These numbers say it all .... Time to tax Limbaugh and company at the 90% rate !!!

[doc mercer]

72% under Nixon and 91% under Ike for the top elite in the USA .....

enough of the gravy train ride the Elite rich enjoyed uner Bush ...


For Democrats wavering in their resolve to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, shocking new data from the IRS should hopefully stiffen their backbones. Between 2001 and 2007, the 400 richest taxpayers doubled their annual incomes to an average of $345 million, while their effective tax rate plummeted to only 16.6% from 29.4% in 1993.

Following recent analyses confirming that income inequality in the United States has reached record levels, noted tax journalist David Cay Johnston summed up the new data, "The incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high in dollars and as a share of all income in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low. The numbers tell the tale of the widening chasm between the rich and everyone else:

In 2007 the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8 million, up 31 percent from their average $263.3 million income in 2006, according to figures in a report that the IRS posted to its Web site without announcement that were discovered February 16...

Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the top 400 enjoyed a 27 percent increase in their income, or nine times the rate of increase for the bottom 90 percent...Since 1992, the bottom 90 percent of Americans have seen their incomes rise by 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with an increase of 399 percent for the top 400.

Unsurprisingly, the public disclosure of the top 400 report first introduced by the Clinton administration was halted by President Bush (only to be reinstituted by the Obama White House last year). Unsurprising that is, because the sheer size of the massive windfall for America's rich due to the Bush tax cuts would make a Warren Buffet blush.

Crooks and Liars

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by doc mercer

72% under Nixon and 91% under Ike for the top elite in the USA .....

enough of the gravy train ride the Elite rich enjoyed uner Bush ...


For Democrats wavering in their resolve to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, shocking new data from the IRS should hopefully stiffen their backbones. Between 2001 and 2007, the 400 richest taxpayers doubled their annual incomes to an average of $345 million, while their effective tax rate plummeted to only 16.6% from 29.4% in 1993.

Following recent analyses confirming that income inequality in the United States has reached record levels, noted tax journalist David Cay Johnston summed up the new data, "The incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high in dollars and as a share of all income in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low. The numbers tell the tale of the widening chasm between the rich and everyone else:

In 2007 the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8 million, up 31 percent from their average $263.3 million income in 2006, according to figures in a report that the IRS posted to its Web site without announcement that were discovered February 16...

Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the top 400 enjoyed a 27 percent increase in their income, or nine times the rate of increase for the bottom 90 percent...Since 1992, the bottom 90 percent of Americans have seen their incomes rise by 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with an increase of 399 percent for the top 400.

Unsurprisingly, the public disclosure of the top 400 report first introduced by the Clinton administration was halted by President Bush (only to be reinstituted by the Obama White House last year). Unsurprising that is, because the sheer size of the massive windfall for America's rich due to the Bush tax cuts would make a Warren Buffet blush.

Crooks and Liars

what makes you think the government should be able to take 91% of someones income?

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

what makes you think the government should be able to take 91% of someones income?

First, the 91% rate was on TAXABLE income. If your income is derived from producing actual goods, chances are you have plenty of deductions, less of your income is taxable. But if you are pulling in big bucks playing the stock market/gaming the system, that's the system's cost for being a player. It sure didn't keep anyone from playing the game, or wanting to.

Second, the Sixteen Amendment to the US Constitution makes me think that.

History of the Income Tax in the United States

[Michael Asher]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

what makes you think the government should be able to take 91% of someones income?

Relax, Biblethumper, it's to fund a war with Iran, to knock down the Capitol building in DC and build a Megachurch, as well as to build a bridge from NYC to Jerusalem.

It's all safe.

[hezy]

91% after the numbers are cooked-get real

[sinterest]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

what makes you think the government should be able to take 91% of someones income?

Get a clue thump --- poor folks pay a larger percentage of their income than the super rich. Especially after God takes 10% of the poor right wing Christian's take home.

Do you think for one moment that the super rich you protect so vehemently give your wizard in the sky 10%?

[R Lance]

<<<<<<<
Quote:
Originally Posted by biblethumper View Post
what makes you think the government should be able to take 91% of someones income?
Get a clue thump ---

>>>>>> poor folks pay a larger percentage of their income than the super rich.<<<<<<,

Got any links on that?
I used to do volunteer tax prep. and the lower incomes usually paid zero income tax.

>>>>>Do you think for one moment that the super rich you protect so vehemently give your wizard in the sky 10%?<<<<

Note the 10% tithe is a choice not a governmental tax

Don't know what you call super rich but all the people I know, or been associated with, earning over$ 1mil a year do tithe 10% I personally know 9.

[sinterest]

Originally Posted by R Lance

<<<<<<<
Quote:
Originally Posted by biblethumper View Post
what makes you think the government should be able to take 91% of someones income?
Get a clue thump ---

>>>>>> poor folks pay a larger percentage of their income than the super rich.<<<<<<,

Got any links on that?
I used to do volunteer tax prep. and the lower incomes usually paid zero income tax.

>>>>>Do you think for one moment that the super rich you protect so vehemently give your wizard in the sky 10%?<<<<

Note the 10% tithe is a choice not a governmental tax

Don't know what you call super rich but all the people I know, or been associated with, earning over$ 1mil a year do tithe 10% I personally know 9.

Thars the rub! You always add in "income tax" though it had nothing to do with the claim I made.

[sinterest]

And if you still want a link let me know (gold metal curling is on)

[R Lance]

What are they paying taxes importation to ,if not income?

[hezy]

actually the percentage isnt the point-the rich can live and do their deals on a pittance (percentage wise) of their income-theyre paygin more prcentage wise but the poor need a lot more (percentage wise)for basic needs

[Pookie]

Taxes....ick. We have a small business and wow, we get taxed to pieces.
Purrs,
Pookie

[biblethumper]

Originally Posted by sinterest

Get a clue thump --- poor folks pay a larger percentage of their income than the super rich. Especially after God takes 10% of the poor right wing Christian's take home.

Do you think for one moment that the super rich you protect so vehemently give your wizard in the sky 10%?

So you probably agree with from each, according to their ability, to each according to their need. I am not surprised commie.

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by biblethumper

So you probably agree with from each, according to their ability, to each according to their need. I am not surprised commie.

So you think we should take from people regardless of what they can afford and fuck those in need? What kind of a low life immoral piece of trash would think that?

[hezy]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Taxes....ick. We have a small business and wow, we get taxed to pieces.
Purrs,
Pookie

you guys are really taking the hard road-you dont have the hedges-and those few per cent are eating away at all you have to make expenses on top of the cost of doing business-ive done taxes for some guys in your position-add to that a lot of you are dealing with franchise contracts with harsh reqs-i dont envy you-if you can survive you can make a lot of money but youll never be the same healthwise..
the only thing is small businessmen vote with the rich and dont have any real independent representation

[R Lance]

The goal of many small business owners is to become independently wealthy support his family and retire in dignity.

Or is it the goal of many small business owners is to become independently wealthy and give it to those that won't work.

The truly poor,and diabled are usually taken care of via charities and gov programs

[Michael Asher]

Originally Posted by R Lance

The goal of many small business owners is to become independently wealthy support his family and retire in dignity.

Or is it the goal of many small business owners is to become independently wealthy and give it to those that won't work.

Who are those that aren't working? Is that what we call the "straw man population" of the United States?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

SOCIAL CLASS AND THE TAX BURDEN » Sociological Images

I recently came across two really fascinating figures. The United States has a system of “progressive taxation.” This means that the richer you are, the more you pay in taxes. This first figure, found at The American Prospect, shows the percentage of total income earned by Americans (split up into quintiles) and the tax rates for each group. The poorest quintile, then, pays 4.3 percent of their income to the government, but only makes 3.9 percent of all income dollars each year. In contrast, the richest quintile brings home 55.7 percent of all income dollars each year, and pays 25.9 percent of that in taxes.



Ezra Klein writes:

When you look at percentage of total tax liabilities, the rich do in fact bear a heavier burden. But it’s because they have so much more money. They are not bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes. They’re bearing it in relation to everyone else’s incomes… People hear that the top 20 percent pay almost 70 percent of the country’s income taxes and nod their head. That’s unfair! But it mainly seems unfair because people don’t know the top 20 percent accounts for almost 60 percent of the national income.

This second figure (from Matthew Yglesias via Thick Culture) illustrates increasing income inequality. It compares the average after-tax income for each quintile, and then the top 1 percent, in 1979 and 2006. During that time, the poorest fifth saw their incomes increase 11 percent, the middle fifth saw their income increase by 21 percent, and the richest fifth saw their income increase by 87 percent. Check out the percent increase for the top one percent!



What does fair look like?

Is this kind of income inequality fair? Is it fair to take a higher proportion of taxes from richer people? Should we be taking even more from the rich? Should we be taking less from any group?

Does it matter where the money is going? I have to admit, I was feeling a little crappy about taxes when we were spending billions of dollars on war, but now that we need to kick start the economy and deal with our debt, I feel fine about them.

Has the economic crisis affected your opinions on (progressive) taxation? How?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

The Straight Dope: Do the rich pay very little tax? Wouldn't a flat tax be fairer?

Do the rich pay very little tax? Wouldn't a flat tax be fairer?

January 26, 1996
Dear Cecil:

We ran across the enclosed item in Marilyn Vos Savant's column in Parade magazine and were astounded by her reply. Our first thought was, we should ask Cecil the same question. However, we're equally interested in your response to her answer.

— Claire and Harold, San Rafael, California


Cecil replies:

Here's the question from Marilyn's column:

Q: Is it true that the rich pay very little tax?
A: No, and this is the myth, more than any other, that has created the unwarranted and destructive dissension among the so-called economic classes in this country. The wealthy pay a truly stunning amount of tax, and there are virtually no exceptions. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been misguided.

Regarding Marilyn's answer, I'll just say that when you make sweeping claims like this you might want to back them up with a little detail. She's not wrong, though. As a general proposition, the wealthiest Americans do pay the bulk of the individual income taxes collected in the U.S. That's a point worth making, since the belief that the rich pay zip while the little guy gets slugged is the impetus behind the "flat tax" proposal, the stupidest idea to come down the pike since pet rocks.

Here are the numbers for 1992 from the Statistical Abstract of the United States: The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75,000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes. People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don't feel particularly rich. They should talk to a single mom who's mopping floors. But let's work our way up the income scale: The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes. The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes. The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more--and Tom Wolfe's little demonstration in Bonfire of the Vanities notwithstanding, nobody's going to tell me those guys aren't rich--paid 10 percent of the taxes. That's a mere 67,000 households, who on average paid income tax of $707,000 apiece.

OK, but what about Marilyn's second point, namely that the rich pay big with "virtually no exceptions"? In their entertaining 1994 book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, investigative reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele note that the number of filers reporting incomes of $200,000-plus who paid no tax, presumably through outrageous but legal tax dodges, has risen steadily, from 155 in 1966 to 1,081 in 1989, despite numerous attempts to plug the loopholes. That sounds pretty bad, but let's put it in perspective: the number of people making $200,000-plus shot up dramatically during the same time, from 13,000 in 1966 to 787,000 in 1989. The proportion of rich tax dodgers has dwindled from 1 percent of the $200,000-plus class to one-tenth of 1 percent in recent years.

The purpose of this exercise is not to make you feel sorry for the poor rich people. Quite the contrary. Barlett and Steele make the point that most efforts at tax "reform" are really attempts to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy. The most blatant recent example of this was the tax act of 1986. Between 1986 and 1987 the effective tax rate on millionaires fell from 40 percent to 29 percent, and as a result they paid $3.6 billion less in tax. Meanwhile people making from $50,000 to $75,000, a reasonably prosperous but hardly rich crowd, paid $7.6 billion more. Some reform.

The flat-tax scam is more of the same. Nobody's sure what the actual flat-tax rate would be, but let's suppose it was 20 percent. Based on the 1992 returns, if this inane proposal were implemented, taxes on everybody making $200,000-plus will go down and those on everybody else will go up. Malcolm Forbes Jr., one of the richest men in America, was the leading backer of the flat tax during the 1996 presidential campaign. Now do you see why?

FLAT LINERS FOR THE FLAT TAX

Dear Cecil:

Re your column on taxes, I was curious about some of your conclusions. You say "people making $50,000 to $75,000 . . . paid $7.6 billion more" [after the 1986 tax reform]. What was the average increase per person? Or was there an increase in the number of people in this bracket, which would have increased the total collected? How much was the tax increase on these people as a percentage of income? You don't say.

In your conclusion you start with a supposition of a flat 20 percent rate (higher than any I've heard proposed) without any mention of the automatic exemption of the first $20,000 to $30,000, which would result in the poor paying no tax at all. I assume this was a lapse and not an act of deliberate mendacity.

Yes, Forbes wants his taxes to go down. I want mine to go down too. Under every flat tax proposal I've heard (except yours), mine would go down dramatically. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Forbes, but right now I find him more honest than you.

Can you explain why we should have a graduated tax system in the first place? Is it to make sure that everybody ends up with the same amount, regardless of effort? Isn't that called socialism?

Following this logic, shouldn't rich people also pay more for everything else? Why not a sliding scale for bus fare, Big Macs, movie tickets, etc.? After all, the rich can afford more.

Why do we need an income tax in the first place? Why don't you consider the merits of the "Liberty Amendment," which would abolish the IRS? --Jim MacQuarrie, via the Internet

Cecil replies:

Way to go, Jim, defend the rights of the rich! Shows you what a great country we've got here. Also shows you that whereas left-wingers are jerks, right-wingers are nuts. To be fair, though, the flat tax is like a date with Julio Iglesias. It takes you a while to realize you've been screwed.

Let me explain. Following the 1986 tax reform, the average income tax paid by somebody in the $50,000-$75,000 bracket indeed went down, and I mean way down--$1,100. The total tax take for that bracket went up $7.6 billion because there were many more taxpayers in that range in 1987.

Ha, you say, Cecil was using statistics to lie! Uh-uh. Fact is, taxes for virtually all tax brackets went down. Yet the total tax collected went up. How was this miracle accomplished? By eliminating many popular tax deductions. This forced millions of Americans into higher brackets, so they paid more tax. Example: elimination of the IRA deduction. If you and your spouse (a) both worked, (b) made a total of more than $50,000, and (c) had previously both taken the maximum IRA deduction, in 1987 your taxable income increased $4,000 even if your real income stayed the same. Assuming two kids, $53,000 in joint income, and $9,000 in deductions in both '86 and '87, your taxes went up $862.

Taxes went up for most affluent Americans. In 1987 they reported an additional $300 billion in income, of which maybe two-thirds stemmed from closed loopholes. As a result, people making from $50,000 to $1 million paid an extra $24 billion in tax. OK, nobody's bleeding for a $500,000-a-year lawyer. But look who paid less tax: those making under $50K (average tax cut: $5 to $867) and those making $1 million and up (average cut: $214,000). Like I say, some reform. Other points:

(1) Forbes claims his flat tax rate will be 17 percent. Most knowledgeable observers say if that happens the government will go broke. The real flat tax rate will have to be at least 20 percent. The working poor will get screwed because they will lose the earned-income credit, which lets them collect a tax "refund" greater than the amount of taxes withheld. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that if taxes for the Forbes crowd go down, they have to go up for somebody else.

(2) The income tax is progressive for several reasons, the cynical one being that there are a lot more poor voters than rich ones. The practical reason is that a progressive income tax overcomes the regressivity of the sales tax, which falls most heavily on the poor, and the property tax, which falls most heavily on the middle class. Some analysts say total taxes as a percentage of income are about the same for all income levels.

(3) No income tax at all? Fine. When the guys in the military come looking for their pay, we'll tell them to see you.

— Cecil Adams