Who pays the income taxes?

Congress of the United States | 2000 | Joint Economic Committee

[radical4capitalism]

These figures pretty much blow the "rich not paying their fair share" argument out of the water.

1999, Share of Taxes Paid by Various Income Groups Source: Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States

Top 1% ($293,415<) pay 36.18% of all personal income taxes Top 5% ($120,846<) pay 55.45% of all personal income taxes Top 10% ($87,682<) pay 66.45% of all personal income taxes Top 25% ($52,965<) pay 83.54% of all personal income taxes Top 50% ($26,415<) pay 96% of all personal income taxes Bottom 50% (<$26,415) pay 4% of all personal income taxes

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Seems we've nearly achieved socialist Valhalla. Depressing.

[steve50]

Everybody is overtaxed. Since we all know statistics can be twisted to say about anything I'm not sure of the figures. I wonder if there are any numbers out there that factor in SS, sales tax, sin taxes, excise taxes and the other hundreds of funding sources.

A good place to start would be what percentage of total government revenue is from income tax, what's from SS, ect.

Anyway you look at it tho we've got to stop passing the cost of government off to our children, the best way to lower spending is to force the taxpayer to pay for it as it happens. We all have no qualms about spending other peoples money.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Whatever "income" taxes the "rich" pay, are passed on down to the rest of the food chain, in the way of higher prices. What? did anybody think they would actually live on less, in order to pay their tax bill... heck no.

And what of it if they DO pass on their costs in higher prices for goods and services, and ever increasing demands for "profit" from their capital investments?

The FACT is, we all pay WAY too much in income, sales, state federal and local taxes, plus fees, licenses, registrations and on and on and on....

We got us one BIG fat government pig, with millions of emaciated nipples, devoid of sustenance, that are there, just to keep the majority of public suck ups, and government employees voting for more of the same....

world without end. amen.

Somebody OUGHT to do somethin about it...

[radical4capitalism]

Mr Paulson
Agreed. The RLC is trying to do something about that.

Pete Krembs
Chairman
Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia

[Smile-n-Win]

Bottom 50% (<$26,415) pay 4% of all personal income taxes

This is what makes it especially difficult to cut income taxes. Half the voters are hardly or not at all affected by them, so they're not interested in cutting them.

But still, it is possible. American voters loved President Reagan, and British voters loved Lady Thatcher. The Labor Party was unable challenge the Tories until they adopted a pro-capitalism approach. If you count in third party votes, you will find that there has been a vitually uninterrupted Conservative majority among American voters ever since the Reagan Revolution.

People do want more capitalism, especially those who might be inclined to vote Republican. If Republicans want to get elected, they should quit leaning and start leading, the way Ronald Reagan did!

[the irate magistrate]

thank you. good article here.

[B4Ranch]

We are the one who should do something. The question is how do we do it?

[Mike4Freedom]

Somebody OUGHT to do somethin about it...

We (the people) are the only someone there is. So let's get moving and get every big government, big spending politico out of office and into retirement.

How to do it? Vote, scream, jury nullify, maybe some civil disobedience if you are so moved but do not go quietly into the night waiting for some other someone to do something.

[Robert_Paulson2]

It is FAR from what is considered as being the "Christianthingtodo" but we need some folks to come forward with what they know, in politically embarassing ways.

And not the little "spot on a blue denim" type of crap either. The republican liberty caucas is on the right track... but the "Morality" of "Christians" who won't go for the jugular with our political brethren who run the republican party holds us back. All in the name of "civility" I guess.

The TRUTH is the whole status quo of "bigger and better government" ideology, has got to come down, before the dream can be rebuilt. NOBODY who has the balls and the bucks is willing to put forth a demolition plan for the status quo. But we sure as hell can write some more laws if that makes folks feel better!

I like w... but when a president from TEXAS comes across as gunshy to bust a few balls, because the republican pantywaist soccer mom suckups might have a stroke, we are in "deep as a texas pile of" bull shirt trouble. Won't even call Islam a "religion of murder," or call for a crusade for "infinite justice," as it might seriously piss off the folks who 9-11'd us... would not want to be "insensitive" to such a great "religion of peace..."

And the "we will pray for.. blah blah blah... " Christian crowd around here is totally useless. Jesus does not seem to be getting all over these problems we face, for whatever reason at this time. And MOSES is apparently WAY to busy to get involved in any "sea parting" exercises in our conservative ideological focus groups.

What WE really need is about two hundred clones, of james carville or other ACT alikes to go after the pork barrel, not-so-closeted socialists who are running both parties.

I have zero to invest. They keep me that way. Probably you too. Odds are, most folks who have a will to act, have no way, and those who have the means, have so much dirt in their docias, they would be fools to take such "dirty pool" action. Where is samson when you need him?

We need mega-money, manpower and a CHANGED national heart that is willing to play dirty since that is what it takes to get these socialists/communist jerks to exit the republican party... and keep them out of politics in general...

If we only knew how to hijack the entire socialist movement, like the socialists have the republican party, I would surely pass it along. I think we are stuck with the status quo, till somebody or something decides to shake it up... I have NO clue.

[Schmedlap]

How do we hijack the socialist movement?

How about if we all break and bankrupt the system by quitting our jobs and registering for welfare, unemployment, disability, and every other give-away program that the our ridiculous government has implemented. The plunder will stop when there is nothing left to plunder.

Any thoughts?

[Robert_Paulson2]

well... that's one approach. not one I would choose but definately "outside the box."

hard to get real excited about that one... but hey, it's gotta be rebuilt from the ground up...

[Mike4Freedom]

How about if we all break and bankrupt the system by quitting our jobs and registering for welfare, unemployment, disability, and every other give-away program that the our ridiculous government has implemented. The plunder will stop when there is nothing left to plunder.

The only reason this is not happening is that the good people want the best life that they can and work to have it against the burden of taxation. At some level of taxation, they will do just what you suggest.

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged. Ms. Rand postulated just such a refusal to participate by the able. Of course in her book, they did not sign up for welfare, they just disappeared and took care of themselves.

[Schmedlap]

Posted by B4Ranch: “We are the one who should do something. The question is how do we do it?”

Posted by Mike4Freedom:
“How to do it? Vote, scream, jury nullify, maybe some civil disobedience if you are so moved but do not go quietly into the night waiting for some other someone to do something.”

Posted by Robert_Paulson2:
“we need some folks to come forward with what they know, in politically embarassing ways.”

I advocated breaking the system by having mass refusals to work and mass sign-ups for entitlements, with the intent of breaking the corrupt system. Of course, I advocated signing up for giveaway programs only as a means of breaking the system and nothing else. If we are to choose the alternative - to change policy through traditional political means - then we need to convince others of our view.
I think that if we expect others to buy into our ideas of limited government, first we need to set an example. I know people who claim to be conservatives, but jump onto the entitlement and government program bandwagon. How many people complain about high taxes and big government, but then apply for unemployment after getting laid off from work; use Medicaid or Medicare, once they are eligible; accept federal financial aid for school; or hold some non-essential government job?
Practicing what we preach accomplishes two things: it shows that we have principles that we are willing to follow ourselves, rather than just principles that we want to thrust upon others; and it shows that we are being realistic, by advocating principles that do not require superhuman efforts to abide by, as demonstrated by our own example.
I go to school full-time and work full-time. I have a dead end job. I do not accept financial aid, even though I am eligible. I choose to work, even though I could qualify for welfare. I do this, because I believe that it is immoral for others to subsidize my lifestyle, regardless of how productive or unproductive it is. I believe it is immoral for others to be coerced into paying for my education, so I choose not to accept that money, even though it is still taken from taxpayers.
I am not rich. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I do not get money from Mommy and Daddy. I started out with nothing and I do not have much more, at the moment. But, I earned everything that I have. I took handouts from nobody. When anyone asks how the lower and middle class are to get by, without government grants, programs, aid, et cetera, I can hold myself up as an example. If I can do it, why can’t everyone else? I sure as hell have not gotten by on my looks.
Common arguments that people make, to justify the easy wrong over the hard right, is to claim that those who advocate the hard right are hypocrites, or that they do not face the hardships that taking the hard right brings about. While both of these are logical fallacies, they are still the popular arguments for why we cannot abolish welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Social Security, most of the departments of the federal government, et cetera. If you have accepted money from one of these bureaucratic monstrosities, then you are only living evidence to bolster their argument, regardless of its merits. We are fighting a political battle. Politics – who gets what, when, and how – is all about perception. If some ignorant buffoon – called a common voter – can bolster the fallacious rationalization by which he or she buys into the welfare state with your living example, then you are your own enemy, because you are feeding this person’s perception that his or her fallacious reasoning is correct.
I am sure that this sounds overly idealistic and naïve. But, I can tell you from firsthand experience that this works. I am not a political activist who marches in parades and demonstrations. I do not actively push my wacko-extreme-libertarian views upon others. I can recall at least six or seven conversations that involved paying for school. A common question is “how much financial aid do you get?” My answer is always that I do not apply for it. People then ask why and I explain it to them. I do not think it is moral to force others to pay for my education. Some people do not understand this concept, so it requires explaining to them how the government coerces taxpayers into paying for the college education of others.
When you live the example and casually pass it along as the self-evident, simple truth that it is, you have much greater success in convincing others. They do not see you as the political activist, the partisan, or the malcontent. They are more open to accepting your input and examining it objectively, because this viewpoint is so foreign and bizarre (not accepting free money?!) that they cannot look at it through the same paradigm that they see everything else through. Moreover, this viewpoint is presented as realistic, by your own example. This has been a successful approach for me. This is purely anecdotal, but if I can do it, why can’t everyone else?

Any merit to this?

[dcwusmc]

Lots of merit and you are to be commended.

I quibble a bit with your unemployment issue, as, at least in California, while it is mandated, it is not paid thru taxes directly. It is paid by both employer and employee as "insurance" and mandated by the state. The weekly benefit amount is determined politically, however. But the pot of money here is not taken from taxpayers. It would be far preferable to have it as a voluntary and NON-GOOBERMENTAL system, to be sure. However it's currently the only game in town and the state has a political lock on it.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Sure there is merit in your plan and exemplary lifestyle...

Folks however, won't buy into the "do it yourself" paradigm, regardless of how well you "do it yourself". Sure, my degrees were all paid for, by MY hard work. EVERY cent... except for perhaps the first 200 bucks and a fifty dollar "rent a wreck" that mom and dad gave me (decades ago) as a present. Now, decades later, with multiple degrees and a history of success in several professional fields... MY example is just ignored by those who choose to get it the other way... "the governmental dole" method.

Furthermore the degree progams, even advanced ones today, are often handed out to this "dole" class of student, just like candy is given, by a first grade teacher for a pupil's regular "attendance" at more than half of her PC classes.

Most folks don't appreciate my "lifestyle," we don't use credit. We don't have new cars. Don't have fancy jewelry, or take frequent trips to the day spa. We don't have a large "social circle" of phony degreed folks to "schmooze" with. We don't have bureaucratic friends in position to give us the "inside track" on landing the "big bucks" that come with phoney "make work" studies and government grants.

The idealogues that run the socialist republican and democratic parties, don't actually let folks who "beleive" in a self-reliant lifestyle, and try to live it, INTO positions that would ever form public policy. It would upset their constituencies... the "gimme" crowd.

Until independent thinkers like yourself, penetrate the bullshirt "think tanks" in washington dc, or those in proximity to state capitols, now occupied by the 31 flavors of socialism... we will never gain the influence needed to win hearts and change minds.

How many folks from the CATO institute actually get to influence policy? It seems none. Republicrats give lip service to smaller, less intrusive governance, whilst they increase government via the budget, and legislative fiat, EVERY SESSION to do the exact opposite.

Then their minions work full time to discredit any liberty leaning comments made about it by the FEW republicans who actually have had a "self reliant" lifestyle personally. They will even say R. Reagan was mistaken or misunderstood, when he said "libertarian thinking was at the heart of conservatism..." Today's phony conservatives deny this fact, like cancer victims often do their diseased state.

The followers of "social conservatism" treat the concept of absolute "civil liberties" as if these were merely "consessions of government" to its slaves and that these are thus no more than negotiable options... "if it saves even one child... or prevents one car accident..."

They actually prefer a lifestyle of government regulated bliss with no danger and no suprises (and no real opportunities as a result)... and the only way to get that, is with the removal of individual liberties... and the elimimation of most choices.

I am thankful for folks who KEEP on living the example you do.
Truth be told, it is probably the only venue we will have as an option for disseminating the message of "individual liberty and self reliance" for quite some time.

I am sure that you realize any reference to believing in "individual liberty and self reliance" means that you are a priori, a "government hating, anarchist, drug addicted and tax evading felon," right?

At least that is what they keep chanting.

I have found that the folks who say that are usually recipients of some largesse from, or employment by, that bloated governmental juggernaut, YOU and I want to reduce in size and influence. That is why they sceam "ararchist!"

Republicans and Democrats ALL have invested interest in the expansionist government concept and are its joyful cheerleaders, with few exceptions.

[M.K. Borders]

I advocated breaking the system by having mass refusals to work and mass sign-ups for entitlements,

Much merit I think. It has been a nightmare for me these last few years that Congress might (in a fit of maturity and honesty) actually do something that would fix the Social Security System. Thank goodness they have not let me down.

Keep the current system, tell the sheeple what they want to hear, and the system will collapse in an orgy of;

not enough workers [mass refusels to work]
and too many takers [mass sign-ups fro benifits.]

Regards :)

[M.K. Borders]

. How many people complain about high taxes and big government, but then apply for unemployment after getting laid off from work; use Medicaid or Medicare, once they are eligible; accept federal financial aid for school; or hold some non-essential government job

Oh and by the way. The Social Security card has long been torn up.

I came around way too late in life (I'm 45), so I do not have sufficiant funds tucked away for retirement. I have forsworn retirement as a right, and understand that I'm going to be a very, very old worker, or a not very old dead guy, or the owner of a business :)

[M.K. Borders]

Love the discussions going on, but I'm one of those guys who sits awhile and then goes. I'm not ignoring anyone, I'll respond to all comments, eventually :)

Good night