There's a few things to consider with this statement. First, and most importantly, everyone in the US who has more than $1m is in the top 1% by wealth, including assets. That illustrates how little money most people have.
Secondly, the top 1% captured 54% of the wealth generated in the last decade, so paying 50% of the tax sounds about right.
Lastly, we're not really talking about the top 1% because most of them are just people who lucked into buying a house in an area that subsequently became gentrified, or they got lucky with some stock options, or whatever. It's people who own more than $100m who have the sort of capital that enables them to pay very fancy accountants to get their tax burden down to single digit percentages. They're also the ones who get their companies to do union-busting tactics, because next year they want to own $200m.
88th percentile for $1M net worth including home.
https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta...
90.5th percentile excluding home.
It is 99th percentile until age 35 to age 39 though.
https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/
https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/ehs-04...
Come to think of it, I wonder if these net worth calculations incorporate present value of annuities such as Social Security benefits and defined benefit pensions.
My more general point is still true though - it's the people with 100s of millions who have the resources to minimize their tax burden who could (note: I'm not saying 'should', that's a matter of opinion) be paying more.
So how is it that real median household income is up almost 50% in the same timeframe?[0]
In this case, I'd find out what the union was requesting and consider its fairness.
The workers sold their time and labor, and we're compensated according to what they negotiated.
Why should they be entitled to anything more?
Up until to a certain point it takes those owners but it's a synergy.
If you're a retail worker that Apple can replace in a day, then your compensation will reflect that.
You sure you want that?
So, in the USA, if I were to make $50,000 in a year producing widgets, the tax rate on that amount would be higher if I made the widgets by hand than if I had a robot produce the widgets for me? That is interesting. In my country, the product of capital is taxed at the same rate as the product of labour.
Or are you trying to talk about capital gains? The human equivalent of gains on the sale of capital would be profiting from a slave trade, and I understand that is illegal in the USA, as it is in my country. I am not sure you can meaningfully contrast capital gains with anything human-related, and certainly not the product of labour.
No, you spent $50,000 buying labor vs. $50,000 aquiring machines and parts to build widgets, your taxes and the taxes on the people you bought from would be higher in the labor case.
> Or are you trying to talk about capital gains? The human equivalent of gains on the sale of capital would be profiting from a slave trade
No, the human equivalent of capital gains is capital gains, since all capital gains are earned by hunans or legal fictions representing them. But the labor equivalent is wages; earnings from production are split between capital and labor, the labor share distributed as a mix of immediate and deferred wages, the capital share (eventually) extracted as capital gains, either directly as dividends or by trading future interest in dividends for current money by selling stock, etc.
This is not, however, an alternative to the analysis of taxes impacting the production methods; the two are both different framings of the same facts: capital gains are taxed preferentially to “normal” income which in turn is taced preferentially to labor income.
Why is that?
The taxes paid would be the same here. If we say the rate is 10%, labour case would pay a straight $5,000. In the machine case the business selling it might profit $5,000, so they would pay $500, and $25,000 in labour costs to produce the machine, so they would pay $2,500, and $20,000 in materials gets divvied up in the same manner, leaving another $2,000. 500 + 2500 + 2000 = $5,000.
> No, the human equivalent of capital gains is capital gains
Okay, but then from that perspective the capital gains tax rate is always the same capital gains rate no matter what. The earlier comment suggested there were different rates. I guess that isn't the case.
No, they wouldn't, because payroll taxes exist, and are paid by both the employer and employee.
> Okay, but then from that perspective the capital gains tax rate is always the same capital gains rate no matter what
I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor” (which is as much a human means of relating to a capitalist econony as capital is), and also discussed what the labor equivalent of capital gains taxes (which are very much not the same.)
Here that is not the case. The employer pays half of an employee's contribution into a retirement and insurance fund, but that is not a tax. That is additional compensation provided to the employee.
What's the logic behind taxing payroll?
> I was taking issue with your misuse of “human” for what ia properly “labor”
Labour is the productive output of a human. Capital gains is a property of the exchange of capital. The closest analog to capital gains with respect to labour is the sale of humans (i.e. slave trade).
You haven't taken issue with anything, you've only repeated that it is silly to try and talk about capital gains and labour together. They are not meaningfully compared or contrasted.
If your capital holdings produced $1,000,000 in productive output, presumably in the US you would pay the same taxes as if you you made $1,000,000 selling your labour. That would be the case here.
After all, the value of capital is determined by its productivity potential. If there is no ability to generate productivity, the capital will be worthless, and then there will be no capital gains to speak of.
Let's face it, the real problem with the tax code (in this country, but I understand the US is the same) is that the borrowed income against capital is not taxed at all. This allows one to effectively create money out of thin air without paying a cent.
The cry of the ignorant. What is a fair share? Is it not fair because somebody simply wants more? Is it not fair because somebody else doing a different job makes more?
When I hear people say this it’s always the same, and always implies somebody is. Or doing their fair share. It comes with pay and taxes.
What is a fair share of somebody who provides an easily replaced skill (a smile on your face and can click a few button)?
It’s the same with taxes. The rich have to pay their fair share. This implies they are not. Yet think currently the top 1% is paying over 50% of all taxes.
The best way to solve this is as followed. Nobody derives nothing, because they have already been paid for their services. Their services are paid independently of profit and other market factors and have no business being compared to any other part of the company.
But if you really want to get down to it. I would wager the vast majority of apples sales are online. And a fair share would be that of profit of the sole store they worked at.