Skip to comments.Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?
Posted on 11/25/2012 5:22:42 AM PST by upchuck
Riding a wave of confidence after his re-election victory, President Obama is eager to collect scalps from the class war he appears to have won. Americans, Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, "want to make sure that middle-class folks aren't bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: "Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share."
Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their "fair share," they never specify what percentage of the nation's tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.
But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.
In the next few weeks, Obama will keep repeating this "fair share" language as part of his call to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. He also wants to close additional loopholes and limit deductions to increase their tax burden further. But bear this in mind: On top of whatever new taxes go into effect in the deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, there will be additional new taxes due to Obama's national health care law. These include a 0.9 percent Medicare tax hike for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning more than $250,000 as well as a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income.
Moreover, even if Obama gets his way on all of his tax hikes on the wealthy, it still won't make a dent in the $16.3 trillion national debt. Later in his term, once he has blown all of the new revenue with spending increases and goes back to this well for still more revenues, will the media let Obama get away with claiming the wealthy aren't paying their "fair share" once again, without specifying what constitutes fairness?
The editorial states: "No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.
Apparently nobama does.
If the voters had meant for that message to be sent, the Democrats would be in control of the house.
Republicans should stand firm on tax rates, and Obama be damned.
i encourage ANYONE making more then $100k to ‘Go Galt’ either in whole or in parts
in whole, you would quit working and stop all purchases
in part, you would radically cut spending to hurt the beast as best you can
either way, firing or not-hiring any/all liberals is an imperative
It means nothing - like "New and Improved." Just a poll tested phrase that appeals to the 80-90 IQ point crowd. You know, Obama voters.
The answer to this question is found under the covers, exposing the real agenda. “Progressives” have control of the ‘Rat party, and “progressive” = “communist”. They want a one-party state with total control, and with no upper class, no upper-middle class, no middle-middle class... in other words, what ever it takes, economy go to hell, for them to be in total iron-fisted control, as in: USSR, Cuba, NK, Venezuela, China, etc. Anything they say is just a waypoint to their utopia.
Fantastic graph. Is there one for any years since 2009? 2011 would be great. More topical.
My favorite leftist is adamant about “make the rich pay their fair share”. He’s a smart guy whose job is detailed analysis of numbers. I’ve been pestering him for years about quantifying “fair”, to no avail. I’ve presented quantitative analysis to him, showing you can’t squeeze any more from them ... but he just clings to the misguided notion of “fair”, offering no more than vapid insults and platitudes, convinced the system isn’t “fair” but unwilling or unable to offer anything more specific.
So it goes with our political opponents. Devoted to the notion of “fair”, they can’t and won’t quantify and articulate what they mean - because the system is already fair, and they just don’t like it.
If the GOP had ANY guts (or any interest in being a viable party in the future), they would start shouting this in every available venue.
The top 5% should pay no more than 5% of the taxes!!
Sock it to the poor who are the leaches on the treasury!
I would suggest this...if the rich ever wanted to “strike”, it’d be simple. Take thirty percent of their stock investments, and simply sell off a massive amount of regular stock in companies....driving prices downward. Then take the profits and money from the sales, and put it into a non-money making account. Sit on it for weeks and months. A recession develops, which the President really can’t do anything, unless he suddenly ‘wised-up’ over the rich and their investment in America.
-——Sock it to the poor who are the leaches on the treasury!——
The takers will be taxed. A progressive spilled the beans.
A man on TV last week said that Cap and trade was applicable to carbon emittors who would raise prices on everyone would actually provide the money.
I favor tax fairness and am thinking this might be a way to get more people to pay taxes.
I now, I know no new taxes
Those numbers haven’t been released yet. This is the most current data available from the IRS. The next set of data that will become available from the IRS in 2013 will be for 2010.
The left actually believe assets should be taxed too. The theory goes like this, if the rich own 10 trillion in assets, half those assets should be seized by the government as a 50% tax, bringing in 5 trillion to the treasury and free goodies for all. Here’s what the simpletons don’t understand, you would collapse the financial markets. Who’s going to buy up all those assets so the tax can be collected, all their occupy Wall Street buddies?
Providing jobs is part of that fair share. Obama is a greedy communist. Obama and wifie have been making over $250,000 for years. What do the Obama’s do and/or what have they done with their money?? They sure haven’t created jobs or been charitable. They should be the example...they are NOT!!!
The left’s definition of “fair share” is somewhere between “more” and “all.”
Pelosi is so damn stupid I'm surprised she can fog a mirror without help. In line of what the article says, the top 10% of wage earners foot over 70% of the tax bill. "The rich need to pay their fair share?" Whatta crock. If that's their mantra, the rich need a tax cut and the 51% who are free loading need to step up and pay their fair share. My solution: If you don't pay at least 5% of your income in federal income taxes, you have nothing in the game and you lose your right to vote in federal elections.
Bullcrap. The "poor", who BTW already get energy subsidies, will qualify for a voucher to offset the C&T costs. The "poor" will be unaffected.