"The Richest 1%"

[PeaceBeWithYou]

I bet the reverse side(the bottom 50% -recipients of taxes) of that distribution chart would be interesting to see. I'm sure it exist somewhere.

[Tacis]

This is one of the dems crooked lies that the ultra-left wing media is happy to repeat endlessly.

In fact, the "richest" one percent DOESN'T care. Of course, it depends how you define "richest."

In the U.S. we, as a rule, don't tax wealth, we tax income. The top 1% in income flow do not necessarily have to be those with the largest pools of assests.

If you talley up all the black athletes earning a million dollars or more a year, you can argue that the dems are being racist in the position and trying to keep blacks on their plantation, shucking, jiving, and voting dem, like always.

Now, we do tax wealth at death. There are ways around this and there are entire populations of lawyers and accountants who will help you do it.

As long as the media keeps repeating the "income vs. taxes paid" propaganda, the truth will not get out. The real story is "taxes paid vs. tax relief."

[conservativemusician]

That's the way government has always worked. Federal borrowing is part and parcel of gov't finance. So far we've survived.

Feel free to give the government as much of YOUR money as you like.

I have better uses for mine.

[ancient_geezer]

The government should give more money to people who earn less, because the poorer the person, the faster they spend their money.

And the spent money goes to those who own businesses.

So the rich still get the money anyway.

Which get taxed away from them, so the poor pay all the taxes. Have I got it right now?

The tax system is actually fuelled from the dollars we spend which pays the gross wages, and investment returns to individuals who are the ultimate purchasers of goods and services and hence the payers of all taxes.

We spend "disposable income", (i.e. "aftertax" income) which finances all income that is taxed. Viewing from the perspective of consumption dollars, where it is all generated, we get an entirely different perspective on what is being done to us. Between business income taxes and payroll taxes, the burden on citizen as reflected through higher prices, lower wages, and lower return on investements are indeed horrendous.

The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.

DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation

The full impact of the federal tax system(taxes in gross wage/salaries & other compensation + business income/payroll taxes) added onto the base price(without taxes) of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone. Why? Because all wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipts to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure).

• Total fed taxes as reflected through gross family income is 23.5% (taxfoundation)
• Total state taxes reflected through gross family income is about 10.2% (taxfoundation)
• The current net personal savings/investment rate is about 1.2%.(BEA)

Federal tax revenues collected as % of current family expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =

23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%

If we add in the cost of federal tax compliance & enforcement, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income payroll tax system increases by nearly 55% of tax free prices.

Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94

When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.

Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $1,000 billion additional dollars are added on onto consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.

(Payne '97, Pilla '95, AGCCA 2000, Williams 2000)

Percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+1000)/1900 = 54.95% economic burden added on to base retail prices.

Reduce the taxes on business and simplify them in any way possible ultimately means a lower price and higher standard of living for the citizen. Since the poor spend the most in relation to their income, obviously the poor benefit the most from tax reductions for businesses.

[conservativemusician]

Could you elaborate?

[freeper12]

>>If tax cuts are good, why are we borrowing money to finance the government???

Good point...I too am concerned about the size of the deficit and the size of the national debt 6.4Trillion dollars and counting...nobody even talks about the debt anymore.

I also am very tired of the class-warfar arguements that the democrats are making, but even though a lot more than just the top 1% have money in the market, I think the democrats have a decent chance of making a convincing arguement this time around(as tired as it is).

How long will it be before the point out that people like dennis kozlowski, jeff skiling, bernie ebbers, jack grubman, ken lay and gary winnick (all in the top 1%) are the "type" of people that would benefit the most from Bush's tax cut plan?...i can see the commecial now "here are the faces of the people that *screwed* the average investor out of trillions of dollars during the nineties...and here are the faces of the people that will be rewarded with bushes tax cut...(same picture on the screen)

If democrats propose a cap or phase out at certain income levels (i.e. after 500K AGI) of most of the bush provisions, I would bet better than even money that is what eventually passes...or else republicans will pay for it come november 2004.

[cynicom]

No need to be personal about it.

I thought that was a legitimate question. We are currently spending a billion dollars a day more than we take in.

[tortoise]

The Democrats consider the richest 1% to be anybody making over $16,000 a year.

This isn't their belief, it is their GOAL.

[freeper12]

...oh, and just for the record, I'd love to see 50% across the board tax cuts for everyone...but I, and I am apparently in the monority around here, would like to see the spending reduced first.

Republican president, rep. house, rep. senate...no more excuses about why spending is out of control.

[rintense]

Well when GWB goes public and says that a family of four earning $40,000 will save 96% on their taxes, he's going to appeal to far more than the richest 1%! And he did this last week.

The Dems know that the rich are the only people they can attack in the GOP plan.

[freeper12]

>>I thought that was a legitimate question.

It *is* a legitamite question...don't stop asking it even if you get comments from people whom do not want any of there services cut, or are not willing to do the hard work in seeing them cut, but insist that the govt should not take any of their money....i.e. having their cake and eating it too.

[cynicom]

When I purchased todays sunday paper, $1.50, it cost me an additional eleven cents for state tax. On any such purchase I pay the same rate as anyone else. Perhaps it is more fair and just to scrap the income tax and use a consumption tax. No deductions, no payments, nothing. In return it would only be fair that the government only spend what it takes in.

[freeper12]

>>Perhaps it is more fair and just to scrap the income tax and use a consumption tax

I agree, but unforunately, my fear would be if we tried to institue a national sales tax to replace the income tax, we get the sales tax, but income tax would stay too....natioanl consumption tax sounds like a decent theory...don't penalize investments, savings etc.

[JBCiejka]

I have always wonder how they lump people into groups according to how much money they make. Just what is the breakdown of lower middle class, middle and upper middle class. And, is there any group between upper middle and the richest 1%? Is there a chart of this somewhere?

[SeeRushToldU_So]

The main thing to remember is:The Rats don't want things to improve before '04 elections.

But I am getting the feeling the tax cuts are so broad based they will have to give in or face destruction if the don't support the cuts.

[conservativemusician]

I didn't mean any harm. I'm just riled about coughing up so much money on an annual basis. My wife and I get creamed every year. I have to work 6 to 7 days a week to live decently in NY and the dems consider us rich? It's infuriating.

You hit the nail on the head when you said we are SPENDING a billion a day more than we take in.

That's the true culprit.

[Between the Lines]

If tax cuts are good, why are we borrowing money to finance the government???

Do not be worried with deficit spending. Deficit spending kinda works as one of our goverment checks and balances and is good for you the taxpayer. If the politicians have monies available they will spend it all plus some, if there is a deficit they will only spend some. In example: If one billion dollars are available to the politicians then they think nothing of spending two billion, but if there is a deficit they would be happy spending 500 million. So by increasing the deficit by 500 million you have saved 1.5 billion in taxes. Politicians will spend more than is available. Running a high deficit makes it harder for them to do.

[Freebird Forever]

Thanks for posting the chart!

: )

Visualizing goals is generally beneficial to my long term success.

I've always aspired to be a 1%er.

[chiller]

If tax cuts are good, why are we borrowing money to finance the government???

Because taxes are too high. Talking about lowering them, doesn't lower them. Let's do it and you'll see.

[freeper12]

>>Because taxes are too high. Talking about lowering them, doesn't lower them. Let's do it and you'll see

Borrowing money to lower taxes doesn't lower taxes either...it just puts the burden on a future generation that will need to pay it back...

demand that spending be cut, and then demand your money back.