Posted on 06/06/2004 11:21:03 AM PDT by FairOpinion
I can't help setting the story straight on a popular American myth — repeated with increasing frequency in this election year — that "The Rich" (whoever "they" are) don't pay their fair share of taxes.
A corollary to this is the assertion that The Rich received the biggest benefit of the so-called "Bush" tax cuts," the political catch-phrase for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.*
Neither position is supported by hard data taken from income tax returns. In fact, in both cases, the opposite is true.
In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.
According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:
1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The articles about Dem lies are always front page news, I think the facts refuting those lies should be as well.
Suggest bookmarking it, it will come in very handy the next few months, as the election nears.
And it's a good idea to read the entire article, so we become very familiar with the facts and real figures, for when you are talking to a liberal and don't have the internet handy.
I would almost go as far as recommend printing it out as a reference, and memorizing at least some of the figures.
The only fact that needs to be memorized is this:
Every cut in income tax is going to be disproportionately for the rich BECAUSE THE RICH PAY AN EXTREMELY DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX.
How can you cut income tax for the poor when the poor DOESN'T PAY INCOME TAX!
The fact that the left can't seem to grasp this point is absolutely beyond me.
Ah, didn't the ketchup trollop only pay like 13%? She's rich, I mean she bought a US Senator gigaloo, plaything. And isn't she willing to do just anything to make him happy? Why I heard she is spending millions so he can play whitehouse occupant wannabe. /sarcasm>
http://www.thjournal.com/flottsomapr2004.asp
http://www.thjournal.com/flottsomapr2003.asp
These cover the same stats.
The top 20% of all U.S. income earners pay 65.7% of all taxes. The bottom 20% of all U.S. income earners pay 1.1% of all taxes.
The bottom 20% consumes nearly 50% of the federal budget (Welfare, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children, etc.)
If you analyze the tax figures and the budget figures this becomes obvious
Here's an old joke that illustrates the point:
Every day, ten men of various means go out for dinner. The bill for all ten men (@ $10 each) comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill in the same way we pay our taxes. The story went something like this:
The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $1:
The sixth would pay $3;
The seventh $7;
The eighth $12;
The ninth $18.
The tenth man - the richest - would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So...
...So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being "paid" to eat their meal.
So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
So now the fifth man paid nothing,
the sixth pitched in $2,
the seventh paid $5,
the eighth paid $9,
the ninth paid $12,
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth (wealthiest) man and beat him up. The next night tending to his injuries, the tenth man didn't show up for dinner. So, the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!
And that is how cuts in the tax system works.
ping
bttt
Democrats believe that rich people waste too much money. People are not smart enough to properly waste money, that is a job that the government does best. So, in order to keep people from wasting money, the government must take it to keep people from ever being rich enough to waste it.
The left can't grasp it because they don't understand the bare minimum about market economics. I'm no expert either, but I know a little more now than I did before the advent of the internet and conservative websites who've educated many an economically-ignorant taxpayer like myself. I wish the RNC would put out commercials explaining how a market economy and less taxes work. Apparently they think that the average American is too simple-minded to understand these details. But my belief is that they are merely ignorant and not stupid, and many more people would believe in the market and low taxes if they were given a simple education about it. This education should start in the schools.
Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.
- Ronald Reagan
I agree. However, there are many great free market economists that break it down into very simple, yet in my mind irrefutable, terms. Friedman, DeSoto, and some of the Austrians (although their foreign policy beliefs are usually pacified) like von Mises and Hayek break economics down to its simplest sense and show logically why the free market system is not only the most moral, but also the most successful...
There are no such intellectuals on the left. Rand's Fountainhead, von Mises' Human Action, and Sowell's Basic Economics should be mandatory reading in schools to complement the leftist agenda that dominates the public school system. The basics of the free market AREN'T difficult. It's just never introduced to the majority of the public...
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.