• AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ah but they’re contributing in many other ways! Like, um… uh… let me think for a second…

    Hmmm… I’m sure it’ll come back to me eventually…

      • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        And the top 10% owns 67% of all the wealth (I’m not seeing an option to show just the top 5%). Considering how many millions and billions of dollars they all own, it only makes sense that they’re also paying the most. Especially since they can easily afford it without lowering their standard of living.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          8 months ago

          Absolutely agreed they can afford it. I just don’t like having disingenuous data presented. The % shown makes it look like they’re not paying as much taxes as the rest of us. The reality is they pay the most. We shouldn’t have to stoop to creating fuzzy charts, we don’t need to because the other numbers are even worse, as you have shown. They own 67% of all the wealth, which is insane.

          • ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            ·
            8 months ago

            The graph is showing who pays the least as a percentage of family income. I really don’t think it’s disingenuous to be talking about tax rates as percentages rather than the total amounts paid.

            The % shown makes it look like they’re not paying as much taxes as the rest of us.

            That’s because proportionally, they are paying less. Millionaires and billionaires are paying taxes at a lower rate then everyone else, even though they have so much more disposable income.

            I don’t know what your ideal version of talking about this would be, but these three facts, that the top 1% pay the least proportionally, the top 5% pay the most in absolute terms, and the top 10% control two thirds of all the wealth, are all related in a pretty basic way.

          • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I just don’t like having disingenuous data presented

            The difference between fighting disingenuous data and reframing the issue to favor another party is the degree in which the so-called disingenuous aspect actually matters.

            In this case, the fact that the top 4% pay materially more than the rest doesn’t actually matter because they own the vast majority of the wealth. If that same wealth were evenly distributed, more of it would be paid into the system. And that is the point.

            What you are doing is not representing the other side of a disingenuous issue, what you are doing is framing the issue in a way that favors the wealthy by citing a statistic that is beside the point.

            That in itself is dishonest and a talking point that the wealthy use regularly to try and convince people that they are actually the good guys.

      • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Top 5% if AGI. These numbers are based on Adjusted Gross Income. That vastly inflates the portion the truly wealthy pay compared to their wealth. They get to use the stock they own and open lines of credit for cash, then pay down those loans while using them to write off for the little stock they sold. These sort of tricks are why Bezos didn’t pay income tax for two years

        https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-did-not-pay-income-taxes-2-years-report-2021-6?op=1

        I appreciate your desire for accuracy, but the context is lacking.

        • Promethiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Thank you for adding the always missing nuance. But other readers don’t get it twisted; parsing the financials of those too wealthy for mere cash liquidity isn’t simple by design. The context is always obscured in Economics because abstraction makes the bills we all pay on their behalf.