Well, folks. The figures are out. The latest numbers from the IRS have hit the mean streets --- and guess what? The rich still aren't paying their fair share! Well .. that will be the liberal line, but since you're reading the Nuze YOU are going to know the truth. So here it is .. the latest figures from the year 2007, according to the Tax Foundation. The top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. Now if you're not initiated into the Church of the Painful Truth you're probably thinking that the evil top 1% probably earn way over 40% of the income. Well .. you would be wrong. These nasty, disgusting and oh-so-easy to hate high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income. And just how much does some crook have to earn to be in this top 1%? Try $410,000. Remember now .. many, if not most, of these wretched people are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. Still .. they're nasty. Right? Ok .. more painful truth. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. For those of you who are government educated, that means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the road. The key to these numbers is that over 9 out of 10 Americans will never see them nor will anyone ever share these numbers with them. So the Democrats will, in spite of these numbers, be able to continue to demonize the evil rich and spread the lie that somehow they aren't "paying their fair share." To make things worse ... Democrat demagogues will continue to promote the idea that all of their vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. Where do they start? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes? Well .. it gets worse. Now for the first time, the IRS decided to break things down even further. It presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes. Time to spread the wealth around
911_horn starts yet another thread with this "evil rich" ******** that no one actually says. What a wonderful addition to the West Mall.
gosh, i can't figure out why anyone would want to be in the top 1% income of US taxpayers. Sounds like a ****** lot in life. I bet they can't even afford a third Porsche with this injustice. i can post with dripping sarcasm as well 911. **edit** oh, ****, sorry, 911. I thought you wrote that. I clicked on the link late. That is Neal Boortz's sarcasm. He seems like a fun guy.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." raving socialist Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations 1776
can't you predict the response from the left? try something like this: "well, that just means the gap is too big, we need to tax them more!"
a few more questions.. 1.who are you blaming here for "spreading the wealth" around? 2. Isn't the tax rate for the weathiest americans lower now than it was during the Clinton era? what accounts for the 1% paying a higher percentage in modern history? Is it that more Americans pay less or none? Is it that the 1% have a greater proportion of the wealth than in previous years?
First of all, those are income tax numbers, not total tax. The proportion of Americans with no income tax liability is staggering. Everyone should have a skin in the game, and anyone making as far above subsistence as most Americans do ought to expect, on average, to pay roughly what his share of the enterprise of running a country costs. By dissociating average Americans doubly from the burden carried ("progressive" schemes and withholding), we have created false tolerance of the federal government's drain on the economy. I have no problem with exempting those actually unable to pay from helping fund what the Constitution authorizes Congress to do. To me, the issue has nothing to do with evil; it is about politically expedient choices which typically have little to no actual grounding in the fairness behind which they hide.
The corollary to "No taxation without representation" is "No representation without taxation". This is not discussed much, at least not in those terms, for two reasons. One, at the time when the phrase "No taxation without representation" became popular, the monarchy taxed everyone, Lords (wealth landowners) in particular. Taxation was heavily regressive, and it was assumed that the powerful were taxing the poor because you can buy better weapons and bigger guys with more money (the assumption remained true from the start of civilization until the 20th century). Nobody needed to worry about the rich because they were the ones doing the oppressing. The other part of this is the fact that the phrase, "No representation without taxation", describes something that naturally happens. People who pay no taxes are overhead, and people who pay all of the taxes are the goldmine. The people who pay taxes are also better educated and more powerful. They are in a natural position to say "f**k you" and then f**k everyone, but they can't because we have a federal republic with universal suffrage. So it comes to pass that the people who pay no taxes but get their benefit have votes, which they utilize to get more money and/or avoid the responsibility of paying any to taxation. This is called mob rule, and it persists until the wealthy have had enough and seize power back from them (which they could do using brute force or by running two political parties that are in fact the same- either way, voting becomes less dangerous). Plutocracy is no better than mob rule. The fundamental problem is the unequal distribution of wealth, which is to a degree unavoidable because people have different levels of ability and make different choices with theirs. While an equal distribution of wealth (i.e. a small standard deviation in annual earnings) is a great goal and ultimately foundational to a working democracy, it cannot be achieved with taxation. It's not a bandaid on a gaping wound, it's the amputation of the head.
There is no evidence that this burden is hurting anyone at all. __________________________________________________ its definitely not hurting the 95%.
It is tough being rich in America these days. We have tons of 'em moving into my middle class neighborhood and I've heard tales of dozens of gated communities that are now ghost towns. It's a hard old world for the rich.
Take a population of 100 people with a flat tax rate of 10% to all. This is a simple description of a perfectly fair tax. If you agree that 1 in every 100 people is incredibly rich and 1 more is pretty rich with most being in the middle, then this is simplified look at our own economy. 1 person’s avg income is $10,000 per year pays $1000 . 1 person’s avg income is $1,000 per year pays $100. 8 people make $100 avg per year pay $80. 85 people make $10 avg per year pay $85. <middle class> 5 people make $1 avg per year pay nothing. Tax revenue income: $1265.00 The top 2% pay: ~87% of income tax – this is very fair. Neil Boortz, who you are parroting, is in that top income bracket. You could also conclude that if the top income bracket is paying more in taxes (as a %) compared to history, it means they are making more money, or the lower bracket is making less. Now – our tax system is not flat (I’m all for this – Reagan kinda did this). The highest tax burden is on those making between $250,000 to $500,000 a year. The super rich, like Neil Boortz, have many ways to hide their income as business expenses and other legal tricks of the tax evasion trade. This is the income they claim which you refer to as the “Total adjusted gross income”. It’s like when a CEO at a company claims his salary is only 100,000 a year, but his actual income is much more, and that salary only makes up a small percentage of it (this was not mentioned as a direct parallel - just an example of how "income" can be deceptive). Boortz is also a big proponent of the “Fair” consumption based tax. Yes. This will be great for him and his rich buddies. If I make 50k a year, I likely consume easily 50K worth of goods, making my entire income taxed. If I make 2million a year, I’m doing good to spend half of that, making only half of my income taxable – if even that, as I would likely purchase big ticket things from outside the country while living in Bermuda. This taxation from 2007 and law passed in 2006? This would be before the Democrats and Obama had total control. I would assume the suggestion is this is the fault of the current congress. I would bet dollars to donuts, if I took my real salary against Boortz’ real salary (sans loopholes and “investments”), all of us pay a greater % of our income towards federal taxes than he does. What's funny is most of you are not as rich as Boortz and will NEVER (despite your arrogance) be as rich as him. Yet you gobble up their propaganda like they are doing it for your own good.
There are certain things I know are true about most super rich people. They are very charming. They are very smart. They work very hard. They try to think of ways to get more money. They are great sales people (they may not be in sales – they sell ideas). They are very powerful. The control/own 99% of media including Boortz. They are not generous – they give to feel good without sacrificing anything they want. These are generalizations. It’s a generalization to say all humans have 10 fingers. It’s not true 100% time, but generally, it’s true. Knowing that, I carefully study what a super rich person is telling me to make sure I’m not being played – a game they are very good at. EDIT - adding this here now because it just expands on the same thought. If you are a fan of the Boortz program (I love it – very entertaining), you will notice he has a very self-serving personality. The past few weeks he has used entire segments to promote himself to some Radio Hall of Fame. One 20 minute segment, he spoke with his friend "Balinda" that he didn’t want to talk about something... It would just look bad. Balinda encouraged, and he proceeded to fill the entire segment with "Vote me to the hall of fame" talk. Segments are almost never off the cuff like this. I know this segment wasn't because of the way if flowed (it had a structure and began with a mystery to get you hooked - "I don't want to do this, Balinda" to which we think "Ah! what is he talking about? I want to know."). Boortz is a master and he uses the tricks of the media trade very well.
I guess the fact that so many in our country are currently unemployed has something to do with both the revenue stream and the percentages the wealthiest pay. take 400,000 people a month out of the role of "taxpayer" and move them into unemployed and the explantion is relatively clear if you are looking in the right place. Also good to understand that the uber rich make a very large portion of their "income" via capital gains.
I agree with BigHank, Bayerith, and 911Horn: the poor and the middle class need to have their income taxes increased.
