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 ...
ping
Hey it’s like life insurance. The more you want to protect, the higher the premium. Whiners.
I'd say they pay THEIR fair share and the share of three other guys as well. This is really a topic that pisses me off. When they reise taxes, they increase progressivity, whereas when they lower taxes, they increase progressivity! I even dispute the appropriateness of the WORD "progressive" in this way. Makes it sound like a good thing when it's not.
I remember back to when I thought I was poor.
I miss it.
With insurance, the bill is proportional to that for which you’re paying. If we had that system, the top 1%, earning 22% of the total, would pay 22%, not 40%. Also, don’t forget that their use of the stuff taxes pay for, isn’t hundreds of times greater than the bottom 1%, so even proportional isn’t really “fair”.
the transient nature of the “top 1%” is also interesting in this article.
but this is nothing new: Thomas Sowell and Rush Limbaugh have been pointing out these facts for years.
The lapdogs who “interview” B.H.O. will not challenge him, though. They wouldn’t want to get on the “New Yorker” side of Obama; they’ll never get another chance to ask him questions again.
Needs to be expanded beyond just federal income taxes for a complete analysis of fair share. I think if you are in combat you should not pay any federal income taxes.
That's really what the left wants. They want you to stop making them feel envious by creating more wealth and accomplishments than they do. They want you to let your house run down, your grass turn brown, and your car to fall apart. Think Cuba. That is what they are trying for. It's their interpretation of the pursuit of happiness. They believe they will finally be happy when you stop prompting them to feel unhappy.
It sounds alot like the gov’t needs to learn how to stop spending, (regardless of what need they create). In my household budget if you do not have the money spending is cut or you save until you get the money. It is time that we as taxpayers demand that pet projects and over spending stop. Do we have anyone in congress that has the guts to stand with us and make this statement out-loud?
To the envious, the only fair share that the rich could pay is 110%. No one should have more than the envious!
“The ‘Rat definition of rich: Anyone who draws a paycheck.”
I’ll agree if you add one bit of clarification. Your sentence should end with the phrase, “in the private sector.”
But, it should be obvious that someone who pays no income tax, cannot get a "reduction" of their income tax. You can't reduce something to less than zero.
Sure you can.
Google "Earned Income Credit".
“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...”
Bill, who earns considerably less than John, decides that John WILL contribute $80. Bill’s wife runs into the house to get the rolling pin in order to enforce Bill’s edict.
John cancels his participation in this and future the fishing trips. Instead, John develops interests that doesn’t require the outlay of money, such as going to the library. Because neither John or Bill are fishing anymore, the local bait shop has to lay off an employee.
Did I mention that John’s last name is “Galt”? [grin]
There are two types of “rich”- a married couple of lawyers or doctors in a place like NY, DC or LA can easily make $400k a year. These are the so-called “working rich”- they make their money from their wages. As employees, they generally do not have a way to protect their income from taxes and end up getting hit with the AMT, high property taxes and every other tax aimed at the “rich.” Not surprisingly, this group tends to trend Republican.
Then you have the “non-working rich”- people like the Kennedys, John Kerry, Soros etc. They have large assets, but the tax code provides them with many ways to avoid paying taxes. Also not surprisingly, these people tend to trend Democrat.
So, basically, the GOP is more or less the party of the middle-class in this country (broadly-defined). The Dems, on the other hand, are a party run by the non-working rich on the premise of delivering government largesse to the non-taxpaying portions of society.
I am anti-tax increase however Bush and prior Republican congress deserve blame because of unrestrained spending from 2001 to 2006, Bush never vetoed a pork bill, he was satisfied as long as he got his spending, and worked with democrats. It was inevitable that democrats would win an election especially after the 2005-2006 disasters and then would blame republicans for the debt when they raise taxes. BTW : McCain recently started supporting the tax cuts and worked to put on the current limits.
Remember how badly the massive spending bills smelled to us ? Well now we get stuck with the crap.
What he lies about trough omission is that Bush's tax cuts were for ALL income tax brackets that actually made enough to pay into the system. Making them permanent would have been a huge boon to every tax bracket.
Al doesn't like those though.
Now, we have Oberstar pushing for a Federal gas tax hike.
Enough is enough. These morons pass one more G*dd*mn tax on us and it's time for lightpoles and hemp rope.
We held the Boston Tea Party over a 1% increase in tax on tea.
Past due time to get pissed people.
to have capital gains, you have to own assets and the lower middle class have few assets...
how much income and wealth of the rich is sheltered?...hidden away in benefits fit for kings?..free air travel written off....dinners at fancy restaurants...written off...golf outings....written off...fantastic sports tickets to any venue of their choosing....written off....
the rich have it so bad....so hard....thats why they have increased their weatlh while the hard working, forever working middle class wage earner is being eaten alive....
I am against the govt taking more money in taxes but I could care less about the poor, down trodden rich elites....
try living like the rest of us....
If con is the opposite of pro, doesn't that mean congress is the opposite of progress?
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.