"I'll tell you what's fair, and what's not!"
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.
2) As long as we continue to allow the liberals to focus the discussion on excess government spending only on military spending, we will never have an intelligent discussion about federal government spending levels.
The military is one of the very few things that is specifically authorized in the US Constitution. The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the Clinton investment in midnight basketball, etc., is outside the scope of authorized government spending, but unfortunately, it is also outside the scope of most current discussion about spending. We are waging the wrong battle in this War about Fairness.
Instead of a gas-tax holiday, Congress considers gas-tax hike
My wife and I together (joint filers) paid > $111,000 in income taxes for 2007. Sure, we have a strong cash flow, but also worked very, very hard to get to where we are in life. We were given our undergraduate educations by hard-working parents, but after that everything we did was based in merit and work. We were in debt with graduate and professional school loans, and paid them off completely and within the allocated timeframe. In addition to our taxes we give plentifully to our church, the VFW, various missions, and such.
I resent lilke hel* hearing from the likes of an affirmative action leftwing pissant like Barack Obama, and the leftist democrat party, that I and my wife do not pay our “fair share”. I can tell Mr. Obama that if he attempts to raise our taxes more, we will simply work less and defer income to less-taxed sources. We will not pay more than we do now, we will pay less. And we are the tip of the iceberg as far as that’s concerned. The truly rich will shelter money and reduce taxes. Obama will tip the US economy into a recession or depression with these policies.
bookmark
Every individual in this country with an income of over $500/yr should be filing a 1040 and paying Federal income tax...even if it’s only $2/yr.This bullbleep of only 66% (or whatever the percentage is)of adults even being required to file is largely responsible for the “sure,I’ll vote to increase *their* taxes” attitude that exists today.
Propose that all wealth over $5 million, including foundations, be taxed at 50% and watch the liberal pigs like kennedy and clinton squeal.
the rich will pay their fair share only when everything they have is confiscated and placed in government coffers.
With inflation and asset value destruction, that's exactly what happens, even above the taxes paid.
I am sick and tired of hearing this class envy statement. There is no tax on wealth in this country. Therefore, there is no such thing as the rich paying anything based upon their state of being rich. Instead, it is income (i.e. wealth creation) that is being taxed, regardless of their overall wealth.
Someone should ask the Democrats if they really want to tax wealth. It should be interesting to hear responses from John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Maria Cantwell, John Corzine, Hillary Clinton, etc.
You mean the Kennedys? /sarc
“Tax the Rich” is a way of saying, “Tax the hell out of the upper middle class so they won’t get as rich as we are.” This is a tax on the productive money in the economy—money that does not lavish in a some back account but is plowed back into the economy. That is why the really rich in this country despise the upper middle class, they see them as a threat and are way too independent, so they want to tax them into oblivion.
The people who pay no tax on the other hand think that the rich will “pay their fair share.” What a crock, the ultra rich have all kinds of ways to shelter their money. It is the upper middle class that will fork out big time.
"I'll tell you what's fair, and what's not!"
with reference to higher and higher tax rates...
cast not thy pearls at the feet of swine.
Reminds me of the Billy Preston song, "Nuthin' From Nuthin' Leaves Nuthin'"....
They may pay little or no income tax, but all the other taxes still apply: sales tax, various local taxes, etc.
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.
bad news if you have a house or a job democrats consider you "the rich"
Ever wonder why the popular vote in elections runs about 52-48% for either candidate? Change the number of people paying taxes and it will change the vote count percentage.
The goal of tax increases for the upper middle class is to punish their success. The ultimate aim of envy is to destroy the envied object. Jealousy is quite different. Here one wishes to possess what the jealous object is receiving.
They don’t call them “envy taxes” for nothing.
Welfare and other tax-fueled giveaways can be thought of as a tax with a negative number.
It just doesn’t take much to be rich any more .... wish I felt that way
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!
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.