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 ...
Stolen does not equal valid. And even if they have children who have valid SSNs, the parents must also have them in order to qualify for EIC.
Plus, two children are the max allowed for EITC.
“To get EITC you have to have a valid Social Security Number issued by the SSA.”
That’s what the story I was reading said. The story was about how you could buy SS cards on the street in Denver and what you could do with them.
Sure wish I were among that 1%. Taxes wouldn’t bother me at all.
I believe I already explained this.
Are you placing a price on a man’s freedom ? I argue that freedom is just as valuable to a poor man as it is to a rich man.
I can see that: You set it at $50 per week. Many patriots in this country's history also agreed that freedom has a price, and they paid it with their blood. My simple opinion (and I will admit that it is only that) is that those who value their freedom ought at least to be willing to give in some small proportion to their earnings, that are only possible in reality because of the protections that this country offers. You can wax idealistic all you want about freedom being free (and at the same time turn around and put a dollar amount on it?), but I see no evidince of this being true in reality.
Marxism comes in two pieces — first you take away an amount based on ability, then you distribute according to need. Marxism doesn’t say anything about people having to be poor.
Of course it doesn't SAY it. That's just how it works in practise.
It also doesn’t say they should be equal. It says “according to their needs” and was always a con game where somebody can dictate that one person has larger needs than another.
Promises of economic equality are the banners of Marxism, and yes, "according to their needs" is part of this. Can't disagree about the "con game" assessment, though...
email to geri
Well, it isn't stated explicitly, but you can deduce that from the information provided (in bold below): It states there are 1.3 million "richest tax-filers" and their income bracket starts at $365K. It also states that there are 66 million tax-filers below the median income - and therefore there are 66 million above the median income resulting in 132 million tax-filers.
Therefore the 1.3 million richest represent 1% of of the 132 million.
"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 income"
You really don’t know much about FICA at all do you?
By law, the FICA tax is not connected in any way to Social Security payouts. See Helvering v. Davis (1937) and Flemming v. Nestor (1960).
In short, the FICA taxes are simple income taxes which may be used for any purpose (and have been used exactly that way for many decades now). Payouts are gratuities subject to ammendment or repeal by Congress, and not a contractual arrangement as with actual insurance.
Actually the group you will find that has the most assets also pays the least in income taxes.
The elderly.
Many elderly are counted as “below the poverty line” because they have little income while at the same time own their homes along with many other assets.
As far as “wealth” taxes, property taxes are just that.
Only property owners paid taxes.
Therefore only those who paid taxes could vote. So people who didn’t pay taxes couldn’t vote tax increases on those who do.
Some of that wisdom was lost along the way to the modern world...
Yes they would.
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.
Yes. Whenever we hear the Dems making cooing noises about helping the poor, it is important to realize that “poor” is determined by AGI, and that many elderly people are asset rich (property, muni bond portfolios, etc.) but considered poor by that AGI measure. I haven’t seen any studies or reports that attempt to quantify though.
It would be VERY wise, and VERY unlikely to happen,
but only those who are net tax payers should vote.
Net tax receivers should not be allowed to vote.
Perhaps you think that federal income taxes are the only taxes people pay. That’s a cherry picking analysis. In terms of contributing to the Federal government, I would propose no income taxes for all families with a death or injury in Iraq.
Oddly enough, it does seem to be the case that WSJ is adopting left-speak in equating "richest" with "highest income".
IT is one thing to require that you pay property taxes to vote. It is another thing to apportion voting power according to wealth or amount of taxes paid. As said per these statistics, 1% of the voters would control 39% of the voting power, and 5% would control well over 50% of the votes I think.
“You can wax idealistic all you want about freedom being free ...”
I said exactly the opposite. I said there is a fixed cost to the government and that is what each person should pay. It is a myth that the cost to provide the freedoms and securities we enjoy varies somehow depending on somebody’s income.
Liberals want to talk in terms of percentages of income when it comes to taxes paid, but then they want to talk in dollars when it comes to tax cuts. I am not saying you have done so, or that you are liberal, but the liberals have slanted the arguments to the point where even conservatives have been conned into talking in terms of percentages of income. Government is the only good or service where the price is set based on your income. Nobody would find it acceptable for Walmart to charge me a different price than them if we are buying the same item. A person earning $100K is paying for the exact same government protections and freedoms that the person earning $50K is getting.
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.