Posted on 10/19/2004 11:20:37 AM PDT by branch1
They put a lie to John Kerry's contention that the rich are not paying their fair share and should be taxed more.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
October 19, 2004 | Print | Send
Last week, the Internal Revenue Service released data on distribution of the income tax burden in 2002. They put a lie to John Kerry's contention that the rich are not paying their fair share and should be taxed more.
The IRS data divide taxpayers into percentiles according to their adjusted gross incomes. Following is the share of aggregate income taxes paid by each group:
Income Group ---- Tax Share Top 1 percent ---- 33.7 percent Top 5 percent ---- 53.8 percent Top 10 percent ---- 65.7 percent Top 25 percent ---- 83.9 percent Top 50 percent ---- 96.5 percent
The data also reveal that despite the Bush tax cuts, the income tax is still highly progressive -- taking more from each group as their incomes rise. The following percentages measure the taxes paid by each group divided by their income. Economists call this the average or effective tax rate.
Income Group ---- Tax Rate Top 1 percent ---- 27.25 percent Top 5 percent ---- 22.95 percent Top 10 percent ---- 20.51 percent Top 25 percent ---- 16.99 percent Top 50 percent ---- 14.66 percent Bottom 50 percent ---- 3.21 percent
Finally, the data show that the rich are not only paying tax rates as high as they were during the Clinton administration, eve after large tax cuts in 2001 and 2002, but they are doing so even as their incomes have fallen. The aggregate income of the top 1 percent was down 26 percent between 2000 and 2002. In 2000, the income threshold for getting into the top 1 percent was $313,469. By 2002, that figure had fallen to $285,424, reflecting the slow economy and weak stock market.
This doesn't mean we should shed tears for the rich. They're still doing pretty well. But these data raise serious questions about Kerry's class warfare agenda. How much more taxes does he think rich people should pay?
Poll data suggest that the wealthy are already paying more than the bulk of Americans think they should. A Zogby poll last year asked people what a fair tax rate would be for a person making $1 million per year -- an income that would put someone in the top tenth of the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Seventeen percent of Americans said that 10 percent was the most he should pay and 29 percent said that 20 percent was the maximum.
In other words, 46 percent of the American people think that millionaires today are already overtaxed, paying about 28 percent of their income to the federal government when 20 percent is the most they ought to pay. Only 21 percent of people in the survey agreed with Kerry that tax rates should be higher than 30 percent.
Lest one think that this is an isolated result, there are other polls with similar findings. A 2001 Fox News poll asked people what the highest percentage of taxes anyone should have to pay is. Fifty-two percent said 20 percent was the most anyone should pay. Only 9 percent of people favored rates above 30 percent. Another Fox News poll in 1999 found 65 percent of people saying that 20 percent should be the maximum tax rate.
One possible reason for these results is that people think taxes are a lot higher than they really are. According to a new study by economists Alan Blinder and Alan Krueger, when asked for the current tax rate on a typical family, the average response was 31.3 percent. The Census Bureau says the correct answer is 23.4 percent. In 2002, the average household's income was $57,852 and it paid $13,529 in taxes.
This overestimation of the tax burden on the middle class may help explain why it has supported the Bush tax cuts despite a constant drumbeat of media reports saying that only the rich have benefited. A Prinecton University study recently concluded that people are basically irrational for favoring tax cuts for the rich at the same time that they believe inequality is a growing problem.
A better explanation is that many Americans think they have a chance of becoming rich some day. A Gallup poll last year found that 31 percent of Americans thought they would become rich. Among those between the ages of 18 and 29, the figure jumped to 51 percent.
For this reason, even sophisticated leftists recognize that class warfare is a non-starter in American politics. As columnist Bob Kuttner recently put it, "Because nearly everyone identifies upward, you don't gain traction in American progressive politics by baiting the rich." Mark Penn, Bill Clinton's pollster, put it this way: "The more government tries to monkey with income distribution, the more people dislike it."
Kerry should have listened to them.
1. Raise income taxe rates on the rich.
2. Have Teresa move more assets into municipal bonds.
Income Group ---- Tax Share Top 1 percent ---- 33.7 percent Top 5 percent ---- 53.8 percent Top 10 percent ---- 65.7 percent Top 25 percent ---- 83.9 percent Top 50 percent ---- 96.5 percent Income Group ---- Tax Rate Top 1 percent ---- 27.25 percent Top 5 percent ---- 22.95 percent Top 10 percent ---- 20.51 percent Top 25 percent ---- 16.99 percent Top 50 percent ---- 14.66 percent Bottom 50 percent ---- 3.21 percent
All I know is Teraaaayza could certainly afford to help out some with mine. Yeah, I'm gonna whine. Just got the property tax and it exceedes one month's pay. That's just wrong. When we bought 9 years ago, it was 2 weeks pay and now, pray tell, how the heck are we supposed to just maintain?
"But these data raise serious questions about Kerry's class warfare agenda...."
=====
Kerry did not invent the living Dem lie of "TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH"...it has been a part of the official liberal Dem Little Book of Big Lies....they have been using the old class division, racial division, for decades.
It is unfortunate that the Repubs don't have the toughness to make their campaigns the BLOOD SPORT that the Dems do each election. The Dems piddle all over them, and they do not THROW IT BACK IN THIER FACES BIG TIME. This country will always be a severe socialist risk until the Repubs learn how to STREET FIGHT IN THE BLOOD SPORT THAT THE LYING LIBS HAVE MADE ELECTIONS....
And the dodo birds in my area in the September primary just voted a 3/10's % increase on all of us. So now our sales tax is 8.4%. For the November election the dumbos in state govt want to increase sales tax by 1% to dedicate funds for educational purposes. Nevermind that the reason the voters voted in the lotto and our state was placed in the megamillion drawings ostensibly to provide educational funds. Plus on the ballot is a county wide levy of fees for each household to be charged for drawing water from the underground acquifer. We already pay a minimum for water usage but more dumbos want more money. And you what? Stupid dodo voters will fall for this hook, line and sinker and vote more taxes on themselves and everyone else. Am I angry? You betcha!
The Kerrys consider themselves super-rich, therefore they believe that they don't need to 'pay their fair share". While on the other hand, they consider anyone, with less wealth than themselves, who are not on welfare or social sercurity to be 'rich' (E.I the middle class).
>>>We are all working almost half of the year for the federal government;
Actually, a about one-third. They spend like we work half the year for the federal governement.
Tax Freedom Day® in 2004 was be celebrated on April 11th, the earliest Tax Freedom Day for 37 years.
Cost of Government Day is July 7th.
At a bare minimum, all tax statistics like this should include FICA taxes as well as income taxes. Most low-income people pay no income taxes, but everyone who earns a paycheck pays FICA taxes. My guess is that the tax burden isn't carried so heavily by "the rich" when you include FICA taxes.
BTTT
What's the meaning of "equal"?
As in equal protection?
Teresa pays only 0.1% of her wealth in taxes per year. I would like to see a minimum asset tax of 5% per year on the super rich, to cover the cost our military to keep them rich. That would force them out of socialist government bonds and into investing into technology to push our country forward. It seems the only time we invest heavily in technology is when we're at war against a worthy opponent. Since World Wars have become far and few between we need to encourage this investment another way.
The Dallas Federal Reserve Bank had an interesting survey on inflation vs. wages in their annual report a few years ago. It was interesting how they tried to claim the parity in buying power today compared to a century ago, yet they never once mentioned the damage done to earning power by the continually rising levels of taxation we experienced over the same time.
Exactly.
The Teresa Heinz is estimated to be worth anywhere from $550 Million to $1 Billion. Yet, Teresa Heinz paid less than 8 times more Federal taxes than I did for 2003.
The "progressive" nature of the tax system only applies to those individual who earn more and not the individuals who own more. The concept of "paying their fair share" as an excuse for raising taxes only applies to earners and not to the truly wealthy such as Teresa Heinz.
I would make a wager that the tax lawyers Theresa Heinz pays charge her more than she pays in taxes each year.
You should read up on the earned income tax credit
I agree, but everytime the Repubs, as you call them, attempt the type of campaigning you suggest, we have one talking head after another pointing to polls showing this will lose voters. My question is why is it only Repubs that will lose support and not the communists.
Unfortunately history seems to be against us with regard to the unconstitutionality of progressive taxation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.