Posted on 07/21/2008 5:12:16 AM PDT by shrinkermd
...The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade...
...If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
To the Dems, the rich will NEVER pay their fair share no matter how highly they’re taxed. The rich are an easy scapegoat for the moronic left.
Back to this ancient talking-point
“do the rich pay their fair share?”
the rich will pay their fair share only when everything they have is confiscated and placed in government coffers.
(the democrat party is totally insane and populated with psychotic totalitarians.)
IMHO
At the same time the folks who make up the data on "look who's paying" always leave out the myriad of other taxes that hit everyone.
Frankly, all taxes are too high. They are destructive of good economic order, and harm our ability to mount an effective national defense.
That's just a start. Assuming that most of those who are getting a free ride will vote democrat, the libs want to increase their numbers from 50% to 60% or higher. Since we all get just one vote, irrespective of our tax contribution, it makes mathematical sense for the socialists to raise the rates on the highest-paying group while eliminating taxes for those in the middle who are still paying something.
Even when some of those families have a bulk of their wealth in various accounts overseas, and in family Foundations... Right Senator Kennedy?
Now, do you think the GOP will do anything with these statistics? So far, they’ve missed the boat on everything else, they’ll probably fumble it on this one, too. McCain should hammer BO on this relative to his tax policies!
Fostering a myth is the agenda for people who lack the ability to process the reality of this, or any other, situation. The myth usually works to persuade others who also lack this ability.
In this case, ignorance of the fact that a tax cut is not a welfare program also furthers the myth.
In order for simple minded people to understand a tax cut they would first have to understand that a tax cut is not another welfare program.
John and Bill plan a week-end fishing trip together. They estimate that the cost for the trip will be $100. Rather than contribute $50 each they decide to contribute based on their yearly incomes. John earns considerably more than Bill so he contributes $80 and Bill contributes $20. When they return from their fishing trip they discover they over estimated the cost by $10. How should they divide the $10 left in the kitty?
Has John taken unfair advantage of Bill for receiving $8 of the remaining $10 while Bill only gets $2? Would Bill be justified in complaining? What would be Bill’s justification for complaining?
This explanation will not satisfy the simple minded but it does serve to expose the depth of their simple mindedness.
/s
Yes, the rich pay their “fair share.” We need to start hitting up the “poor” and making them pay their fair share - and the Fair Tax would be a good means of doing so, too!
Gone Outta Politics
and I think they went moribund after Ronald Reagan's term ended.
Fair/Unfair= Subjective.
Right/Wrong= Objective.
Have you ever noticed how none of the "talking heads" never ask/demand that a lib/democrap put an exact figure on how much is a "fair share"?
Alright, it’s time for someone to post the “Ah, not this shit again photograph. By the way, god morning to all....
Why should people who pay virtually no taxes get a tax break?
Simple as that.
[Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.]
Actually I think they want about 40-45% of the country to pay all the taxes for the other 55-60%. They think once they get it to that point they will never lose another election.
And let’s not forget “tax credits”...they are simply a fee on those who don’t do what the government wants them to do.
The ‘Rat definition of rich: Anyone who draws a paycheck.
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.