Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes By Stephen Moore

The American ^ | November/December 2007 | Stephen Moore

[Copernicus]

The solution is obvious.

Figure out a way to persuade the rich to defend their own interest and pay fewer taxes so the rest of us would not be burdened with so much big Goobermint.

Best regards,

[Kickass Conservative]

I saw Bill Clinton on CSPAN yesterday stumping for the Hildebeast.
He was up there lying about President Bush, the war in Iraq, the tax cuts, you name it. The audience of idiot Iowa Democrats were just nodding away, hanging on every lie being spoon fed to them.
Here, as in many places, we have the truth for all to see. The liberal pundits are never confronted with the evidence that refutes their lies. They get away with spreading the talking point propaganda without a whiff of dissent.
I’ve had many conversations with liberals The depth of their ignorance is astounding. When presented with facts, they stare in disbelief, yet they do not let the truth get in the way of their ideology. I think BDS is incurable.

[proxy_user]

There is a couple of things you don’t see here.

Most of the rich are not employees, but own businesses. If you own a business, you treat a tax as just another expense and build it into your prices. The final consumer, not the business, pays.

Also, the taxation of high incomes has the effect of accelerating the circulation of money and increasing gross demand. The rich pay taxes, and the money is immediately given out to the poor and spent - at the businesses owned by the rich.

These effects work best if you are already rich. This is why many billionaires don’t mind supporting Democrats.

[the anti-liberal]

bookmark for later...

[xcamel]

forgot one...

[raygunfan]

tax the rich ping

[SandRat]

Putting in the Grave another DemonRAT Lie that the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes and the real burden is on the backs of the poor.

[God luvs America]

bump

[xcamel]

I give it about an hour before the fairtaxers take over the thread..

[FocusNexus]

Great article.

And we must remember this:

Sen. Clinton said, “Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

The solution is obvious. Figure out a way to persuade the rich to defend their own interest and pay fewer taxes so the rest of us would not be burdened with so much big Goobermint.

Best regards

This is one of those canards that repeatedly show up in the news especially by Rush Limbaugh, Steve Forbes, and the like. They conveniently leave out the fact they are talking only about income taxes. They don't tell you that FICA cutoff means the middleclass provides the bult of social security taxes which are used to fund disability welfare. The middleclass in the private sector can't escape these taxes. What little is left over goes to meager pensions and medicare. Health insurance is now a tax for all practical purposes. It rivals Social security but is hidden as a working benefit. Try being self employed and see for yourself. This again is funded by the working middleclass. The rich may need their botaux shots, but the middleclass funds the bulk of the life saving medical care. The wealthy like Kerry, Kennedy, and most other elitists put their riches tax free bonds or they get to invest in high yield investments that elude the middleclass. The rich are not victims. They in fact leverage their wealth at the working stiff's expense.

[McChordwatcher]

Looks like Mr. Moore should try to take up Warren Buffet on his bet:

Buffett said he makes $46 million a year in income and is only taxed at a 17.7 percent rate on his federal income taxes. By contrast, those who work for him, and make considerably less, pay on average about 32.9 percent in taxes - with the highest rate being 39.7 percent. To emphasize his point, Buffett offered $1 million to the audience member who could show that one of the nation's wealthiest individuals pays a higher tax rate than one of their subordinates. "I'm willing to bet anyone in this room $1 million that those rates are less than the secretary has to pay," said Buffett.

[B4Ranch]

"Understanding Tax Cuts"


Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim;
"It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just
accepted to be fact.

But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the
following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for
all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, 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." Dinner for
the ten now cost just $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 men - the paying customers? How could
they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'

They 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 each 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.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

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 man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he
get $10 back when I got only two? 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 and beat him up.

The next night 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 didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start eating overseas where
the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[dufekin]

You’re right. Many commentators take a simplistic view of taxation. The incomprehensible tax code leaves them defining “rich” effectively as “having the greatest taxable income” and for some reason exclude payroll tax, a parallel income-tax system levied against certain classes of income under a different name.

Health insurance isn’t a tax, but it is a valuable benefit and an important part of many compensation packages. You generally should include health-insurance benefits as income. Our bizarre income tax system usually considers health insurance intangible non-income for employees who receive it as an employment benefit unless they’re self-employed. This tax treatment of health benefits in addition to the ridiculous complexity of the tax system creates enormous barriers to entrepreneurship.

But defining the “rich” as those with great taxable income includes many Americans who aren’t rich at all because they incurred taxable income while suffering a foreclosure or repossession, depleting a retirement account to pay for food and medical care necessary for basic survival, or fell into another nasty tax trap. This definition of “rich” also excludes the extremely wealthy who easily flaunt various loopholes in the tax code to increase their wealth enormously without incurring taxable income or while incurring relatively much less taxable income. Certain offshore bank accounts, tax-free municipal bonds, and other investments fall into these categories.

These extremely wealthy people also often hire lobbyists and donate money to political campaigns; Distinguished Members of Congress then insert special obscure provisions in the tax code to exclude certain specific activities from taxation. The extremely wealthy benefactors and close relatives of Congressmen then receive an enormous payback in the form of reduced taxes or subsidies disguised as taxes, often hundreds or thousands of times what they spent on lobbying and political contributions. Ordinary Americans might consider such activity a form of bribery and corruption, but Congressmen view these activities as instruments of good public policy from which ordinary people will reap even more enormous benefits through some economic theory or some such.

A national retail sales tax sounds like a great idea but unfortunately will fall victim to such corrupt bargaining in very short order if enacted. We need ethical Congressmen, without that phrase representing the quintessential oxymoron. Or in default of that, we need some movement toward lower spending. Or in default of that, we need some automatic tie between spending and taxation. Whenever Congress decides to increase spending or creates a new tax loophole for a few rich donors or borrows/prints more money than the Treasury has, then he general decree expropriation rate should rise automatically to supply the lost revenue.

[Freedom4US]

It was far more frustrating years ago, when the MSM had a lock on the main organs of propag.. er, news dissemination from the “big 3” news channels.

Conservatives had the Wall Street Journal, and Bill Buckley, that was about it. At least now it is possible to get facts inserted into the debates to some degree. Modern day “liberals” aren’t interested in facts, of course, the only qualification it seems is good intentions, and how people “feel” about things. Because rational humans will not vote for their policies if they are fully informed, all of their tactics tend towards secrecy, deceit, clever manipulation, usurping democracy and the legislative process, stacking the courts through judicial fiat, education, it’s just ridiculous.

[SunkenCiv]

Cool, time to give the 75 per cent who pay 15 per cent of the taxes a 100 per cent income tax cut.

[VOA]

bump

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Health insurance isn’t a tax, but it is a valuable benefit and an important part of many compensation packages

In theory, yes. I had my eyes opened during a recent hospital stay. My roommate was a construction worker who took has wages under the table. In official records he was an indigent. In actuality, he earned at least if not more than me as he kept all his earnings. So who payed for his medical care? His medical care was mandated by the state. He filled out paperwork for the state to pay (me). I won't be surprised if we someday learn that hospitals bury a portion of their overhead expenses into costs paid by insurance companies. The cost of my health insurance is so high, I suspect that it goes to pay for others. The really extraordinary thing about this episode is the construction worker made no attempt to hide this from me. He was confident that the authorities did not care. To me, his free care and my health insurance premium ($23K a year for a family of four) leads me to claim this is now a privately collected tax mandated in part by free healthcare for the indigent.

[timm22]

They conveniently leave out the fact they are talking only about income taxes. They don't tell you that FICA cutoff means the middleclass provides the bult of social security taxes which are used to fund disability welfare.

It looks like Mr. Moore addressed this in point #10 of the article:

The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent.

Thoughts?