How Plutocrats Cripple the IRS: You pay more because elites pay less

http://prospect.org/article/how-plutocrats-cripple-irs

by nkurz • 10 years ago

109 139 10 years ago

blue_dinner2• 10 years ago

"Plutocrats, the richest 0.1 percent of Americans, get the most benefit from a weakened IRS. Because they have the money, the lawyers, the lobbyists, the accountants, and the secret campaign funds, they are able to ensure that the IRS won’t have the resources to effectively collect the money they owe to it. "

Since when is generalizing an entire group acceptable?

Also,

How do you explain this?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

In 2013:

top 10% paid over 70% of total federal taxes 47% of all Americans pretty much paid nothing in terms of federal taxes

This also doesn't include the multitude of other taxes the rich pay (property taxes, use taxes, gas tax) and the fact that they employ many people that also pay taxes into the system (indirectly paying more into the system).

There are definitely some people using off-shore accounts, but it's not nearly as bleak as this article would like us to believe.

The US also has one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

If people are taking the risk and leaving the country with their money, we may need to take a look at our existing tax laws and figure out why they are taking the risk.

orionblastar• 10 years ago

Just remember that this is an election year so articles blaming scapegoats come from both sides.

Conservatives blaming immigrants and Liberals blaming the rich.

blue_dinner2• 10 years ago

You are exactly right.

spacemanmatt4• 10 years ago

The difference is, immigrants didn't cause any economic depressions.

Latty2• 10 years ago

What generalisation? The comment is they gain the most, and that they have the ability to exploit it. That's a statement of fact. You could similarly say that men are the most likely to benefit from sexism, and are positioned best ot exploit it due to the historical sexism against women. It's not saying all men are sexist, just that they are the ones likely to benefit.

The article directly talks about your 70% figure, and explains why it's misleading. I also don't get why we should care about the 'fairness' of it. We don't allow people to do anything they want for the benefit of society - that can include not allowing people to hoard money if we want.

As to your latter points, just because they pay a lot doesn't mean they pay enough, and employing people isn't a 'gift' to society - it's something they do to gain benefit themselves. Yes, it's a behaviour we should encourage, but it isn't somehow equivalent to paying tax.

weberc24• 10 years ago

just because they pay a lot doesn't mean they pay enough

So how do we fairly determine what is 'enough'?

anoonmoose• 10 years ago

> How do you explain this?

How do I explain the top 10% paying over 70% of total federal taxes?

I would wager a guess it has something to do with them having about 70% of the total wealth of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

lostcolony• 10 years ago

This. The OP's particular numbers are -obviously- meaningless without including further context.

If one person had all the money, literally, all the money, and paid any amount on it, be it one cent, or half of the money (either way leaving them with trillions, and everyone else still able to earn nothing), they'd be paying 100% of the taxes. This is an absurd hypothetical, but it demonstrates that the percentage of taxes paid by a particular group tells you nothing by itself.

srj• 10 years ago

You're assuming a large overlap between top 10% income and top 10% wealth. I'm not able to find great data on this, with most sources just focusing on one or the other. It seems to me though that many of the wealthiest individuals, including those drawing down retirement savings, probably have low W2 income.

yummyfajitas11• 10 years ago

Actually no, it's due to the high levels of progressivity of US income taxes relative to other nations.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...

kleiba• 10 years ago

Since when is generalizing an entire group acceptable?

What other kind of generalizing is there?

maxerickson• 10 years ago

The "they employ many people" is a purple cod.

You know what a huge percentage of the population does? Participates in the economy, helping other people earn economic rewards, economic rewards that are taxed. That it is advantageous for some people to employ others is not any different in that respect than the fact that people buy goods and services.

TheOtherHobbes• 10 years ago

I think you'll find the terms of employment may be relevant too.

A lot of employment in the UK has moved from being a job to being a zero-hours "we only pay you if we want you for a day, but you have to be available for us to choose you every day" contract.

Most people would prefer a steady job, but when the playing field is so heavily slanted politically, that kind of job is becoming a middle class luxury.

spacemanmatt4• 10 years ago

Since when is generalizing an entire group acceptable?

Do you know what time it is?

deepnet• 10 years ago

Customer's pay the wages and costs of business - plurocrats reap the profits.

Socially beneficial plutocrats invest in economies, risking their capital to seek reward. Money hoarded is of no value, an economy is powered by the movement of capital.

Corruption of economies by money to escape ones tax burden is antisocial and ultimately short sighted.

The wealth of nations is a functional, fair economy.

Good goverance should keep markets fair & ensure universal access to Justice.

Weak, corruptible governments are anti capitalist, distorting markets by granting monopolies, tax-fixing & denying judicial remedies to the powerless & poor.

Nursie• 10 years ago

Do you not see the discrepancy between a statement about the top 0.1% and your claims about the top 10%?

lkrubner• 10 years ago

Relevant:

"Chutzpah, according to the traditional definition, is when you murder your mother and father, then plead for mercy from the court on the grounds that you’re an orphan.Something like that is now happening in the tax debate."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/federal-tax-chut...

Since 1962, and especially since 1982, the USA tax system has relentlessly reduced the taxes that the rich have to pay. The point is, if you change the tax system, so that all the money goes to the rich, then even with the lower taxes, the rich will end up paying a lot of what taxes are collected, because they have all the money. And that is basically what is happened. But now the rich like to claim "Hey, we are paying 70% of all the taxes!" But of course, their share of all wealth has expanded dramatically, so even with lower taxes, they still end up paying quite a bit.

But of course, all of these taxes are voluntary. They could voluntarily give up their wealth, and donate all of it to charity, and then they would be poor, and they would not have to pay taxes. That they choose not to do this suggests that they mind the taxes less than they would mind being poor.

zaroth3• 10 years ago

That's not what the word "voluntary" actually means.

spacemanmatt4• 10 years ago

What part of voluntarily giving up their wealth defies the definition of "voluntary?"

yummyfajitas11• 10 years ago

In reality, the US rich pay a higher proportion of taxes relative to income earned than any other OECD country.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-...

It's true that poorer folks in the US are unproductive and contribute very little to society via market mechanisms (most don't even work). They are in fact a net drain after accounting for taxes and transfers.

I fail to see how the rich continuing to be productive and paying far more than their fair share is "chutzpah".

plandis• 10 years ago

I'm not the most well versed but it doesn't look like that says anything about "income" that is derived from capital gains. For instance Warren Buffet has remarked that his effective tax rate is actually around 17.4%.

eli_gottlieb2• 10 years ago

It's true that poorer folks in the US are unproductive and contribute very little to society via market mechanisms (most don't even work)

[citation needed]

ef4• 10 years ago

"You pay more taxes because somebody else pays less" is fundamentally misleading. If the government had to balance its income and expenses, then yes, one person paying less taxes would imply somebody else had to pay more taxes.

But that is not how it works. Not for a government that can borrow at practically zero cost.

The reality is that when somebody else doesn't pay their taxes, it has no bearing on how much you pay. It just causes the treasury to issue incrementally more bonds.

This may seem like a minor point, but it's important in understanding what taxes are really for in a country that issues its own reserve currency: they support the value of the currency by ensuring everybody needs to use it to pay their taxes.

svantana• 10 years ago

In the short term, yes, but long term, deficits will put an upward pressure on tax revenue, so you'll end up paying more in the end (than you would have if other people paid more taxes).

wycx2• 10 years ago

Only if you are borrowing the money to fund the deficit. Public money (as opposed to bank money) is a legitimate, but ignored, alternative. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

sgift• 10 years ago

But that is not how it works. Not for a government that can borrow at practically zero cost.

"practically" zero cost is far different from "zero cost". If someone pays less taxes and the government has to issue bonds someone has to buy the bonds, so the government can get money. And who buys the bonds? Those people who have money. Who are those people? Probably those who didn't pay much tax, so they still have much money. And no one buys bonds if he doesn't get something out of it. Even low interests ("practically" zero) are far more than no interest.

GunboatDiplomat3• 10 years ago

Unless the interest on the bonds is lower than inflation.

IkmoIkmo• 10 years ago

Not really... budget deficit as a percentage of GDP fluctuates in a century's time between -4% and +4% or so, mostly on the bottom end of the spectrum of course, and with dips down much further in rare economic crises or say a WW2.

So for all intents and purposes, budget deficit rarely dips below 4%, meaning there's a cap on spending and just borrowing printed money is some infinite pool of money that's drawn from to compensate for lower taxes. No, there's a cap, and once it's reached, you either cut spending or raise taxes somewhere else.

So the notion that someone else pays more taxes (or, receives a lower share of the benefits of all the programs that taxes funds), when you pay less, is not fundamentally misleading. It's mostly true, because issuing bonds is a commonplace phenomenon but it's limited. And if it's not limited to a reasonable extent, you'll turn into Zimbabwe.

zaroth3• 10 years ago

As first impressions go, the first sentence of OP is pretty bizarre; "For every dollar appropriated to the IRS the public collects more than $4 in taxes."

Missing a couple zeros there? The IRS annual budget is $11.2B and total federal revenue is about $7 trillion.... As far as meaningless stats go that's a factor of 625x, not 4x.

Talk about blowing any credibility from the start!

danieltillett2• 10 years ago

I think they missed the word extra after every.

zaroth3• 10 years ago

Now that would be an interesting stat... So they collect $7 trillion a year, but to collect 1% more ($70B) we would have to pay them 1/4th of that, or $17.5B -- an additional 150% of their current budget.

Hardly seems worth it, aside from the satisfaction of holding all those tax cheats feet to the fire.

KKKKkkkk12• 10 years ago

Here's a counterpoint: How I get harassed by the IRS because Americans hate rich people.

I'm earning a below-average Bay Area income, but as foreigner I have a bank account and an IRA abroad, so I get to file a 30-page paper return that costs > $1K to prepare, in which I pay taxes on foreign income I did not actually earn, and get audited every year. So remember that every $1 spent on the IRS also generates an $X amount in time and money wasted for taxpayers.

tacostakohashi2• 10 years ago

This situation is voluntary / self-inflicted - I'd suggest either getting rid of your bank account abroad, or not be a foreigner any more (i.e., leave the US).

KKKKkkkk12• 10 years ago

Sure it's self inflicted. What if the IRS did this to all US citizens? Then it would still be self inflicted since they can renounce their citizenship. That's not the point.

ptaipale4• 10 years ago

For me this is a major deterrent for considering to work in the US. What I hear about NSA surveillance does not bother me that much. What I hear about IRS makes me want to stay away.

kmonsen• 10 years ago

I am a European citizen living in the Bay Area and although I like to whine about it, paying taxes is not a big deal.

It is also getting simpler as I now have almost only US assets. I used to have some stocks vested that was awarded when I worked for the same company in the UK. The tax authorities of the two countries decided to split my earnings leaving me with more or less nothing.

Another thing most people say is that US tax gives a lot less back even though we pay about the same as in Europe. This is true, but to some degree this is instead given to you by your employer (like health care).

ArtDev2• 10 years ago

The worst thing in America is healthcare. Low quality coupled with the highest costs in the world.

Its enough to make me move away.

rayiner4• 10 years ago

You don't pay more. There is an important fact that rarely gets mentioned in the taxation debate (by either side): the U.S. tax system is much more progressive than in similar developed countries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/05/ameri.... The top 10% in the U.S. carry much more of the tax burden relative to their share of the income (33.5% of income, but 45% of taxes). In Germany, for example, the top 10% earn 29% of income and pay 31% of taxes.

Middle class people in the United States pay very low taxes. I met a young woman from Germany, who has a typical entry-level desk job at a logistics company. Her tax bill was about 40%, which is level only high-income people here in the U.S. would pay. A typical middle class family eligible for the various deductions pays about 25% in state and federal taxes.

My two cents: A welfare state requires buy in from the population. You can't have a successful one just taxing the rich heavily to pay for middle class benefits like college and expensive old-age care. You need to flatten the tax curve and raise taxes on everyone to pay for services you expect everyone to use. People need to feel like they are getting something from the system, not just being forced to fund it.

ryguytilidie2• 10 years ago

You're kind of missing the point. I'm middle class and I'm well aware that compared to Germany or Scandanavian countries, I pay lower taxes. However, the issue is whether you "pay more" than the wealthy people in the US.

So no, I don't "pay more" than people living in a completely different country (how is this even a comparison) but I do pay more, on a percentage basis, than the highest earners in the actual country I live in, which is complete lunacy.

yummyfajitas11• 10 years ago

Rayiner's stats explicitly show that the wealthy pay more, on a percentage basis, than the non-wealthy. If the wealthy pay 45% of taxes while earning only 33.5% of income (ratio = 1.34), then simple arithmetic shows that the non-wealthy pay 55% of taxes while earning 66.5% of income (ratio = 0.82).

So no, you don't pay more on a percentage basis. You pay a lot less.

maaku5• 10 years ago

No middle class person in the United States "pays more" than an upper class person, unless that person is actually evading taxes and destined for prison. It is simply mathematically impossible due to the AMT.

The ONLY caveat to this long-term capital gains, which makes a wealthy hedge fund manager who is tax efficient about his investment strategy pay approximately the same or a few percentage points less than an upper middle class childless couple that rents. (And there the reasoning is about double taxation and the macroeconomic effects that would have.)

Some on either side of the aisle may spin a yarn about the rich not paying their share, but as always I suggest ignoring the rhetoric, looking at the facts, and doing the math yourself.

lumberjack• 10 years ago

I don't agree with you on two accounts:

1. What Germany does is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the US middle class is paying more because US plutocrats are cleverly shielding some of their gains from taxation.

2. If you want welfare state acceptance by all remove means testing and have it available to all. That's how it's done in Europe. Often times the public service is superior to anything the private sector can offer so even the rich support it.

chimeracoder2• 10 years ago

US plutocrats are cleverly shielding some of their gains from taxation

But even after that, they still end up paying a greater proportion of taxes collected than in other countries. That is rayiner's point.

mikeash• 10 years ago

Do your figures include payroll taxes? Since the typical middle class family pays something like 15% just for that, it seems unlikely that their total tax rate is a mere 25%.

rayiner4• 10 years ago

Yes. Just plug numbers into a paycheck calculator: http://www.paycheckcity.com/calculator/salary/result. Say you make $50k with two dependents (a kid and a wife who doesn't work). Your net pay is over $40k in Virginia. Account for the 6% employer-side payroll contribution, and you're at just under 25% tax rate. If you're eligible for typical middle class deductions like the mortgage interest deduction you're well below 25%.

revelation• 10 years ago

The 40% pay for healthcare, though.

rockarage2• 10 years ago

Did you read the article? The article refers to the "The top 0.1 percent" who are "average income of $9.44 million". The article specifically refers to the top 0.1 percent. Why? because in theory they should pay taxes like the top 10 percent, but they don't. Many of top "0.1 percent" use creative tax accounting to avoid paying their share.

yummyfajitas11• 10 years ago

[citation needed]

maaku5• 10 years ago

That you can use "creative tax accounting" to avoid paying your share hasn't been true for decades due to the AMT. The onus is really on you to explain what you mean, or cite a source here.

fucking_tragedy• 10 years ago

Add state, local, city and sales taxes and many people have an effective tax rate of 40%-65%. Yet it still doesn't buy an adequate social safety net.

bradleyjg• 10 years ago

The U.S. middle class pay fairly low taxes but they also get a fairly low level of government services. The cradle to grave system in a country like Germany simply doesn't exist here.

It isn't really our total spending that's out of line, between local, state, and federal government expenditures are comparable, if on the low side, to Western Europe rather it's: 1) we spend wildly disproportionate portions of our budget and economy on the military and 2) we spend a lot more on health and education with less comprehensive coverage and without getting unequivocally better results where we do cover.

Finally, within the middle class, which can be a very broad term, there are big differences. Our tax codes are riddled with distortions designed to further this or that policy goal, as well as varying by geographical region because of our federal system. Two taxpayers with very similar total income and assets can end up paying very different amounts.

Spooky23• 10 years ago

Don't forget about 12.4% social security and 2.9% Medicare payroll taxes.

CPLX2• 10 years ago

Seems to me that your argument requires measuring the income of high earners, then measuring the taxes they pay.

The behavior discussed involves parties lying about the former number and concealing income, thus making your calculation utterly meaningless is this particular context.

Presumably that detail didn't escape you, hence making this line of argument disingenuous.

This article isn't about what percentage of known income is taxed, it's about enforcement resources for finding concealed or obfuscated income.

eli_gottlieb2• 10 years ago

Ok, on the one hand, that's a very fair point. The middle class needs to pay taxes too, and a large social state is often funded partially with a broad-based VAT as well as income tax.

On the other hand, you're ignoring an important piece of data: what's the pre-tax distribution of income, both among individuals and between individuals versus companies, in Germany versus the United States? As far as I'm aware, Germany collects more corporate taxes (not sure about the pre-tax income distribution between people and companies there) for the size of its corporate income base, and Germany's pre-tax income inequality is slightly lower (but not by much) than that of the USA.

So, as I understand it, Germany can tax the middle class because the middle class has a bit more money than in the USA, while Germany also taxes companies with both corporate tax and the company portion of VAT (it's mostly passed on to the consumer, but also ensures that some tax is collected on corporate revenues) at effective rates heavier than those of the USA.

To sum up: a social state requires a broad tax base rather than just soaking a tiny population, but the desire to raise a large tax revenue by broadening the tax base has to be balanced against the need to tax people who actually have money to pay. If your income is massively concentrated among a few recipients, then they shouldn't be so surprised that they pay a correspondingly massive share of taxes.

harryh• 10 years ago

According to http://taxfoundation.org/article/sources-government-revenue-... in 2011 9.4% of the US federal budget came from corporate taxes. In Germany that number was 4.7%.

Retric3• 10 years ago

Ignoring SS is silly. Add it back in and the numbers are dramaticly different.

fu9ar• 10 years ago

So, instead, I have to pay "taxes" to plutocrats as insurance premiums. Yeah, that makes sense.

tmptmp2• 10 years ago

I want to point out another angle to this issue.

The US tax system may be okayish but renting system is way too much flawed and is giving undue advantage to the dirty-rich few (read the top 0.1%). There should be some law (e.g. ceiling on land holding act) to restrict the ownership of real estate. Some low enough ceiling on land should be there so that no one be in a position to keep on gaining ever increasing rent revenue and thus keep on putting huge burden on the rest of the society. The tax laws should be accompanied by laws that put hard limits on ownership of real estate.

Else the dirty-rich will soon "own" this entire nation for all "practical" and "important" purposes.

dbcurtis• 10 years ago

Please present your data on rates of home ownership in the US compared to other industrialized nations. Also, what do you think should be done to encourage home ownership beyond the current scheme of making mortgage interest deductable for primary residences?

tmptmp2• 10 years ago

Why compare with other nations? Don't you think the USA should show some leadership here?

>Also, what do you think should be done to encourage home ownership beyond the current scheme of making mortgage interest deductable for primary residences?

This is a good question. First and foremost, make houses affordable. For this to happen in any meaningful manner, the excess houses/spaces owned by people/companies should be freed from their clutches. Another point is the development across the nation must be more evenly distributed across the entire nation as the population grows, this will help lessen the burden on certain areas.

Also, home ownership rate in itself doesn't speak much, what is more significant is how large (i.e. how many tens, hundreds or even thousands of houses) living space is owned by how many individuals/companies and what is the rent-income of these people/companies?

This will show that the rent seeking is already rampant in USA. See this news "The affordable units will range for $950 to $1,492 (£615 to £966), and market-rate units will start at $2,000 (£1,294). Monadnock Development is backing the project." [1].

Why these people (like the Monadnock) should be allowed to own such excessive pieces of land, which they are not using for living themselves or not using for any manufacturing activity?

No one (individual or company) should be allowed to own multiple houses or even "too big" houses/spaces for living/renting.

The dirty-rich owning even the supposedly "public" space is also already happening. See the news about Vinod Khosla [2]. Or see this news about Mark Zukerberg [3].

I understand there are various issues here (e.g. cartels building hotels, in the name of hospitality industry, and using that space to achieve some sort of rent-seeking and/or seeking some sort of leverage through excessive land ownership). But these issues can be tackled through good legislation and enforcement, without harming the interests of the large populations.

[1] http://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/21/narchitects-my-micro-ny-mod...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/23/vinod-khosla-...

[3] http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24285169/mark-zuckerb...

nec4b• 10 years ago

Try changing the word rich in your comment for any other group name: black, gay, jew, muslim,..., and what you wrote would be promptly labeled hate speech.

mikekij• 10 years ago

I was very disappointed to see no mention of the fact that the US is one of the only developed nations that taxes companies' offshore profits. The trillions in profits held offshore by American companies is an unintended consequence of an overly complex tax system.

SomewhatLikely• 10 years ago

The article does point out how easy is it is make profits appear as though they were earned offshore however.

ccvannorman• 10 years ago

I find it surprising that so many HN users on this thread are rushing to the comments to make the point that the rich do, in fact, pay more than "the rest of us."

Did you not hear about the Panama papers? It should be quite evident that if you are wealthy enough, you can use creative loopholes to pay very little tax. It's also very well known that many big corporations use offshore accounts to pay little/no taxes.

No, I'm not going to cite sources. If you are so living under a rock that you don't know this is a real problem, a source isn't going to help you -- you're just going to start arguing about sources instead of the real, actual issue that should be fucking obvious.

ptaipale4• 10 years ago

Generally the problem is not that your fellow HN users are living under a rock; it's more that getting good evidence about the problem is hard.

tyingq• 10 years ago

Even the super rich that don't delve in grey area loopholes do pretty well. Warren Buffet explaining the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-...

asdfologist• 10 years ago

Exactly. Percentage tax rates don't mean squat when you're hiding all your income.

MrTonyD• 10 years ago

Percentages mean almost nothing sometimes. I was running my own business for a while and making many hundreds of thousands - and spending $30,000 in a day didn't mean anything to me. So paying 20% vs 30% vs 50% wouldn't have made any difference in my daily life.

adevine2• 10 years ago

Percentages also don't mean much when you split "rich" vs "middle-class" based on some arbitrary top x% of income. The real difference in the US is between the landed gentry (people who live off their investments) and people who are paid for their labor. That is where many people (like Warren Buffet) see a fundamental unfairness, especially in cases where people who are paid for their labor manage to get it taxed at investment income levels (e.g. carried interest).

pessimizer• 10 years ago

It's typical middle-class status quo defending logic. Plantation owners paid more taxes than slaves, and lords paid more taxes than serfs. Lazy slaves.

thrownaway24247• 10 years ago

Are you new here? HN has always been very heavy on the libertarian point of view. Many people here think that John Galt is not getting a fair shake.

aetherson• 10 years ago

So, while I'm sure that the very wealthy ("plutocrats"? Really?) include some people who actively work to defraud the government, I don't think it's mostly that.

Here's the fact: If you have a net worth north of say $20 million, you're going to hire an accountant to do your taxes. Not, like, an H&R Block come down with a box of your documents accountant, a real accountant. That accountant's _job_ is to interact with an incredibly arcane tax code that includes a lot of special cases and exceptions, and come up with the lowest tax burden possible for you. Legally.

Even if you don't super care to shave another 5% off your taxes, your accountant will probably do it for you without your asking. How else would it work? Would an accountant say, "Come use me! I'll increase your tax burden!"? If at the end of the process you feel like giving away more of your wealth, then you can always choose to do that.

lavamantis• 10 years ago

Discussions like these, among many clearly intelligent people, can sometimes get lost in the weeds. What's missing is a basic contextual foundation, without which all the wonky details in world are nearly meaningless. Why discuss AMT, Germany, and tax loopholes without first agreeing on inequality.

Most would agree that in a capitalist system there MUST be some inequality to provide incentive; extreme inequality is unsustainable; an economy (and society) is at it's best when inequality is low; and progressive earnings taxation is in fact the only proven and viable solution to address extreme inequality.

I rarely see this foundation laid here or in "the media". We can bitch and moan about the 0.1%ers and the tax code they've written for us, and it's certainly entertaining. But let's try to agree generally on where we want to go before discussing how to get there and who's going to drive.

jbpetersen• 10 years ago

Anyone else think we'll see "tax havens for the masses" become a thing in the next several years?

simonebrunozzi• 10 years ago

In this article, I like that they talk about the plutocrats being the "0.1%" instead of the more common "1%".

The 1% is NOT plutocrats; they are lawyers, doctors, engineers, that pay high sums in taxes.

The 0.1%, instead, starts to become really "interesting". Glad that they used the right percentage amount.

How Plutocrats Cripple the IRS: You pay more because elites pay less

Related Stories