Posted on 12/17/2007 11:22:19 AM PST by shrinkermd
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.
Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.
...More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I suppose a question directed at the Oprah watching crowd of “how much more is fair?” would be useless ...
If taxpayers are a proxy for voters, when the bottom 50% pay zero (seems we are close), its “game over.”
I don’t know how many times I’ve tried to explain that Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” were MORE “progressive” than what existed before.
Democrats just don’t get it because it involves facts.
(I’m not saying I agree with highly progressive tax codes, just that the “tax cuts for the rich” were anything but.)
Ya know..this is all the consequence of “progressive taxation”..we wind up with the oligarchy that currently rules us. They that pay the bills call the shots. Hence the need for the FairTax...return the country to the people.
You can start by eliminating the ‘reverse tax’ Earned Income Credit.
My interpretation: Every dollar doled out to the poor goes right back into the economy. Every dollar given to a rich man makes the economy grow.
Which dollar is better spent?
And we all know “the rich” never spend money on anything too, thus creating jobs.
It’s really not about how much they pay, and if you listen closely, you’ll even hear the Democrats admit it -
it’s about how much “the rich” still have.
The complaint, down deep, is that some people (through their choices, skills, and ambition) have more [choices] than others,
and they think that the government should take it away.
bump
“Democrats just don’t get it because it involves facts.”
Bingo! They live in a fact-free universe... must be nice!
That's an outrageous statement. Just because you had a very high income in a particular year (or even a few years) hardly means you are 'rich'. I wish they would define 'rich'--I guess if you make more than the Senate salaries of John Kerry or Ted Kennedy, then you enter 'their RICH world'. /s
The monster that won't quit growing. Proposed by Nixon, signed into law by Ford and increased under every administration since, without exception.
Communism, pure and simple.
“Democrats just don’t get it because it involves facts.”
That’s too shallow and easy. It’s about greed. The greed for what others have, without earning it yourself. The envy of what others have, and desiring to see it taken away.
Standing alone, these statistics mean very little to me: They should be compared with the percentage of the nation's wealth that is owned by the top 1%, 5%, 10%, etc. (granted, I wasn't able to read the whole article since I don't have a subscription, so I don't know whether or not the article includes these statistics or not).
Not that I'm in favor of raising taxes--in fact, I'd probably favor a flat tax--but sloppy thinking won't do us any favors.
This article makes a good point, but I think we’re looking at the wrong statistic here. The article quotes the tax share, but what is more important is tax burden. I think everyone should pay the same percentage regardless of income. Now, under this system the wealthy will still pay more tax in absolute terms, but the burden on them will the same as it is on everyone else. Which is as it should be.
“Give a poor man a dollar...”
Give the government a dollar and they’ll spent ten.
I don’t know why conservative politicians and media types don’t quote these figures over and over when the left demands the rich pay a greater share.
LEFTIE - “The rich aren’t paying their FAIR SHARE!”
Reason - “What do you think that fair share should be?”
LEFTIE - “I don’t know but I do know it should be more than they pay now!”
Reason - “If the top 10% of wage earners were to pay 50% of all income taxes, would you say that is fair”?
LEFTIE - “No! They should be paying 70%!”
Game, set , match.
James, that’s marxism - “From each according to his ability ..” that ol’ Fair Share ... a flat tax would be better, but there would be so many exemptions it would be just like what we have now - and the EIC will never ever go away!
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.