Skip to comments.Their Fair Share (Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?)
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 ...
“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?
America is on a cusp. The liberals relentless insistence that Americas 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 nations 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 nations earners could not shoulder the remaining 2.9% of the income tax burden. Americas top 50% income earners will pay 100% of the nations 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 Americas earners will be able to tell the top 49% of Americas earners how much income tax they will pay and what to spend that tax on.
ROTFLM*O!!!!!! That IS a keeper!!! Thanks~!
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.
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.
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.
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.