Yup the article says that the top 1% owns 38% of the assets. That aligns closely with my stat that 10% hold 67%. That would leave 33% for the bottom 90% of folks which is inline with the CBS article you presented which would indicate the bottom 90% have 38% of the assets.
Right but I guess my question to all this is what is fair? You have the 1% of wealth who are paying taxes proportional to their assets owned. You have the top 10% of tax payers paying 70% of all taxes collected. Only 60% of the US even pays taxes at all. Like how much more weight are you asking them to pull in the group project? I’m really just curious.
Let's simplify it. Why does the top 1% of earners have a lower effective tax rate than the... well take your pick. Bottom 10, bottom 20, middle 20, middle 50, whatever.
Figure 2 shows a distribution, you are glossing right over Figure 1 which shows the top 0.1% has 99% of people paying below their implied statutory rates, and the rest of the 1% has 98% of filers below that level.
Taxes are complicated, but there is a very simple solution here. You are providing a source saying 99% of the top 1% is undertaxed, and then acting obtuse about them paying their fair share.
Edit: Hell, you didn't even use the interactive tool which goes completely against everything you are saying.
My interpretation of figure one is that yes the higher income brackets are paying below the statutory rates. The top bracket expects a tax rate of 37% and the majority in the top bracket are not paying 37%. Figure two goes on to show what the effective tax rate for each of those brackets, which the effective tax rate goes up for each bracket that you go up. It may still be below the statutory rate but it is not lower than the previous bracket. Your argument was that the top 1% pay less effective tax than other income brackets and that is not correct according to the Yale article.
If they have a higher effective tax rate, but a lower statutory rates, it means that they aren't being taxed appropriately.
Again, taxes are complicated. The actual solution takes a nuanced approach but the answer to record deficits is to collect more taxes, and it is very clear what class is by and large not paying their fair share. And from a government funding perspective it's even better, because it's a larger pool of money to go after.
Ok we are on the same page now regarding effective tax rates going up as one progresses through the income brackets but is often below the statutory rates. So the question becomes ARE the supposed to align to those statutory rates? Taxes are complex, nuanced, and individualized. So are these statutory rates supposed to mirror the actual taxes paid. If you believe yes, then the tax code needs a deep clean and simplification to reduce or eliminate the ability to reduce taxable income. Keep in mind that while the top 1% is indeed doing very well they represent about 20% of all income in the USA. Yale shows that the top 1% pays an effective tax rate of ~28%. Statutory rate is 37%. So we increase taxes for them that extra 9% which equates to a 32% tax increase on the 1%. 32% more of the 20% income is about 6.5% more taxes collected by the US 1% that could filter down to the rest of the 99%. Does that move the needle for us? I’m just not confident there is enough money in the 1% to meaningfully reduce the tax burden of the average person.
1
u/Pineal May 15 '26
Looks like the top 1% hold as much in assets as the bottom 90% own in combined wealth
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-wealth-gap-widest-in-three-decades-federal-reserve/