Posted on 09/04/2006 8:14:56 PM PDT by FairOpinion
One sure sign that the economy is doing well is when the left revives that old political warhorse, inequality. With GDP growth of nearly 4% for three years running and a jobless rate of 4.7%, it's their last economic resort in an election year. But when you look at the actual evidence, the inequality campaign also proves to be trumped up.
The Treasury Department will soon release the latest IRS data on who paid how much in taxes in America through 2004. We've had an early look at the numbers.
First, the new data show that the bottom 50% of Americans in income--U.S. households with an income below the median of $44,389--paid a smaller share of total income taxes in 2004 (3.3%) than in Bill Clinton's last year in office (3.9%). That 3.3% is the lowest share of total income taxes paid by the bottom half of earners in at least 30 years, and probably ever. The majority of American families with an income below $40,000 pay no income tax at all today, and many of them also get a welfare subsidy from the Earned Income Tax Credit that effectively offsets much of what they pay in payroll taxes.
By contrast, Americans with an income in the top 1% paid 36.9% of all federal income taxes in 2004, down slightly from 37.4% at what was the height of the dot-com boom in 2000. But the top 5% and 10% of earners saw an increase in their tax share over that same period, with the top 5%'s share rising to 57.1% in 2004 from 56.5% in 2000. If this isn't the definition of a highly "progressive," a k a redistributionist, tax code, we don't know what is.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Income taxes PING.
Bring in the FairTax!
I think Republicans should make sure that the American people know this, since a lot of people do consider the economy a big election issue, and they are unaware of how good the economy really is and how the tax burden went down for middle class people -- the Dems keep beating the drums of the class warfare.
If the RNC had any brains (they don't) they'd publish the graph in their member contribution campaign letter.
So what do you do when any bond measure or tax increase is put to vote if you pay no taxes? You guessed it. This is insane.
You pointed out THE major problem with the "progressive" taxation: People find they can just keep voting themselves benefits at the expense of others.
That's why the retail sales tax idea is something whose time has come, or should be.
I think congress needs to pass a tax!
Yes, yes, I know, not on Free Republic....
But wait!
We need to tax multi-million $$ book deals and make it retroactive! And we need an 80% tax on speeches by former public officials.
Those are just 2 new taxes we need.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all federal income, SS/Medicare payroll, and gift/estate taxes outright replacing them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
This isn't a good thing at all. This means the lowest 50% has been losing ground compared to the top half.
Save
Nah...
We need to tax Hollywood productions that glorify sex and violence.
We should also create a media tax. For any publication that calls itself a news group, all editorials are taxed. If it is proven that a news story is actually an editorial, the tax is 100,000 dollars.
FYI - we tax income, not wealth. Calling them "tax cuts for the rich" is as accurate as saying they're "tax cuts for people with purple hair". A young married couple making $100,000 each has a great income but may have little or no wealth. A senior citizen living off investments may have wealth but little income.
You're forgetting about the Death Tax. Which is - without a doubt - a tax on wealth.
And yes, to the inheritor, it is 'income' (according to the stoo-pid™ tax code) - but it's based on 'grandpa's' wealth.
As long as they print the explanation/reminder to the forgetful/young that the low numbers in the first Clinton years were due to the tax cuts of Reagan and point out that they went UP every single year under Clinton...
Time for everyone to pay their fair share; the country cannot afford to have half of the populace shouldering no part of the burden of the Washington behemoth.
Yes - the Death Tax - the government stealing our money at the confluence of life's two inevitables. I should have qualified my remarks to indicate they were focusing only on the Federal Income tax, which is where those "for the rich" tax cuts occurred.
So?? Or am I missing the sarcasm?
In researching the issue, I was troubled by the Share of aggregate income table until I saw the 2005 Dollars table (below current dollars table) .
So long as mean incomes in each bracket are on the rise, everybody's getting a bigger slice of pie*, just not a (some rich guy's name here) super-sized slice.
*Statistically speaking. Your mileage may vary. Not valid in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, or Tennessee.
Disclaimer: Opinion posted in this post is that of the individual poster and does not necessarily represent reality. Reader is directed to do his/her own research before accepting anything presented herein.
Those who favor income redistribution can always find a statistic to complain about.
In the case of your tables, the obvious complaint is that the bottom rung has seen their 2005-dollar incomes increase only 5% since Clinton, while the top rung has seen their incomes increase by 11%.
They will never focus on who is paying the majority of taxes -- the economy is "bad" if the lowest rung's income has not improved as much as the highest rung's. If they want to be really disingenuous, they'll talk only in dollars -- "See ! The lowest income group increased by only $500, while the highest group's income is now almost $30,000 more than under Clinton !!"
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.