RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar

RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 3:56:21 PM)
The main issue I have with Carolla's analysis is that it seems to be predicated upon both inaccurate and deceptive numbers. He cites early on in his speech that he heard the top 1% of income earners pay over 50% of all income taxes. This number is false. According to the IRS, the top 1% in 2009 paid about 37% of all income taxes. Additionally, the use of the value is deceptive even if you use the correct value of 37%. By itself, this mathematical fact has little meaning. The figure means that of all the tax dollars paid, the top 1% pay about 37% of them. This is a very high number, but is it really that unusual? No. Since the wealthy tend to make a higher percentage of the total income, we'd expect them to also pay a higher share of the total tax collected. To put it simply, the wealthy pay a lot of tax dollars because they make a lot of income. Some people deceptively try to use this figure to make it seem like the top 1% are paying obscenely high rates, whether 50% or 37%, when such simply isn't the case. To illustrate the point, compare the income and taxes of both the bottom and top 50%. The bottom 50% paid only 2.3% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid a staggering 97.7% of all income taxes. Does such an evocative number mean that the top 50% are paying ridiculously high tax rates? Absolutely not. The top 50% are paying 97.7% of income tax because they make 86.5% of all income. When you compare 97.7% with 86.5%, the values aren't really all that different; the small difference can be chalked up to the progressive nature of our tax code. A far better way to look at the situation is to compare a person's income with the amount of money they pay in income tax. i.e. their effective tax rate. In 2009, the top 1% had an average effective tax rate of 24%. That's substantially lower than the 37% cited earlier, and a far cry from the 50% cited by Carolla.

Politesub53 -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 4:29:28 PM)
The 24% figure of taxed from income sounds about rate. The top 1% in the Uk pay a simlar figure of 27%. The sad thing is that to introduce taxes on the side, that affect everyone. IE sales tax or vat here in the UK, this hurts those with poor income levels harder. This is because it uses up a larger slice of their disposable income. The whole issue, at least here, would be if they closed the tax avoidance loopholes.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 4:32:56 PM)
Bear in mind that the 24% is the effective tax rate, not the marginal rate. That, for the top 1%, is 35%

LVnewDom -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 4:42:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha The main issue I have with Carolla's analysis is that it seems to be predicated upon both inaccurate and deceptive numbers. He cites early on in his speech that he heard the top 1% of income earners pay over 50% of all income taxes. This number is false. According to the IRS, the top 1% in 2009 paid about 37% of all income taxes. You missed that he was talking about California taxes, not Federal. I dont know if he said "over", its actually "almost 50%".

Politesub53 -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 4:43:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha Bear in mind that the 24% is the effective tax rate, not the marginal rate. That, for the top 1%, is 35% yes, i didnt make myself clear. I meant the total amount paid by the top 1%. As for the top rate of tax, Its 40% top rate here

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 7:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LVnewDom quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha The main issue I have with Carolla's analysis is that it seems to be predicated upon both inaccurate and deceptive numbers. He cites early on in his speech that he heard the top 1% of income earners pay over 50% of all income taxes. This number is false. According to the IRS, the top 1% in 2009 paid about 37% of all income taxes. You missed that he was talking about California taxes, not Federal. I dont know if he said "over", its actually "almost 50%". Whoops, my bad. Luckily, my point still stands. The top 1% in California only pay about 27% of all state and local taxes in that state. Describing it as almost 50% is even more inaccurate in this situation. (that's ignoring the seeming irrelevence California's taxes on something he claims is a national and wide spread problem.) In either case, the bulk of my post dealt with the inherent deceptive nature of using such a figure for the purpose he did, questions of accuracy aside.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 7:28:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: ArizonaBossMan His commentary on the OWS bunch is spot on... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cJD8pZiRIzs "ass-douche" I approve of your new sig line.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 7:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: LVnewDom quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha The main issue I have with Carolla's analysis is that it seems to be predicated upon both inaccurate and deceptive numbers. He cites early on in his speech that he heard the top 1% of income earners pay over 50% of all income taxes. This number is false. According to the IRS, the top 1% in 2009 paid about 37% of all income taxes. You missed that he was talking about California taxes, not Federal. I dont know if he said "over", its actually "almost 50%". Whoops, my bad. Luckily, my point still stands. The top 1% in California only pay about 27% of all state and local taxes in that state. Describing it as almost 50% is even more inaccurate in this situation. (that's ignoring the seeming irrelevence California's taxes on something he claims is a national and wide spread problem.) In either case, the bulk of my post dealt with the inherent deceptive nature of using such a figure for the purpose he did, questions of accuracy aside. There was nothing deceptive about it.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Adam Carolla, Superstar (12/1/2011 7:57:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: LVnewDom quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha The main issue I have with Carolla's analysis is that it seems to be predicated upon both inaccurate and deceptive numbers. He cites early on in his speech that he heard the top 1% of income earners pay over 50% of all income taxes. This number is false. According to the IRS, the top 1% in 2009 paid about 37% of all income taxes. You missed that he was talking about California taxes, not Federal. I dont know if he said "over", its actually "almost 50%". Whoops, my bad. Luckily, my point still stands. The top 1% in California only pay about 27% of all state and local taxes in that state. Describing it as almost 50% is even more inaccurate in this situation. (that's ignoring the seeming irrelevence California's taxes on something he claims is a national and wide spread problem.) In either case, the bulk of my post dealt with the inherent deceptive nature of using such a figure for the purpose he did, questions of accuracy aside. There was nothing deceptive about it. quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha Additionally, the use of the value is deceptive even if you use the correct value of 37%. By itself, this mathematical fact has little meaning. The figure means that of all the tax dollars paid, the top 1% pay about 37% of them. This is a very high number, but is it really that unusual? No. Since the wealthy tend to make a higher percentage of the total income, we'd expect them to also pay a higher share of the total tax collected. To put it simply, the wealthy pay a lot of tax dollars because they make a lot of income. Some people deceptively try to use this figure to make it seem like the top 1% are paying obscenely high rates, whether 50% or 37%, when such simply isn't the case. To illustrate the point, compare the income and taxes of both the bottom and top 50%. The bottom 50% paid only 2.3% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid a staggering 97.7% of all income taxes. Does such an evocative number mean that the top 50% are paying ridiculously high tax rates? Absolutely not. The top 50% are paying 97.7% of income tax because they make 86.5% of all income. When you compare 97.7% with 86.5%, the values aren't really all that different; the small difference can be chalked up to the progressive nature of our tax code. A far better way to look at the situation is to compare a person's income with the amount of money they pay in income tax. i.e. their effective tax rate. In 2009, the top 1% had an average effective tax rate of 24%. That's substantially lower than the 37% cited earlier, and a far cry from the 50% cited by Carolla.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875