Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Their Fair Share (Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?)
Wall Street Journal ^ | 21 July 2008 | Unsigned Editorial

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; barackobama; democrats; economy; electionpresident; elections; fairtax; incometaxes; irs; nobama08; obama; rich; socialism; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last
To: mewzilla

“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.”


51 posted on 07/21/2008 8:49:07 AM PDT by CSM (Hey if a small tax increase didn't work, a bigger tax increase should not work even BETTER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool
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.

Sure you can.

Google "Earned Income Credit".

52 posted on 07/21/2008 9:20:43 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

“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]


53 posted on 07/21/2008 9:29:15 AM PDT by Strzelec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

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.


54 posted on 07/21/2008 9:38:10 AM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onlylewis
This is still liebral mumbo-jumbo whose rhetoric belongs in the 20th century...
55 posted on 07/21/2008 9:43:08 AM PDT by kcm.org (Conservatives bashing Sen. McCain has Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

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.


56 posted on 07/21/2008 9:43:35 AM PDT by sickoflibs (We cant win elections (with illegal's votes) by out-welfaring Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Locally, Al Franken is running campaign ads slamming Norm Coleman for his support of Pres. Bush's tax cuts "for the top 1$ wealthiest" Minnesotans. Al's spin of course is that he'd support middle class tax cuts.

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.

57 posted on 07/21/2008 10:10:16 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
what about SS taxes?....what about property taxes?...what about capital gains?

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....

58 posted on 07/21/2008 10:27:29 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

59 posted on 07/21/2008 11:01:33 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcm.org
agreed! Very much lib mumbo-jumbo. But they are trying to create a two class system that will keep them in power and place people with incomes from $75k to $200k (and above) in their control.

If con is the opposite of pro, doesn't that mean congress is the opposite of progress?

60 posted on 07/21/2008 1:50:29 PM PDT by onlylewis (they want a two class system)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

America is on a cusp. The liberals’ relentless insistence that America’s higher income earners pay an ever higher percentage of the income tax reveals their desire for America to abandon the Republic in favor of a Democracy.

This article reports that the top 50% of the nation’s wage earners pay 97.1% of the income tax. I have no good reason to doubt this data. I also have no good reason why the top 50% of the nation’s earners could not shoulder the remaining 2.9% of the income tax burden. America’s top 50% income earners will pay 100% of the nation’s income tax.

Having digested that for a bit surely it would not be too much to ask the top 49% of earners to pay 100% of the income tax. America will now have achieved the Democracy the founders so wanted the nation to avoid but the socialist and liberals have been driving us to. To the delight of the socialist and liberals, the bottom 51% of America’s earners will be able to tell the top 49% of America’s earners how much income tax they will pay and what to spend that tax on.

61 posted on 07/21/2008 3:38:21 PM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onlylewis
If con is the opposite of pro, doesn't that mean congress is the opposite of progress?

ROTFLM*O!!!!!! That IS a keeper!!! Thanks~!

62 posted on 07/21/2008 4:38:16 PM PDT by kcm.org (Conservatives bashing Sen. McCain has Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

The working “poor” would get all their FairTax rebated to them, wouldn’t they ? And the FairTax eliminates both the Income tax and the SS/M taxes.

Yet they would still get full credit for SS/M benefits, right ?

At least today, they might contribute something to SS/M, but under the FairTax they could easily contribute nothing at all.

And the “rich” could easily spend most of their money outside the country and legally avoid paying taxes altogether.

Sounds like the FairTax would have both “rich” and “poor” paying less — and that would leave just the “middle” to pay for everything.


63 posted on 07/21/2008 6:27:48 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (I used to be Dilbert. Then I was Wally. I retired before I became the Pointy Haired One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

A good first step would be to get people to make the distinction between “General Fund” spending (which is paid for by income taxes, excise taxes, and import duties) and “Social Insurance” benefits payments (which are paid for by mandatory FICA contributions from wages).

Why ? Because it is important that people realize the so-called “social security taxes” they think make them “taxpayers” are nothing of the kind. They don’t pay for a dime’s worth of national security, infrastructure, judiciary, etc. That money is loaned to the Treasury and may never be paid back, but at least on paper, it doesn’t pay for anything except the over-promised SS/M benefits.

I’d like people to talk about the two separate Federal Budgets again rather than lumping together “taxes and contributions” on one side and “spending and benefits payments” on the other.


64 posted on 07/21/2008 6:36:28 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (I used to be Dilbert. Then I was Wally. I retired before I became the Pointy Haired One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Sure you can. Google "Earned Income Credit".

Technically, that is not a tax, it is a rebate, or a refund. Taxes don't go into negative numbers, they go to zero, and anything less than that is technially a rebate.

65 posted on 07/22/2008 12:12:06 PM PDT by nobdysfool (Taglines are so last year.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool

Call it what you will, but I prefer “negative income tax”. It is income based, filed with tax forms and can bring a “refund” greater than the amount paid in.


66 posted on 07/22/2008 12:18:37 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson