All of it.
Someone ask Obomba how come he took the MORTGAGE deduction on his house....when he isn’t even listed as an owner....????
Someone ask Obomba how come he took the MORTGAGE deduction on his house....when he isn’t even listed as an owner...and doesn’t pay the taxes.????
Half the people in this country pay no income tax - how is that fair?
That’s why Leftists love the phrase “fair.”
“Fair” is a term that has no legal meaning, because laws and contracts are supposed to be precise and exact. “Fair” is essentially an emotional term, and its amorphousness corrupts the law rather than enhances it.
If “the RICH” were paying a rate of 99.9%, the “Paul’s” would still be screaming higher taxes on the rich. (Rob Peter to pay Paul).
When’s Obowmao going to insist that trust funds and foundations be taxed at the highest rate?
0bama is in no place to complain that we are not paying our fair share as he paid only what, 26% of his income in federal taxes. Why didn’t he voluntarily pay the highest rate for his bracket?
No matter what rates are forced on the well-compensated, they will simply adjust their earnings platform so that they pay more or less the same fraction of earnings in taxes as ever. This should be the lesson of the Clinton/Bush table.
What the hell is “fair” about the Earned Income Tax Credit. People being “refunded” big money that they never even put into the system. In Arizona, we call that bull****!
Watching Obama with his “aw shucks” crap about looking at his Tax Form and having a WTF moment with all the money he was paying in Taxes made me want to throw up.
Obama is nothing more than a pencil necked liar manipulating the Useful Idiots who adore him.
He and Jeff Immelt should come up with a joint presser about what is a “fair” share of income to pay in taxes.
Exactly how much money should the “rich” give the government to be left alone and in peace.
Fairness is incidental manifestation of justice. Justice is blind. The terror of those who preach fairness, because she is impartial.
Death centered culture, utilizing any controlled state mechanism and function available at any given point in space/time screaming for fairness is an unjust thing.
My vow to no longer use profanity when enuncinatig conceptual thought is killing me.
There is something troubling about the way our side is using statistics in this. If the “top 1%” pay 38% of taxes but have, for argument’s sake 45% of the total aggregate income, then indeed it is reasonable to argue they are “not paying their fair share”. Of course, the other side isn’t trotting out the figures to make that case, so I suspect it’s not true.
Still, the fact that the wealthy are adept at finding and using tax shelters makes such a circumstance conceivable, if one includes tax exempt income in the aggregate income calculation, and even if the “rich” as a group are on any reasonable calculation paying “their fair share”, some, who have gone to the greatest effort to game the tax system, rather than putting their wealth to uses that maximize pre-tax profit and likely are more beneficial to the economy, arguably are not.
The cure is, of course, not to raise the top marginal rate, which harms capital formation, but to curtail tax shelters. I personally do not advocate abolishing any of them, simply limiting the amount of income that can be excluded from taxation by any combination of deductions, tax-exempt sourcing or credits (a credit functionally excludes an amount of income equal to the amount of the credit divided by the top marginal rate). I’d allow unlimited deductions for charitable contributions, as these support the function of civil society in doing things that are better left outside state control, but other than that, I’d limit the amount of income which could be excluded from taxation to $250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for married couples, and $100,000 for those who can be claimed as dependents, with the unused portion of a dependent’s un-taxed allowance transferring to the parent or guardian. I’d abolish the AMT, which was an unnecessarily complicated attempt at this sort of idea.
Curtailing tax-shelters is probably the one and only policy move that can be simultaneously seen as “soaking the rich” while being pro-growth and not punishing achievement: it just forces those who have achieved financial success or inherited wealth to put their capital to more productive use, rather than going to lots of effort to hide if from taxation.
Ping
Why don’t authors of articles like this, so full of good data, mention that the SAME total income tax revenue could be collected with a simple 10% rate on everybody ?
I think there are a lot of people out there that have been mislead into thinking “the rich MUST pay 35% or the system just won’t work !” The simple fact is that the ONLY reason anybody has to pay 35% is so that others can pay ZERO.
Everyone pays 10% of gross income, no deductions, no credits, no earned income thax credit etc!
Flat 10% of gross of every ones income.
Obama’s tax return.
Line 1.....How much do you make?
Line 2.....Send it in.
Here is a proposal to make the libs head explode. Alter the AMT so that regardless of tax credits or deductions, or any other means of tax calculation, everyone has to pay a minimum amount equal to the lowest tax rate times their gross income without any deductions, credits, exclusions or other tax calculation.