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

Skip to comments.

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ ^ | October 23, 2002 | RUSH

Posted on 10/23/2002 4:16:36 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK

Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes
October 23, 2002

The IRS has released the FY 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 1%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: taxedtodeath; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last
Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000
1 posted on 10/23/2002 4:16:37 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Taxreform
Bump for later
2 posted on 10/23/2002 4:25:09 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Good post. We need to be reminded about this every election cycle.

Even better - move election day to April 16th.
3 posted on 10/23/2002 4:35:11 PM PDT by NEWwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes

Of the bottom 50%, what is the average wage and what would be left after paying for bare essentials that the welfare system would otherwise provide, such a like food, medical, shelter, transportation and utilities. A more meaningful comparison might be disposable personal income, after covering the essentials that government would otherwise get socked with.

4 posted on 10/23/2002 4:35:38 PM PDT by ghostrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Rush should put this side by side with a chart showing who receives the most government money. The contrast should be very telling.
5 posted on 10/23/2002 4:47:10 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
This won't last. The collective Atlas' will shrug to stop paying the collective Pauls.
6 posted on 10/23/2002 4:56:54 PM PDT by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: ghostrider
blockquote>

. A more meaningful comparison might be disposable personal income,

For what it is worth, this link [ http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11 ] goes to the latest analysis done by CBO of federal total effective tax rates by income class, and the effective rates for the individual income tax itself.

 

Total income defined as all family cash (aftertax) income + proportion of total federal taxes extracted from that income class through immediate taxation and indirect routes such as consumption expenditure or lower wage etc. Income include entitlement payment, benefits etc.

 

A household consists of the people who share a housing unit, regardless of the relationships among them.
Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in totals.
Individual income taxes are distributed directly to households paying those taxes. Payroll taxes are distributed to households paying those taxes directly or paying them indirectly through their employers. Federal excise taxes are distributed to households according to their consumption of the taxed good or service. Corporate income taxes are distributed to households according to their share of capital income.
a. Income categories are defined by ranking all people by their comprehensive household income adjusted for household size--that is, divided by the square root of the household's size. Quintiles, or fifths, of the income distribution contain equal numbers of people.

Have fun.

8 posted on 10/23/2002 5:07:54 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
The bottom 50% of the population is earning 13% of all income and paying 4% of all taxes.

The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom BUT my guess is they are earning more than 1000 times as much

Limbaugh statistics read in a slightly different way.
It's a wonder we don't have an immediate revolution.

9 posted on 10/23/2002 5:16:15 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Go Dub Go
It appears from your link that the bottom 50% actually are taxed at a higher rate than the top 1% of earners. So, yes, the bottom 50% do pay less in an aggregate, but they are paying more of their income in taxes than the rich. This whole argument has always been disingenous and dishonest, IMHO.

You have me absolutly stumped. How do you arrive at this conclusion?

10 posted on 10/23/2002 5:17:52 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Correction. That should read

The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 1% BUT my guess is they are earning more than 1000 times as much

11 posted on 10/23/2002 5:21:12 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Yes, 1% of $1,000 = $10

1% of $1 = 1 cent

And your point is?

12 posted on 10/23/2002 5:23:36 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
People who have big incomes pay big taxes.
People who have little incomes pay little taxes

1% of the population has huge incomes
50% of the population have tiny incomes.
25% of the population have virtually no incomes.

Rush is wrong about the percentages as well.

13 posted on 10/23/2002 5:32:07 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Now since each and every citizen of America is only allowed to cast one vote on election day...

And since every single citizen is represented equally by our elected officials.

And since every single citizen should recieve an equal share of the services provided by our government.

Care to explain to me why only 50% of the citizens are paying for our goverment?

14 posted on 10/23/2002 5:33:20 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

BUT my guess

How about some figures instead of propaganda.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=12

As far as the distribution of cash incomes go the following table is enlightening:

 

Distributional Estimates Using Household Cash Income, by Dollar Income Category, 1979-1997 


Table H-1a.
Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households, by Dollar Income Category, Using Household Cash Income Plus Taxes Paid by Businesses, 1979-1997 (In percent)


  1997
Income Category 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995   Under
1997
Law
Under
2000
Law

Total Effective Federal Tax Rate
 
$0 to $10,000 8.2 7.3 7.1 8.3 8.6 7.9 8.1 8.0 6.9   7.2   7.1  
$10,000 to $20,000 11.2 11.3 11.2 12.6 12.0 11.6 11.5 11.4 10.1   9.7   9.6  
$20,000 to $30,000 16.2 16.9 15.9 16.8 16.0 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1   15.6   15.0  
$30,000 to $40,000 19.3 19.8 18.3 18.8 18.6 18.5 18.5 18.7 19.0   18.7   17.9  
$40,000 to $50,000 21.2 21.9 20.1 20.2 20.2 20.7 20.5 20.9 21.4   20.8   20.0  
$50,000 to $75,000 23.0 24.0 21.9 22.2 21.9 22.3 22.4 22.8 23.4   22.9   22.1  
$75,000 to $100,000 24.3 25.7 23.1 23.4 23.8 24.0 24.1 24.7 25.5   24.6   24.0  
$100,000 to $150,000 26.2 27.2 24.0 24.1 25.1 25.0 25.3 26.1 26.9   26.0   25.7  
$150,000 to $200,000 29.8 28.5 24.3 24.3 26.6 26.0 26.6 27.3 28.7   27.8   27.6  
$200,000 and Over 36.2 31.4 26.7 25.8 29.5 28.3 28.6 32.5 35.1   32.4   31.9  
 
  All Categories 23.4 23.5 21.2 21.8 22.6 22.8 22.6 23.8 24.9   24.6   24.1  

15 posted on 10/23/2002 5:35:33 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
I am certainly in favor of lower taxes. However, there are two problems with this analysis:

1) Fica hasn't been included

2) It's based on reported income. Sure, the people that have the highest Adjusted Gross Income are going to pay the most taxes. But if you have someone who made $1 million, has $600,000 in deductions, he'll be listed as having $400,000 in income, not $1 million. So the entire calculation is faulty.

16 posted on 10/23/2002 5:35:43 PM PDT by Koblenz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
People who have big incomes pay big taxes.
People who have little incomes pay little taxes

That's to be expected but it would be much better if it were exactly proportionate. That is, everyone should pay the same proportion of their income in taxes. One who makes $1000 should pay 10% or $10. One who makes $100,000 should pay 10,000 or 10%. That's the only fair way to do it and the only way to ensure that selective tax cuts aren't used to buy votes.

17 posted on 10/23/2002 5:36:09 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
God only asks for 10%. Where does government get off asking for more? BTW we revolted against King George due to a tax rate that was LESS than 10 per cent.
18 posted on 10/23/2002 5:38:34 PM PDT by Don Corleone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I am fair.

If I am paying 3 times what my neighbor is, to support our goverment, can my vote be counted 3 times more than his in the next election?

19 posted on 10/23/2002 5:39:25 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Care to explain to me why only 50% of the citizens are paying for our goverment?

Because only 50% of the citizenry has any money to pay for it...or any money at all. I would have thought that was clear from the statistics.

20 posted on 10/23/2002 5:42:39 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Koblenz
1) Fica hasn't been included

FICA is a scam, and if you are younger than 40 years old, you lost all of that money.

Second, FICA is your retirement money and has nothing to do with financing the government.

If you detect a contradiction, don't tell me, tell the Democrap that refuses to admit that FICA is a scam and is an actual tax.

21 posted on 10/23/2002 5:44:24 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
How about some figures instead of propaganda

The bottom 50% of the population earns 13% of all income. Do you really need tables to figure out that the bottom 1% earns virtually nothing? Where's common sense?

22 posted on 10/23/2002 5:45:29 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
It's a clear picture, but needs to be stated in a catchy slogan-style way to defeat that Democrat slogan about 'tax breaks for the rich.' It has to be 5 words or less, monosyllabic words.
23 posted on 10/23/2002 5:47:17 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
They also pay virtually nothing.

The bottom pays at less the 10% (includes FICA) of incomes.
The top pays in excess of 30% of incomes.
24 posted on 10/23/2002 5:48:06 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Because only 50% of the citizenry has any money to pay for it...or any money at all. I would have thought that was clear from the statistics.

But that is absolutly impossible! Those people in the top 50% have been paying literally TRILLIONS of dollars since 1965 to insure that everyone will have enough money.

Or, was this just another FICA scam?

25 posted on 10/23/2002 5:48:31 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: meyer
There is no simple answer to this.

Let's just start by saying everyone has to eat and there's a certain minimum cost involved. Read that metaphorically.

26 posted on 10/23/2002 5:48:41 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Koblenz
I am certainly in favor of lower taxes. However, there are two problems with this analysis:

1) Fica hasn't been included

I don't think it should either unless you are also going to include future benefits as well. This is, or should be separate from the general operating fund of the government, despite the present practice of "borrowing" from SS funds. As well, there is a cutoff as to how much FICA one pays precisely due to there being a limit as to how much one can collect. So, to compare someone over the cutoff to someone below the cutoff is not valid. If SS retirement collections were unlimited, then a comparison could be made. Remember the purpose of Social Security - Supplemental income.

2) It's based on reported income. Sure, the people that have the highest Adjusted Gross Income are going to pay the most taxes. But if you have someone who made $1 million, has $600,000 in deductions, he'll be listed as having $400,000 in income, not $1 million. So the entire calculation is faulty.

This might be true except for a couple of things; first, I doubt if there are enough deductions avialable, year after year, to reduce a $1 million income to $400,000. If you're talking business expenses, well then that's another story. But, remember that business taxes are generally passed on to the consumer anyways. And business expenses are a necessity.

The other issue is the AMT (which has never been adjusted for inflation BTW). There are plenty of people with much smaller incomes that have been hit by this little beauty.

Frankly, I'm with you on one thing here; there ought not be any deductions. Taxes are not the proper method to steer people's activity. I also think a flat tax is the best, most fair way to collect the funds necessary to run the government. And I think that Social Security ought to be voluntary, not mandatory.

27 posted on 10/23/2002 5:49:20 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
But that is absolutly impossible!

I'm just reading the statistics in the article. If you have a better explanation, fire away.

28 posted on 10/23/2002 5:50:54 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Frankly, I'm with you on one thing here; there ought not be any deductions. Taxes are not the proper method to steer people's activity. I also think a flat tax is the best, most fair way to collect the funds necessary to run the government. And I think that Social Security ought to be voluntary, not mandatory.

No arguments about your position from me. Well stated.

29 posted on 10/23/2002 5:52:03 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
They also pay virtually nothing.

That's right. They earn virtually nothing and they pay virtually nothing. It's no longer legal to demand a pound of flesh.

30 posted on 10/23/2002 5:53:53 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Let's just start by saying everyone has to eat and there's a certain minimum cost involved. Read that metaphorically.

Also consider that the vast majority of low-wage earners are high school and college kids living at home with Mom and Dad. Precious few are in financial straits. And I'll further say that most of those that are got that way by their own ambitions, or lack thereof. Like they may have beleived the likes of Jesse when he told them that the world owes them a living. Or something like that...

Yes, there are some hard cases, and most people hit hard times at some point in life, but you are taking a very small percentage of the population and making a broad generalization from it.

31 posted on 10/23/2002 5:55:35 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Actually, since each and every citizen only gets one vote, then each and every citizen should pay the exact same amount to finance the government.

Reality is accepted by everyone living in America, and nobody would have a problem paying the same percentage of their income.

When the percentage increases because you work hard, now we have a problem. Will my vote be increased by the same percentage?

32 posted on 10/23/2002 5:55:57 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: meyer
"$1000 should pay 10% or $10. "

WHOOPS!! Math as a second language? I meant 10% of $1000 is $100. Sorry.

33 posted on 10/23/2002 5:56:59 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
If I am paying 3 times what my neighbor is, to support our goverment, can my vote be counted 3 times more than his in the next election?

Well, you're being cheated. No doubt about it. But if you were paying 100 times what your neighbor did your vote would be counted 1000 times. That's the way the system works.

34 posted on 10/23/2002 5:58:04 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
What was the per centage of money earned by those categories?????
35 posted on 10/23/2002 5:58:04 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
When the percentage increases because you work hard, now we have a problem. Will my vote be increased by the same percentage?

That is precisely the problem with the "progressive" tax rates (or should I say regressive since they punish the productive). The democRATS basically buy votes by taking money from one class of taxpayer and giving it to other folks who tend to vote for them. Its buying votes on a grand scale. Not that silly low-budget stuff that they do in Wisconsin.

36 posted on 10/23/2002 6:00:15 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

The bottom 50% of the population earns 13% of all income.

The bottom 50% pays 4% of the taxes while earning the 13% of the income.

The top 50% pays 96% of the taxes on only 87% of the income.

Where's common sense?

Wake up, the distribution tax payment is skewed totally in favor of the poor, Because they control a greater proportionate vote.

To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.

The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill.

That disproportionate scale is pandered to by the liberal establishment while keeping the poor just as they are through subsidies discouraging upward economic mobility.

 

Keyes on Taxes & Government Spending:

The intent of the structure of the individual income tax is for political and social mainpulation not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country in perpetual legal jeopardy and to create artificial divisions among the electorate (rich vs. poor; big business vs. the little guy; etc).

Considering those factors, it is always good to remember the philosophical roots of the left which can be found here: Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. Among their recommendations are these:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.

37 posted on 10/23/2002 6:01:51 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Also consider that the vast majority of low-wage earners are high school and college kids living at home with Mom and Dad

What planet are you describing?

38 posted on 10/23/2002 6:03:09 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Good point!

Actually, two times in my life I have actually been homeless.

The first time, I lived in a tent on a mountain for 3 months until I was able to save enough to make the first and last downpayment for the rent of an appartment.

Second time, my wife and I moved to another State and it took us 9 months to finally get jobs in our professions.

Not once were we able to qualify for government assistance, since we "earned too much that year."

Actually, even if financial assistance was available, we would have refused it. Thanks, but we are not stupid enough to fall into that trap!

Funny how my views of life and government have been altered by personal experiences.

39 posted on 10/23/2002 6:05:17 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
What planet are you describing?

Oh yeah, and Illegal Aliens. :)

Seriously, you been to McDonalds lately? Or the local mall? Who's working there? Are they the primary earner? Most likely not. I don't know about where you live but our malls and Micky-D's are staffed primarily by HS and College aged workers with the occasional second-income spouse.

40 posted on 10/23/2002 6:07:01 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

There is no simple answer to this.

Let's just start by saying everyone has to eat and there's a certain minimum cost involved. Read that metaphorically.

As a matter of fact there is a simple answer that assures proportionate participation and exposure to the nation's tax bill while making certain that no one is taxed for that fundmental minimum cost involved.

A fixed rate, National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) containing a prorated payment to everyone based on their household size.

Protecting the Poor from the Tax

A common assumption about the NRST is that it is naturally regressive, since lower income individuals spend a greater percentage of their income in any given year on consumption of necessities. Because a sales tax is an altogether different paradigm of taxation, any judgment on the equity of the tax must be accompanied by a different analysis of regressivity.

To examine how a national retail sales tax could address such concerns, a number of issues should be broached. First and foremost, taxing income at a graduated rate is not the only means of making a tax system progressive. Moreover, a tax on income, no matter how steeply graduated, does not necessarily make an income tax progressive. Even if progressivity is measured by the common standard of "ability to pay," the income tax is imposed only on productive labor and the return to capital and not on wealth. An income tax does not tax consumption of older accumulated capital, whereas a sales tax does.

Equally important, using taxable income as the basis to determine progressivity is necessarily based on a year-to-year analysis where the ability to pay is measured as a function of income per unit of time. Consumption over the life of a taxpayer is in many respects a better measurement of the ability to pay taxes. Because people's incomes fluctuate throughout their lives, the lifetime application of a sales tax is much less regressive than it would appear to be when examining a cross-section of taxpayers in any given year. Since all income is earned for the purpose of eventual consumption, under a national retail sales tax, the taxpayer can defer taxation by saving his income. But he cannot forever avoid the tax.

In any case, an NRST plan can be made progressive through a rebate mechanism that would shelter low-income people from paying the tax. One manner in which the NRST could be made less regressive would be to exempt certain necessities--such as food and clothing--from the tax. That approach would exempt, however, the most expensive food (lobster and caviar) and the most expensive clothing ($1,000 designer suits). It is a very inefficient means of providing tax relief to lower and middle income Americans and would necessitate a much higher overall rate. A more neutral and less distortive approach is to simply provide each family a level of consumption free of tax by providing a rebate of the tax on expenditures up to the poverty level.

The rebate could work as follows: A family consumption refund would be established for each household at an amount equal to the sales tax rate times the poverty level. The poverty level is defined by the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines and should be raised by the sales tax rate.

The family consumption allowance approach has several effects. First, it makes the sales tax applicable only to consumption beyond the necessities of life. Second, it makes the tax in effect progressive, not only because it is based on consumption, a better index of true ability to pay, but because--if one wants to continue to view progressivity through an income tax lens--it entirely exempts lower income workers. Third, unlike most state taxes, it does not undertake the complex and politicized task of determining what to tax and what to exempt, thereby minimizing administrative and compliance questions and economic distortions.

The 23 percent NRST plan would have a highly beneficial impact on the U.S. economy and raise the standard of living of the American public. The tax compliance costs borne by our economy would fall sharply. And the degree of intrusiveness of the tax system in our lives would decline greatly. Once set free from the burdens of compliance with the current system and the punitive tax rates imposed on work, savings, and investment, the United States will become a more productive and more prosperous republic. A national retail sales tax is more compatible with the principles of a free society than any other alternative tax system.

81 Posted on 03/21/2000 12:48:00 PST by CHIEF negotiator


41 posted on 10/23/2002 6:11:45 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
It describes my city quite well.
42 posted on 10/23/2002 6:11:46 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
See also, this
43 posted on 10/23/2002 6:13:48 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
HAIL to the Chief - he is sadly missed. I always enjoyed his NRST threads. That tax scheme makes sense, though I lean towards a flat income tax myself. I could live with either one. Heck, I'm living with this risky "regressive" tax scheme now as it is, and I'm surviving.
44 posted on 10/23/2002 6:15:54 PM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ATOMIC_PUNK
See my profile for the way taxes ought to be.
45 posted on 10/23/2002 6:18:11 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
This is funny!

Any more questions?

46 posted on 10/23/2002 6:20:34 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Wake up, the distribution tax payment is skewed totally in favor of the poor, Because they control a greater proportionate vote

I don't think you can conclude from anything I've said that I am unaware of the distribution tax. But, as usual, there are several ways in which to read and interpret statistics. For example;

For Richer

That so large a percentage of our population earns so little and pays little or no taxes is a real problem. What solution do you propose?

47 posted on 10/23/2002 6:22:00 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: meyer

HAIL to the Chief - he is sadly missed. I always enjoyed his NRST threads.

CHIEF may have passed on, but the NRST is still very much alive and will continue to be supported by those committed to a fairer and more constitutional system of taxation.

The current bills before Congress, though the numbers may change with re-introduction in the next session, ping on your congressional candidates people elections count:

Billy Tauzin offers one solution, a 15% retail sales tax that replaces all income taxes but doesn't touch SS/Mediscare payroll taxes, that comes close to meeting the essentials of what it takes to reverse trend?:

H.R.2717
Sponsor: Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy)(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity for families by repealing the income tax, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

John Linder (R Texas) offers a more comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement:

H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer:
http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
See Also:
Fairtax FAQ (NSBU)

Other bills, moving in the proper direction are:

To get the ball rolling and focus Congress Critter's attention:

H.R.2714
Sponsor: Rep Largent, Steve(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
A bill to prohibit he imposition of any tax by the Internal Revenue Code: (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.

To sunset some agencies we don't need and rein in their expenditures:

H.R.2373
Sponsor: Rep Brady, Kevin(introduced 6/28/2001)
Title: To provide for the periodic review of the efficiency and public need for Federal agencies, to establish a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the efficiency and public need of such agencies, and to provide for the abolishment of agencies for which a public need does not exist.

Modification then enact and ratify:

H.J.RES.45
Sponsor: (introduced 4/25/2001)
Latest Major Action: 5/9/2001 Referred to House subcommitte.
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the Untied States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens.

(Modified to prohibit all income, payroll, gift estate taxes as HR2525 calls for, or we will see European VAT style hidden taxes along with payroll excises to take over in the place of the of the current individual income tax(i.e. personal income tax) that Ron Paul amendment prohibits.)

And to keep em reminded that there is indeed a Constitution to pay attention to:

H.R.175
Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001)
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee
Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.


48 posted on 10/23/2002 6:22:26 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Sounds good to me. But I'm definitely no expert on taxes.
49 posted on 10/23/2002 6:26:38 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

What solution do you propose?

See replies #41 & 48 for what I support as well as many other conservative and liberal folks.

Get government out of our individual finances, and return to us our financial privacy and choices in our family economics.

50 posted on 10/23/2002 6:27:28 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next 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