taxes (even if they are renters) they could push the number up that high. But none of those are imposed at the Federal level and unless they also factored that into what the rich pay it's not a fair comparison.
Liz smoking during these is so weird. Like, you get paid to be there, at least be off that for a bit.
If you want your research and books to get results which lead to a good career, fame, and money, then you do whatever it takes to retell the narrative. Even if you do a pretty bad job of it, you do better than telling the truth.
Why is personal income, corporate, and capital "gain" taxed seperatly instead as one flat tax?
4:57 - do you really have to take a “vape hit” on video? It couldn’t wait the ten or so more minutes until the video ended?
The full video is an hour plus, and the actual filming was probably double that time, some people can't wait two hours between hits.
@@JosephFernandez-tj8ld - maybe you wait for the camera to focus on those other than you …
Why is she vaping on air lmao
I have a suggestion: How about taxing the returns earned by college endowments?
Just close the tax loopholes and support IRS.
I might be wrong, but acording to my understanding the problem isnt that the law doesnt tax them enough -
the problem is that the rich can walk around the law ('legally') to dodge the tax they need to pay.
Something that some of the rich people are doing:
Most of the money they have is as company shares and not in the bank - they would get taxed if they sell it.
So instead of selling it, they are taking bug loans with very low intrest rate (intrest rate is low because the risk for the bank is low - worst case the person would have to sell their shares to pay it back) → those loans are not being taxed (or taxed for lower rates) → and how they return the loan you might ask? by taking anther loan from a diffrent lender!
this way they can dodge taxes in a way the avrage person cant.
It doesnt matter that in the law they are taxed the same rates as the avrage person - when they can dodge it.
(i dont excuse Zucman for faking data, but maybe there is something in the way he wants to look at shares)
Which is why income (or interest, or capital-gains) should never be taxed.
If it is legal - you aren't "walking around the law" - by definition!
But that is the problem. So long as politicians write the tax law, they are going to write it to benefit their friends and campaign donors. It changes only when the politicians change who is in a position to write it (and this is a bipartisan thing - probably the most bipartisan thing - because a particular change can benefit the cronies of BOTH parties, it just depends on how many it benefits).
I am a fiscal conservative. However I don't understand why we don't tax inheritance more. Taxing productive individuals and corporations is counterproductive. But taxing lucky, unproductive heirs to inheritance makes a lot of sense compared to taking productive entities.
It's not the government's job to decide which entities are productive or un-productive
Communism much?
So when you spend your life building up something, you don't get to do what you want with your own money? And if you want to build a mile long volleyball court with your own money, if the Arbiter of Productivity deems it not to be in the socialist common interest, it's disallowed? Communist much?
Aside from them just being evil, inheritance taxes don't really generate much revenue. If the estate is large enough to be _worth_ taxing, then avoiding that tax is triflingly simple.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Then who is?
@@robertmartin6800 Evil? You just tax the heir an normal income tax the same you tax other income? It wouldn't serve as a revenue generator. It would offset taxes paid by everyone else.
Why are you complicating this? What percentage of total income do Billionaires pay on average vs what percentage do people making under 100k pay? That is literally all you need to know. Disprove that Billionaires pay a functionally lower rate? You can't. Stop talking and do basic math.
They do. It’s the NYT that can’t prove billionaires do pay a lower tax rate. Watch the section on tax incidence, and pay attention. Don’t just assume whatever Marx says is right.
This sounds like boot licking. Any wealthy person I know pays net taxes at less than lower income people, plus, they write off cars, dinners, vacations and all sorts of stuff
Billionaires pay more taxes in one year than a nurse earns in 300 years. Whether it’s income tax, capital gains taxes, property taxes or payroll taxes, there is no just cause to attack the taxpayers who are literally holding down the entire fort. People say the “top 1% this and top 1% that” all the while failing to acknowledge that a person earning $600K a year is in the top 1%, yet they put those people on par with Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos.
Most people are economically and financially illiterate, and probably should not be flying this plane we call gov’t without an understanding of aerodynamics.
You know people who just lay out their financial lives for you? OK.
Considering that 40% of the population don't pay any taxes and that the highest paid employees pay 37% in taxes and that even those living on capital gains and dividends pay around 37% when you factor in company taxes on the shares they own along with the taxes on their realized gains. I doubt you actually know people who pay less than "poor" people.
How much do you pay in taxes?
Yet 10% pay NINETY PERCENT of the freight for the rest. For ALL the rest.
Small detail to omit, huh? Since that enriches you, no surprise.
Hypocrisy much?
In _your_ mind "bootlicking" means resisting the involuntary seizure of private wealth by the state? Presumably, then, you think that submission to the state is the _opposite_ of bootlicking? I feel like you've got your vocabulary all scrambled up here.
Another propaganda channel; disgusting that this drek reaches my recommended list. I have to stop using this platform.