US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

[bannination]

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14

What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all.

Obvious scientific study is obvious.

[O Really]

So - is anyone surprised? If you are, you're clueless as to what's been happening in the past few decades. In any election, from dog catcher to Senator, the candidate with the most money almost always wins. And the money doesn't usually come from a majority of the population. Russia or US, the Oligarchs rule. And getting worse with each relevant Supreme Court decision.

[GoCubsGo]

Some politicos are more equal than.........

[Wneglia]

PETITION:
Congress: Stop letting large corporations and banks like General Electric, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup hide their profits offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes. End the "Active Financing Exception" and the "CFC Look-Through Rule."

The 1% Should Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes (Petition by Robert B. Reich)

I pay a considerably higher rate than Obama, who like me is a 1 percenter.
Tax rates on the rich were already raised. I guess we still aren't paying our fair share. Tough.

[O Really]

I'm thinking it probably isn't the stated tax rates that are the real issue. It's more the various opportunities for the wealthy to avoid paying whatever the rate is. Capital gains tax differential is one example. Why is not all income equal for taxability? But who gets more of their total income from capital gains? It wouldn't be the formerly middle class working stiff, nor is that same stiff likely to be able to sock much away in the Caymans.

[rstrong]

I pay a considerably higher rate than Obama, who like me is a 1 percenter.
Tax rates on the rich were already raised. I guess we still aren't paying our fair share. Tough.

Meanwhile, Back In Reality....

The top income tax rate — for individuals making more than $400,000 or couples making more than $450,000 — climbed to 39.6 percent as part of the fiscal cliff deal the president struck with Republicans last year.

For an individual making $400,000 or a couple making $450,000, only the very last dollar, and that dollar alone, is taxed at 39.6%. The remaining $399,999 (or $449,999) is taxed at a lower rate.

And no, tax rates on the rich were not already raised. Letting a temporary tax break holiday run out on schedule - and make no mistake, Republicans defended its creation in the first place by making sure everyone knew that it was only temporary - is not raising taxes.

The rich were paying taxes on their income over $400,000 at a 70 percent rate when Reagan entered the White House. By the time Obama was elected they paid it - tax holiday included - at 35 percent. Obama only promised in 2008 to move it back to 39.6 percent, and that's where - promise fulfilled - it sits now. (citation)

But that's before loopholes. After exploiting loopholes, America's richest pay taxes at about half that rate. In 2005, for instance, the top 400 income-earners in the United States took home an average $214 million. They paid only 18.5 percent of that in federal income tax. (citation)

According to a February 2011 analysis of 2007 IRS statistics by a columnist for Tax Notes, the average taxpayer residing in New York City's posh Helmsley Building (owned before her death by Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly said that "only the little people pay taxes") paid only 14.7 percent of his income in federal taxes while New York City janitors and security guards (such as those employed by the Helmsley Building) paid about 24 percent. Helmsley residents were taxed less for Social Security and Medicare, and much of their $1.17 million average income was in capital gains, which are taxed at the same rate as the wages of modestly paid (up to $34,000 a year) workers. [Forbes, 2-22-2011; Tax Notes, 2-21-2011]

[Wneglia]

I pay a considerably higher rate than Obama, who like me is a 1 percenter.
Tax rates on the rich were already raised. I guess we still aren't paying our fair share. Tough.

Meanwhile, Back In Reality....

The top income tax rate — for individuals making more than $400,000 or couples making more than $450,000 — climbed to 39.6 percent as part of the fiscal cliff deal the president struck with Republicans last year.

For an individual making $400,000 or a couple making $450,000, only the very last dollar, and that dollar alone, is taxed at 39.6%. The remaining $399,999 (or $449,999) is taxed at a lower rate.

And no, tax rates on the rich were not already raised. Letting a temporary tax break holiday run out on schedule - and make no mistake, Republicans defended its creation in the first place by making sure everyone knew that it was only temporary - is not raising taxes.

The rich were paying taxes on their income over $400,000 at a 70 percent rate when Reagan entered the White House. By the time Obama was elected they paid it - tax holiday included - at 35 percent. Obama only promised in 2008 to move it back to 39.6 percent, and that's where - promise fulfilled - it sits now. (citation)

But that's before loopholes. After exploiting loopholes, America's richest pay taxes at about half that rate. In 2005, for instance, the top 400 income-earners in the United States took home an average $214 million. They paid only 18.5 percent of that in federal income tax. (citation)

According to a February 2011 analysis of 2007 IRS statistics by a columnist for Tax Notes, the average taxpayer residing in New York City's posh Helmsley Building (owned before her death by Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly said that "only the little people pay taxes") paid only 14.7 percent of his income in federal taxes while New York City janitors and security guards (such as those employed by the Helmsley Building) paid about 24 percent. Helmsley residents were taxed less for Social Security and Medicare, and much of their $1.17 million average income was in capital gains, which are taxed at the same rate as the wages of modestly paid (up to $34,000 a year) workers. [Forbes, 2-22-2011; Tax Notes, 2-21-2011]

I should live in Canada, where taxation REALLY favors the rich. Top marginal rate of 29%, no tax on profit from sale of home, only HALF of capital gains subject to taxation, and lots of other loopholes. Link What a country! And Cameron's RPA!

BTW, I paid almost no federal income tax in the pre- Reagan years due to passive loss tax shelters, which he put an end to.

[Another]

I wonder why it took a scientific study to state something most of us with working brains figured out long ago. But I suppose having the details helps. Btw, fwiw, oligarchy is hardly limited to the U.S. It's global. I saw a study just recently -- I'll link to it if there's interest and if I can find it again - that the wealthiest 86 people on the planet are worth more collectively than the bottom 3.5 billion. (Not sure of those exact numbers, but they're in the ball park.)

[rstrong]

I should live in Canada, where taxation REALLY favors the rich. Top marginal rate of 29%

Hint: The official tax rate can be much lower when the EFFECTIVE (after loopholes) rate is higher.

As for "no tax on profit from sale of home", that's something the middle class can enjoy. Heck, we were living below the official poverty level when my ex was in college, and we got to enjoy that one. As for the"lots of other loopholes" in the list, take a closer look. They're all routinely used by the middle and lower income classes.

[Wneglia]

Poll - 62% favor flat tax

[rstrong]

Poll - 62% favor flat tax

I'd bet that changes when someone gives them a definition of a flat tax. Say, one that mentions that various loop-holes and write-offs enjoyed by the rich that cut their effective income tax in half making it lower than what the middle class pays. Not to mention capital gains and other sources of wealth.

[Wneglia]

Though I get that we would lose some theoretical progressivity, I would be okay with a flat tax that would reduce the intrusiveness, complexity and nonproductive inefficiency of the current system IF:

Loopholes for the rich are really eliminated;
Offshore tax shelters are cracked down on;
There is a significant, equal and universal deduction for what are the basics of life - food, shelter, transportation, healthcare;
Nonproductive investment income is taxed at the same rate as actual work.

Of course, such conditions would eliminate much of the con support for a flat tax.

I would favor all of the above except deductions of any type.

[O Really]

Not even for kids or business expenses?

Deduction was maybe the wrong word for me to use. I think some basal level of income should be exempt from federal income tax. Do you really want to tax .

Why should a person with more kids (using more resources) pay less on the same income as someone with fewer kids (using less resources)?

[rstrong]

"You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics."

As Elizabeth Warren pointed out a year ago, if minimum wage had kept up with worker productivity, it would be $22 an hour.

[rstrong]

J. Michael Straczynski - THE RULES OF THE NEW ARISTOCRACY