B**W
发帖数: 2273 | 1 Don’t Tax the Rich. Tax Inequality Itself.
By IAN AYRES and AARON S. EDLIN
THE progressive reformer and eminent jurist Louis D. Brandeis once said, “
We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a
few, but we cannot have both.” Brandeis lived at a time when enormous
disparities between the rich and the poor led to violent labor unrest and
ultimately to a reform movement.
Over the last three decades, income inequality has again soared to the sort
of levels that alarmed Brandeis. In 1980, the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans made 9.1 percent of our nation’s pre-tax income; by 2006 that
share had risen to 18.8 percent — slightly higher than when Brandeis joined
the Supreme Court in 1916.
Congress might have countered this increased concentration but, instead, tax
changes have exacerbated the trend: in after-tax dollars, our wealthiest 1
percent over this same period went from receiving 7.7 percent to 16.3
percent of our nation’s income.
What we call the Brandeis Ratio — the ratio of the average income of the
nation’s richest 1 percent to the median household income — has
skyrocketed since Ronald Reagan took office. In 1980 the average 1-percenter
made 12.5 times the median income, but in 2006 (the latest year for which
data is available) the average income of our richest 1 percent was a
whopping 36 times greater than that of the median household.
Brandeis understood that at some point the concentration of economic power
could undermine the democratic requisite of dispersed political power. This
concern looms large in today’s America, where billionaires are allowed to
spend unlimited amounts of money on their own campaigns or expressly
advocating the election of others.
We believe that we have reached the Brandeis tipping point. It would be bad
for our democracy if 1-percenters started making 40 or 50 times as much as
the median American.
Enough is enough. Congress should reform our tax law to put the brakes on
further inequality. Specifically, we propose an automatic extra tax on the
income of the top 1 percent of earners — a tax that would limit the after-
tax incomes of this club to 36 times the median household income.
Importantly, our Brandeis tax does not target excessive income per se; it
only caps inequality. Billionaires could double their current income without
the tax kicking in — as long as the median income also doubles. The sky is
the limit for the rich as long as the “rising tide lifts all boats.”
Indeed, the tax gives job creators an extra reason to make sure that
corporate wealth does in fact trickle down.
Here’s how the tax would work. Once a year, the Internal Revenue Service
would calculate the Brandeis ratio of the previous year. If the average 1-
percenter made more than 36 times the income of the median American
household, then the I.R.S. would create a new tax bracket for the highest 1
percent of income and calculate a marginal income tax rate for that bracket
sufficient to reduce the after-tax Brandeis ratio to 36.
This new tax, if triggered, would apply only to income in excess of the
poorest 1-percenter — currently about $330,000 per year. Our Brandeis tax
is conservative in that it doesn’t attempt to reverse the gains of the
wealthy in the last 30 years. It is not a “claw back” tax. It merely
assures that things don’t get worse.
A key aspect of our proposal is the tax’s automatic nature. Congress need
only act once to protect our future. Just as our tax brackets automatically
adjust with the inflation rate, Congress could specify nondiscretionary
conditions under which the Brandeis tax would automatically go into effect.
Part of our goal is to change the way politicians speak about income
equality. Framing the income of the wealthy in relation to the median income
will help us all keep in mind the relative success of the middle class. Our
grandparents would be shocked to learn that the average income of the 1-
percent club has skyrocketed to more than 30 times the median income — just
as we will be shocked if 20 years from now 1-percenters make 80 times the
median, which is where we will be if inequality continues to grow at the
current rate unabated.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is right to decry the increasing power of
the 1 percent as a threat to democracy. President Obama is right to
characterize the present as a “make-or-break moment” for the middle class.
As 1-percenters ourselves, we call on Congress, for the sake of democracy,
to end the continued erosion of economic equality in our nation.
Ian Ayres, a professor of law at Yale, is the author of “Carrots and Sticks
professor of law and of economics at the University of California, Berkeley,
is co-editor of “The Economists’ Voice: Top Economists Take On Today’s
Problems.”
DCSIMG | l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 2 In 1980, the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans made 9.1 percent of our nation’s pre-tax income; by 2006 that
share had risen to 18.8 percent
===========
he sucks. Why doesn't he tell us what the % of paying tax? I know the top
1% pays 38% of federal income tax. | l**w
发帖数: 865 | 3 We should take into account the all-in tax. Focusing on income tax only is
not a fair comparison.
Federal tax revenue source:
45% income tax.
36% pay roll tax.
Income tax is progressive, meaning the effective tax rate increase as income increases, like almost all countries in this world.
The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases. | y****t
发帖数: 10233 | 4 until the payout of social security is progressive.
you can come back and tell us why it should not be regressive.
income increases, like almost all countries in this world.
effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.
【在 l**w 的大作中提到】
: We should take into account the all-in tax. Focusing on income tax only is
: not a fair comparison.
: Federal tax revenue source:
: 45% income tax.
: 36% pay roll tax.
: Income tax is progressive, meaning the effective tax rate increase as income increases, like almost all countries in this world.
: The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 5 What is the difference between income tax and payroll tax?
So is it fair to compare the tax rate for different source of income?
income increases, like almost all countries in this world.
effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.
【在 l**w 的大作中提到】
: We should take into account the all-in tax. Focusing on income tax only is
: not a fair comparison.
: Federal tax revenue source:
: 45% income tax.
: 36% pay roll tax.
: Income tax is progressive, meaning the effective tax rate increase as income increases, like almost all countries in this world.
: The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.
| l**w
发帖数: 865 | 6 Everyone can have different points on what is a fair share of tax.
I just want to emphasize that "all-in tax rate" should be used when tax
burden of different group of people is compared. | l**w
发帖数: 865 | 7 What Republic want is not "tax cut", is actually "tax cut for the rich".
That is why they try to turn down pay roll tax cut, which affect the middle
class the most. | y****t
发帖数: 10233 | 8 why you want to raise other people's tax?
by other poeple i mean anybody.
middle
【在 l**w 的大作中提到】
: What Republic want is not "tax cut", is actually "tax cut for the rich".
: That is why they try to turn down pay roll tax cut, which affect the middle
: class the most.
| T**********1
发帖数: 2406 | 9 Because he wants to steal from others.
That makes him of a what?
【在 y****t 的大作中提到】
: why you want to raise other people's tax?
: by other poeple i mean anybody.
:
: middle
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 10 You have no fucking idea.
I ask you again, what the difference between payroll tax and income tax?
middle
【在 l**w 的大作中提到】
: What Republic want is not "tax cut", is actually "tax cut for the rich".
: That is why they try to turn down pay roll tax cut, which affect the middle
: class the most.
| l**w
发帖数: 865 | 11 There are no identical things.
Income tax and pay roll tax are same on the fact that government takes money away from us. | l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 12 See, I know you are just bull shitting around.
The payroll tax discussed in congress now is the fucking federal income tax.
That why I said you have no clue when you said:
==================
We should take into account the all-in tax. Focusing on income tax only is
not a fair comparison.
================
You obviously don't ever read what you wrote.
money away from us.
【在 l**w 的大作中提到】
: There are no identical things.
: Income tax and pay roll tax are same on the fact that government takes money away from us.
|
|
