Posted on 05/04/2008 11:07:38 AM PDT by econjack
Both Hillary and Obama have explicitly stated that we need to "tax the rich" so each pays "their fair share". I recently came across a report titled DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX LIABILITIES BY INCOME CLASS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000, as Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION. The following table from that publication is interesting.
Income Category...................Individual Income Tax
................................................Income......Percent
Less than $10,000.......................-5.........-0.6%
10,000 to 20,000........................-7........ -0.8%
20,000 to 30,000........................10..........1.1%
30,000 to 40,000........................30..........3.4%
40,000 to 50,000........................39..........4.4%
50,000 to 75,000.......................114.........12.9%
75,000 to 100,000......................113.........12.8%
100,000 to 200,000.....................213.........24.1%
200,000 and over...................... 377.........42.7%
Highest 10%........................... 587.........66.4%
Highest 5%.............................478.........54.0%
Highest 1%.............................297.........33.6%
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation
The Democrats need to read this closely. All individuals making up $50,000/year pay less than 10% of federal income taxes. However, those individuals making more that $100,000/year contribute about two-thirds of the federal tax bite. In fact, the highest 5% pay over half of the total federal income taxes collected.
Knowing this, both Hillary and Obama think the "rich people" aren't paying their fair share. I kinda disagree. In fact, if you make less than $20,000/year, you have negative income taxes. If Hillary want to talk about a "fair share", what could be more fair than everyone paying %17 of their income in federal taxes, and that includes the freeloaders at the lower end of the distribution since they currently take more than they give. Can you imagine what would happen to economic growth in this country if that happened. It's time for the US to stop romanticizing the poor and punishing the rich. Let's reward those who contribute to this society and ignore those who don't. While this will never happen because Washington needs to buy votes to stay in office, the GOP needs to get out the fact that those making $50,000/year and up already foot over 90% of the bill for running this country, and in my mind, that's enough.
What seems obvious to me is that people who earn less than $20,000 per year are not paying their fair share.
Are they even paying A share?
Nothing is fair but that everyone pays the same rate.
Then when you factor in that XO paid 7.5 billion to their share holders, which of course they pay capital gains taxes, it seems to me the gubmit has a vested interest in keeping gas prices high. JMHO
ooops, that’s 200%...got a bit exited
I dunno, according to the Dims the oil companies are making 2 quadrillion % profits on the backs of all the endangered species in the world.
econjack: “It’s time for the US to stop romanticizing the poor and punishing the rich. Let’s reward those who contribute to this society and ignore those who don’t.”
That’s no better than asking government to be Robin Hood. Some people lack the skills necessary to get ahead. It’s our moral obligation to help (through voluntary, private charity) those people who are trying to better themselves.
When I was young raising a family, things were a bit tough on me, but I didn’t have a gov’t that would bail me out, so I had to better myself just to survive.
Now, my youngest nephew has a family of 6 (yup, 4 chillins), earns about $30K per year, pays ZERO taxes and gets $4k+ per year in EIC payments and child tax credits. He also gets subsidized healthcare for his kids.
Now he will better himself and lose all those bennie’s, but a lot of folks are very happy to stay in his position.
Well, I guess that’s better than a google ~~
Until 90% of the population is paying 90% of the taxes....the country will belong to the 10% bearing the brunt of the tax burden. Those 10% choose our presidential and Senate candidates, decide whether we buy our oil from the MidEast or
ourselves, determine if the pond in your back 2 acres constitutes a wetlands, and whether or not sex ed for your 6 year old involves homosexualization. When they decide the “rich” will pay more taxes, they are taking more power from the “underpayers” and giving it to those paying.
This is sick. $40K is living well in Arkansas, but $100K is barely skating by in Silicon Valley, yet the $100K gets taxed so much more.
This may backfire on the libs and spark an exodus from blue states.
Wait and see how quick that 24.1 % changes to 34.1%
I'm glad to help someone who wants a hand-up, but I think I've given enough to those who want a hand-out.
Bah. Democrats don't really want a tax on wealth. Too many of them already got theirs and are sitting on millions in wealth. But they're happy most people confuse wealth and income.
What the GOP REALLY needs to do is to call Democrats' bluff and give the Democrats exactly what they say they want:
a real tax on wealth -- and no increase in INCOME tax. Rich Democrat doners would be crapping themselves. How much is Oprah worth? Tax that wealth! How much are the Google boys worth? Tax that wealth! How much are the Kerrys worth? Tax that wealth!
But the Republicans probably don't have the balls.
Only once recently have I seen Republicans turn things around on the Democrats and make them crap themselves, and that was when some Dems were calling to impeach Chaney.
The Repubs shoved it right back in their faces.
The problem isn’t the tax rate, the problem is the loopholes which ONLY the RICH enjoy.
They haven’t done that since I think Richard Nixon instituted the Earned Income Tax Credit.....the biggest, lying, deceitful scam on the efficiently hardworking people of this country....
OH PLEASE... I'd like to see the statistics to back up 2 quadrillion % on anything, let alone the 10% profit on gross revenues the oil companies make. If it comes to picking between mass unemployment for US workers or the disappearance of the snail darter, I think most starving people would not only choose employment, they'd probably be willing to eat the snail darter in the process. Tree huggers have had their way for over 3 decades and we are now paying the price. We need new power plants, refineries, and off shore drilling. If a few caribou have to duck under a pipeline in the process, my apologies to the caribou.
Bah. Democrats don't really want a tax on wealth. Too many of them already got theirs and are sitting on millions in wealth. But they're happy most people confuse wealth and income.
What the GOP REALLY needs to do is to call Democrats' bluff and give the Democrats exactly what they say they want:
a real tax on wealth -- and no increase in INCOME tax. Rich Democrat doners would be crapping themselves. How much is Oprah worth? Tax that wealth! How much are the Google boys worth? Tax that wealth! How much are the Kerrys worth? Tax that wealth!
But the Republicans probably don't have the balls.
Only once recently have I seen Republicans turn things around on the Democrats and make them crap themselves, and that was when some Dems were calling to impeach Chaney.
The Repubs shoved it right back in their faces.
Hell, I, myself, paid more in federal income taxes that 35 million other workers combined in this country and I’m a teacher! See:
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf
This post (<-click), from a previous tax-related thread, provides more details as to how constitutionally unauthorized federal spending got started when constitutional flunky FDR established his New Deal programs.
In fact, one organization has come to the conclusion that both Clinton and Obama have "distinguished" themselves as the biggest of the big-shot federal spending proposers for '08.
http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/blogs/investorcentric/2008/02/presidential-candidate-budget-analysis.htmlThe people need to reconnect with the intentions of the Founders concerning their requirement for constitutionally enumerated federal government powers, particularly those powers which reasonably justify federal spending. The people then need to wise up to the major problem that the federal government has not be operating within the restraints of the Constitution since the days of FDR's dirty politics, particularly where constitutionally authorized federal spending is concerned.
The bottom line is that the people need to get in the faces of the feds, demanding that the feds stop constitutionally unauthorized federal spending and appropriately reduce taxes. Voting people like Clinton and Obama out of office as opposed to trying to send one of them to the Oval Office would be a good place to start.
Other major sources were Social Security Taxes (36.1%) and Corporate Income Taxes (15.4%).
I think they do... after all, they are getting a tax rebate. The government wouldn't give a rebate to someone who didn't pay tax in the first place... right?
Do I really need the /sarc tag?
Exxon Mobil is now XOM, never has been XO in my lifetime, used to be XON, and I’ve been a shareholder on and off for 3 decades.
If it was XO that was a long time ago.
Last time I saw an Esso sign was overseas.
Your’re right, my bad
“What seems obvious to me is that people who earn less than $20,000 per year are not paying their fair share.”
Very strange, I’m in that category and $2290 was withheld and I am getting back $8.84. Are we talking gross income or taxable income?
What does the middle column mean?
Make them all a flat 13% and I’ll be relatively happy. Better yet, 10%.
The indexation of taxes based on income was a terrible mistake. It has allowed three negative thing to happen: 1) The issue of taxation is now a class warfare issue where facts matter little, 2) big tax changes are needed at certain income levels when, if all were taxed, a small increase for all would bring in more revenue and 3) people who pay no taxes are not stakeholders in the economy of the Country. I always laugh at the polls that demonstrate 50% of the population are not disturbed by tax hikes. Of course, they pay no taxes anyway!
Well, that's a new trick! </sarcasm>
WHERE IS JOHN GALT?
For a long time I have believed that votes should be counted based on how much tax a person pays. Tax payers are the ones most impacted by government spending decisions. Before anyone calls me a Constitution Trasher, the Constitution does not specify who should vote in elections.
“I’d like to see the statistics to back up 2 quadrillion % on anything,”
ya know I thought by adding 2 quadrilion I wouldn’t have to have a /sarc tag. guess I was wrong.
I disagree. The 10% are paying the freight, so to a large extent they are dancing to the tune of the 90%. The rich have advantages, but not enough to outweigh the sheer numbers of the parasites.
antiRepublicrat: “This is sick. $40K is living well in Arkansas, but $100K is barely skating by in Silicon Valley, yet the $100K gets taxed so much more.”
I wouldn’t exactly say $40K is living well anywhere in the US, but your point is well made. Even worse, I bet more and more folks in high cost/high wage areas are being caught by the AMT.
I don’t know about you, but the more I make the less I seem to have. What’s up with that? Seriously, the more you make the bigger bite they take!
econjack: “Why do I have a moral obligation to help the poor?”
Because there are some people who are disadvantaged in life through little or no fault of their own (disabled, for example).
Notice I didn’t say I thought you should be LEGALLY obligated to help them, but you should feel morally responsible to lend a hand to others where and when you can. The beauty of the conservative approach here is that you don’t have to do anything for anyone if you don’t want to.
Sacajaweau: “The problem isn’t the tax rate, the problem is the loopholes which ONLY the RICH enjoy.”
I disagree. The income tax rates penalize those who are trying to build wealth. The rich already have theirs. For example, someone with millions in property and investments can have a comparably small income. Like another FReeper wrote, if the rich paid taxes based on their wealth (not their income), Democrat leaders would quickly change their tune. Keep in mind our political leaders are generally quite wealthy and could voluntarily donate whatever they wanted to the US government. For example, no one is stopping Teddy Kennedy from donating 90% of his WEALTH to help others if he so chooses. Fat chance of that happening of course (pun intended). Every time a rich politician steps forward complaining about the poor, they should be asked how much of their own wealth they are donating (above and beyond income taxes, of course, since it’s such a “worthy” cause).
In the beginning of that situation that was true. Over several generations, as 10% of the country now pays 70% of the taxes, they own the joint. The natural economic evolution of that disproportion is serfdom..as the 90% have either sold their country to the 10% or have had it taken from them ...depending on your perspective.
Serfdom is something that understandably most 20th Century types would’nt recognize.
It's the amount of tax revenue, in billions.
Warning: Never give to a charity without an audited financial statement of the previous year's operations. I used to give to one well-known charity until I asked for that info. At that time, they collected just over $32 million, of which a little over $18,500 actually went to the supposed beneficiaries of the charity. 99% of the money was spent on "Administrative and Promotional Expenses". It's legalized stealing.
Sometimes I miss the obvious...
I hope you're being sarcastic and you haven't actually bought into this myth. If there are so many tax loop holes, why is it that the top 10% on the income scale pay 67% of the tax bill? Surely if there are loop holes only available to the rich, they should be paying less than 10% of the tax burden instead of more than six times that rate.
No, this is a misconception that liberals drag out so they can wring a few more dollars out of the rich to give to someone they can then make beholding to them, hence perpetuating them in office.
When I take account of what rich people do for society (like capital formation, invention, innovation, creating new jobs, risk taking, support for the arts, charities, etc.) and contrast that with the good things that poor people do (like...??), I think the rich bring a lot more benefits to the table than do the poor.
I think it's time for everyone to stop romanticizing the poor. Most are poor because they made bad choices along the way. They chose to not work in school, drop out, and do nothing. They do not invest in themselves so they can bootstrap themselves out of poverty. Yea, I know there are exceptions, but that's what they are...exceptions. I fail to see why it's my problem that they made bad choices. If they need welfare to survive, fine, but they need to show up every morning at 6Am at some public building to clean toilets, mop floors, and do all those jobs that Americans are supposed to not want to do. Perhaps then they'll see that, since they have to work 40 hours anyway, they might as well try to find a good job. I think that experience sends a totally different message to their kids than the current message does where we find 5th generation welfare recipients.
I wonder how different social policy would be if only those people who pay taxes into the federal coffers would be allowed to vote.
Many years ago...and I'm old...someone told me: "Give a poor man a dollar and he'll spend it. Give a rich man a dollar and he'll turn it into two dollars.
Very true...
Social Security taxes don’t pay for anything except Social Security benefits.
The “consolidated budget” that lumps entitelment spending in with real government spending — and lumps SS/M contributions in with taxes — is a socialist ruse to get people to equate SS/M with Welfare. It isn’t and was never intended to be. The best thing we could do would be to split SS/M contributions and liabilities off and stop this notion of a consolidated budget. Let SS/M sink or swim based on its mandatory contributions from wages, and let the Treasury borrow money on the open bond market rather than having a captive customer for it’s “special purpose” IOUs. Let Treasury issue $2T in new 4% tax-free bonds to pay off what it owes the Social Security Trust Fund, and keep everything separate going forward.
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.