Posted on 05/04/2008 11:07:38 AM PDT by econjack
Both Hillary and Obama have explicitly stated that we need to "tax the rich" so each pays "their fair share". I recently came across a report titled DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX LIABILITIES BY INCOME CLASS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000, as Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION. The following table from that publication is interesting.
Income Category...................Individual Income Tax
................................................Income......Percent
Less than $10,000.......................-5.........-0.6%
10,000 to 20,000........................-7........ -0.8%
20,000 to 30,000........................10..........1.1%
30,000 to 40,000........................30..........3.4%
40,000 to 50,000........................39..........4.4%
50,000 to 75,000.......................114.........12.9%
75,000 to 100,000......................113.........12.8%
100,000 to 200,000.....................213.........24.1%
200,000 and over...................... 377.........42.7%
Highest 10%........................... 587.........66.4%
Highest 5%.............................478.........54.0%
Highest 1%.............................297.........33.6%
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation
The Democrats need to read this closely. All individuals making up $50,000/year pay less than 10% of federal income taxes. However, those individuals making more that $100,000/year contribute about two-thirds of the federal tax bite. In fact, the highest 5% pay over half of the total federal income taxes collected.
Knowing this, both Hillary and Obama think the "rich people" aren't paying their fair share. I kinda disagree. In fact, if you make less than $20,000/year, you have negative income taxes. If Hillary want to talk about a "fair share", what could be more fair than everyone paying %17 of their income in federal taxes, and that includes the freeloaders at the lower end of the distribution since they currently take more than they give. Can you imagine what would happen to economic growth in this country if that happened. It's time for the US to stop romanticizing the poor and punishing the rich. Let's reward those who contribute to this society and ignore those who don't. While this will never happen because Washington needs to buy votes to stay in office, the GOP needs to get out the fact that those making $50,000/year and up already foot over 90% of the bill for running this country, and in my mind, that's enough.
What seems obvious to me is that people who earn less than $20,000 per year are not paying their fair share.
Are they even paying A share?
Nothing is fair but that everyone pays the same rate.
Then when you factor in that XO paid 7.5 billion to their share holders, which of course they pay capital gains taxes, it seems to me the gubmit has a vested interest in keeping gas prices high. JMHO
ooops, that’s 200%...got a bit exited
I dunno, according to the Dims the oil companies are making 2 quadrillion % profits on the backs of all the endangered species in the world.
econjack: “It’s time for the US to stop romanticizing the poor and punishing the rich. Let’s reward those who contribute to this society and ignore those who don’t.”
That’s no better than asking government to be Robin Hood. Some people lack the skills necessary to get ahead. It’s our moral obligation to help (through voluntary, private charity) those people who are trying to better themselves.
When I was young raising a family, things were a bit tough on me, but I didn’t have a gov’t that would bail me out, so I had to better myself just to survive.
Now, my youngest nephew has a family of 6 (yup, 4 chillins), earns about $30K per year, pays ZERO taxes and gets $4k+ per year in EIC payments and child tax credits. He also gets subsidized healthcare for his kids.
Now he will better himself and lose all those bennie’s, but a lot of folks are very happy to stay in his position.
Well, I guess that’s better than a google ~~
Until 90% of the population is paying 90% of the taxes....the country will belong to the 10% bearing the brunt of the tax burden. Those 10% choose our presidential and Senate candidates, decide whether we buy our oil from the MidEast or
ourselves, determine if the pond in your back 2 acres constitutes a wetlands, and whether or not sex ed for your 6 year old involves homosexualization. When they decide the “rich” will pay more taxes, they are taking more power from the “underpayers” and giving it to those paying.
This is sick. $40K is living well in Arkansas, but $100K is barely skating by in Silicon Valley, yet the $100K gets taxed so much more.
This may backfire on the libs and spark an exodus from blue states.
Wait and see how quick that 24.1 % changes to 34.1%
I'm glad to help someone who wants a hand-up, but I think I've given enough to those who want a hand-out.
Bah. Democrats don't really want a tax on wealth. Too many of them already got theirs and are sitting on millions in wealth. But they're happy most people confuse wealth and income.
What the GOP REALLY needs to do is to call Democrats' bluff and give the Democrats exactly what they say they want:
a real tax on wealth -- and no increase in INCOME tax. Rich Democrat doners would be crapping themselves. How much is Oprah worth? Tax that wealth! How much are the Google boys worth? Tax that wealth! How much are the Kerrys worth? Tax that wealth!
But the Republicans probably don't have the balls.
Only once recently have I seen Republicans turn things around on the Democrats and make them crap themselves, and that was when some Dems were calling to impeach Chaney.
The Repubs shoved it right back in their faces.
The problem isn’t the tax rate, the problem is the loopholes which ONLY the RICH enjoy.
They haven’t done that since I think Richard Nixon instituted the Earned Income Tax Credit.....the biggest, lying, deceitful scam on the efficiently hardworking people of this country....
OH PLEASE... I'd like to see the statistics to back up 2 quadrillion % on anything, let alone the 10% profit on gross revenues the oil companies make. If it comes to picking between mass unemployment for US workers or the disappearance of the snail darter, I think most starving people would not only choose employment, they'd probably be willing to eat the snail darter in the process. Tree huggers have had their way for over 3 decades and we are now paying the price. We need new power plants, refineries, and off shore drilling. If a few caribou have to duck under a pipeline in the process, my apologies to the caribou.
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.