[Henrietta]

Did you all get that?

In 1999, the top 1% of income earners paid 36.2 percent of the individual income taxes collected in this country, and the top 5 percent paid 55.5 percent. In contrast, during the same year, the bottom 50% paid just 4% of the taxes.

This is more information that refutes the oft-repeated canard that the rich don't pay their "fair share." The evidence here proves that, in fact, the rich pay much more than their "fair share." Indeed, it would appear that the "poor" are the ones who are not pulling their weight; the bottom 50% of income earners paid just 4% of total income taxes.

And the share of taxes paid by the wealthy has increased in the last 25 years, and the share paid by those in lower income brackets has actually decreased. In effect, we have moved toward a system of punishing those who work to improve their financial status, while effectively rewarding those who don't work, invest, and save.

We need tax reform in this country if we want a strong economy. You can't punish people for producing and then expect them to produce more.

[Bigun]

Yes indeed!

Go here to read ALL about the what is taking place as a result!

We MUST, if this great R E P U B L I C is to survive, SOON consign this communist inspired income tax system to the ASH HEAP of history where it so properly belongs!

[Bigun]

P I N G!!!

[lewislynn]

In contrast, during the same year, the bottom 50% paid just 4% of the taxes.

That's more than Enron paid.

Enron Avoided Income Taxes in 4 of 5 Years

[jethropalerobber]

while no one would disagree that our current tax system is progressive, these numbers exaggerate reality by comparing tax burdens in terms of dollars instead of in terms of percentage of income.

as a percentage of their income, the rich still pay more in FIT, but not dramatically more than the middle income brackets, especially after bush collapsed the topmost bracket (the poorest brackets do indeed get a free ride, God bless them).

BTW, democrats used this same slight of hand (refering to dollars instead of percentage of income) to exaggerate the extent to which bush's tax cut favored the rich.

these numbers are also misleading because they only look at FIT. when medicare, soc. security, state, local, and sales taxes are factored in, the difference in percentage of income paid in taxes is further narrowed.

[Jeff Smith]

If you consider those who earn between 26k and 52k the rich then I agree with you. The problem is that you have oversimplified the matter. It is not just rich or poor. Its rich, middle class, and poor. And the middle class are really struggling. The rich and the middle class have payed more taxes in the last 10 years. But the middle class bring in much more tax dollars than the wealthy do. They pay for about 96% of all taxes. Someone earning over $293,415 pays 36.2% of all taxes. Most Americans are raising children, working hard, trying to save and send their children to college. The Federal Government makes it very difficult for them by taking 28% of their income. Due to inflation, this struggling class has a greater tax burden. This is outrageous.

This information is from the Tax Foundation.
Top 50%
Number of Returns (000)
63,005
AGI ($000,000)
5,126,164
Income Taxes Paid ($000,000)
842,168
Group's Share of Total AGI
86.3%
Group's Share of Total Taxes
96.0%
Income Split Point
above $26,415

Class warfare as we know will end when the Federal government cuts the high taxes on the middle classes and they are able to save more money and become affluent.

[parsifal]

"In 1999, the top 1% of income earners paid 36.2 percent of the individual income taxes collected in this country, and the top 5 percent paid 55.5 percent. In contrast, during the same year, the bottom 50% paid just 4% of the taxes. This is more information that refutes the oft-repeated canard that the rich don't pay their "fair share." "

Maybe. Maybe not. Lets see, suppose a CEO earned $1,000,000 in 1979 and pays $400,000 in taxes. The same CEO earned $50,000,000 in 1997 and pays $20,000,000 in taxes. Suppose everybody else stays the same. The CEO is paying a heck of a lot more of the percent of tax in 1997, BUT, it is because his share of the earnings has greatly increased. I will see if I can use your numbers and verify or rebut this possibility. Hardcopying as we speaketh. parsy.

[parsifal]

I'm not getting the numbers I need from your post. For exapmple, the top 1% of taxpayers earn about 20% of the income in the country. How much of the nations income (percentage wise) did the top 1% earn in 1975. If, in 1975, the top 1% earned 10% of the nation's income, then your post is paractically meaningless. Their income doubled and their taxes doubled. All you will have suceeded in proving is that the rich are getting richer faster. Can you help me figure out whether this happened or not. parsy.

[BluesDuke]

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, anyone?

[Teacher317]

And the share of taxes paid by the wealthy has increased in the last 25 years, and the share paid by those in lower income brackets has actually decreased.

The Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto: A very progressive income tax on earnings.
America's becomes more progressive with every generation.

[PatrioticAmerican]

The POOR should pay their fair share. 5% isn't even close to enough.

[jackbill]

We need tax reform in this country if we want a strong economy.

Frankly, I think that it is already too late. Just what kind of reform do you propose? I'm not talking about "Fair Tax", "Flat Tax", etc..

The government needs a certain amount of tax revenue to pay for the spending that the Congress legislates.

Do you think for one minute that Congress is going to legislate less spending?

Do you think for one minute that Congress is going to reduce the tax burden on the producers and add it to the "lower income folks"?

I don't think so. That's why I say that it's already too late.

[Salvation]

Entrepeneur bump for lower taxes.