http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/2003taxshares.pdf

According to latest compiled figures (FY2003):

The top 50% of tax payers in the US pay almost 97% of the entire income tax burden in the us, leaving just over 3% for the bottom 50% ($29,000 adjusted gross income or less).

The top 1% of tax payers in the US pay almost 35% of the entire income tax burden. This income level begins at just $295,000 adjusted gross income.

Remember that when you think the wealthy don't pay their fair share - especially if you aspire to be among the wealthy.

If you have more money you should pay more taxes. Everything you wrote makes perfect sense to me KG. Bill Gates made more money off the Federal Government, state government, and the stability and structure that the government affords than I certainly did. He got the most benefit, he made the most money, he should pay the most taxes.

It all comes down to a proposal I worked on for Iraq. For every employee we needed a bodyguard. For every facility we needed an armored personnel carrier and $5000 bullet-proof windows. Everything we wanted to do was going to cost 3-4 times what it does in the US. For that stability that we have in the US, without 20-30 roadside bombs a day, businesses really need to factor those cost savings in. Sadly, some businesses think that freedom should be free or at least something they don't pay for.

SS

I do not believe that the bottom 50% of tax payers only enjoy 3% of the benefit of living in the US. Seems to me they still have 2.3 TV's, 3 squares a day (or more), a roof over their head, access to the best healthcare on the planet, roads, and national security.

I do not believe that the top 1% enjoy 37% of all the benefits of living in the US.

Nor do I believe the top 50% of tax payers enjoy fully 97% of all benefits of living in the US.

This is the insanity of the current wealth re-distribution aspect of our tax code - and the resultant class-warfare BS. Bill Gates enjoys the fruits of his labor and his intellect, so does the guy who aspires only to be janitor at Microsoft.

I prefer the Fair tax concept, based on consumption with exemptions for people only covering basic living expenses (food, clothing, shelter).

That said, I just wanted to point to a little fact about who actually pays the taxes.

John

If you have more money you should pay more taxes. Everything you wrote makes perfect sense to me KG. Bill Gates made more money off the Federal Government, state government, and the stability and structure that the government affords than I certainly did. He got the most benefit, he made the most money, he should pay the most taxes.

It all comes down to a proposal I worked on for Iraq. For every employee we needed a bodyguard. For every facility we needed an armored personnel carrier and $5000 bullet-proof windows. Everything we wanted to do was going to cost 3-4 times what it does in the US. For that stability that we have in the US, without 20-30 roadside bombs a day, businesses really need to factor those cost savings in. Sadly, some businesses think that freedom should be free or at least something they don't pay for.

SS

Silversurfer, Bill Gates did not benefit from the gov, the gov benefits from him. He creates jobs, he invests in the stockmarket and he is responsible for an astronomical portion of the tax revenue that the gov gets. The government had nothing to do with this. All they have to do is sit back and let the market do its "thing". The current tax system punishes Bill and people like him for working hard and earning a decent salary. If you want equal taxation then here we go; 10% accross the board.
Furthermore, if the rich were taxed less they would have more money to invest in their business, start new businesses, invest in the stockmarket...basically, boost the economy. That is what the rich does, they invest and grow and create more opportunities for themselves and others.
Junto

I think this is a pointless argument - who pays what proportion of what taxes.

Bill Gates (as a stand-in for all rich people) does not pay taxes. The person who buys his software pays the tax in the price of the goods he buys. Indirectly, if Bill actually earns $10 but has to pay 90% tax Microsoft will pay him $100 so that he can pay $90 tax and keep $10 for himself - and the $90 is a cost of making and selling MS-Office, etc.

No need to call for a consumer-based tax system - that is what we already have.

It's the people who purchase things that pay the taxes, no matter how much they earn. And if it isn't collected one way, it's collected another.

So don't worry about.

I do not believe that the bottom 50% of tax payers only enjoy 3% of the benefit of living in the US. Seems to me they still have 2.3 TV's, 3 squares a day (or more), a roof over their head, access to the best healthcare on the planet, roads, and national security.

I do not believe that the top 1% enjoy 37% of all the benefits of living in the US.

Nor do I believe the top 50% of tax payers enjoy fully 97% of all benefits of living in the US.

This is the insanity of the current wealth re-distribution aspect of our tax code - and the resultant class-warfare BS. Bill Gates enjoys the fruits of his labor and his intellect, so does the guy who aspires only to be janitor at Microsoft.

I prefer the Fair tax concept, based on consumption with exemptions for people only covering basic living expenses (food, clothing, shelter).

That said, I just wanted to point to a little fact about who actually pays the taxes.

John

Let me start by saying that I agree with you. I know. Hard to believe. Tom's obviously putting something in the water here. :D

But just the part about the broken tax laws.

There aren't many families making less than 30K a year who have much of anything in this day and age. It's a very very tight prospect, and dare I say, the grass is probably much greener on your side of the fence, and mine, where maybe you are just a little unrealistic about their lives? At that income point, a roof over your head is in a neighborhood I bet you wouldn't even drive through. Even really fast. Access to the best healthcare on the planet depends on if their employer can afford to NOT give them a deductible of $1000 or more per year. That income level is borderline poverty now. At least in my opinion.

I buy groceries once a week just for me and my husband and what used to cost me $60 a week routinely costs me $140 a week now. That's at the regular grocery store, not even Whole Paycheck where I can drop that much for healthy organic food (which shouldn't be something that is only available based on income, in my opinion) and walk out with two measly paper bags.

Your analysis is leaving out a whole lot of pertinent stuff. They aren't living high on the hog for that 3%. Just be happy you aren't one of them.

Taxes were never based on use. So the argument is relatively moot. If that were the case, MY personal tax bill in NC would be really tiny because I have no kids so I have no need for these 5 star school systems that I pay out the nose for.

Jennifer

What they are referring to are some of the recent tax laws, that were due to sunset in 2010, which have been made permanent.

I do not believe the tax cuts of 2001 have been made permanent. My understanding is that they are still set to sunset in 2010. I wish they were permanent and would be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong.

Taxes were never based on use. So the argument is relatively moot. If that were the case, MY personal tax bill in NC would be really tiny because I have no kids so I have no need for these 5 star school systems that I pay out the nose for.

Jennifer

Very good point Jennifer! I, like you, pay taxes for a relatively good public school system where I live. Then, on top of that, I pay private school tuition for what I perceive as an even better education for my child.

I personally have no problems paying taxes, but I believe government needs to be more efficient with the money I give them.

This is the insanity of the current wealth re-distribution aspect of our tax code - and the resultant class-warfare BS. Bill Gates enjoys the fruits of his labor and his intellect, so does the guy who aspires only to be janitor at Microsoft.

I prefer the Fair tax concept, based on consumption with exemptions for people only covering basic living expenses (food, clothing, shelter).


John

Where are you running, because I want to vote for you! You nailed it! :thumb:

Here's a thought....

Which would you rather have?

...the money after taxes from a $290,000 yearly income, or the money after taxes from a $29,000 yearly income.

I don't like paying taxes, but I don't think it's very enlightened or spiritual or christian or compassionate to begrudge the feeble tax contribution of the working poor! Greed is a wicked force.... don't let it turn you hearts to stone.

Just a little food for thought folks! :tiphat:

Here's a thought....

Which would you rather have?

...the money after taxes from a $290,000 yearly income, or the money after taxes from a $29,000 yearly income.

I don't like paying taxes, but I don't think it's very enlightened or spiritual or christian or compassionate to begrudge the feeble tax contribution of the working poor! Greed is a wicked force.... don't let it turn you hearts to stone.

Just a little food for thought folks! :tiphat:

Coach, you have answered a question that nobody has asked because it is not about which would you rather have. It is about what is just.

Even so, I think that your point may be irrevelent for those who beleive that the government takes more than their "fair share." Am I to be automatically considered greedy because I think the government is taking too much of my income?

My compassionate nature does not allow me to turn a blind eye to a govnerment that continues to take more and more from hard working people to the point where most families have to have both parents working to pay the bills. What is even more disturbing is the entitlement class that has been created due to the governments institutionalized distribution of wealth via taxation of the "rich". Giving something to someone who has not earned it is detremental to the recipient, not the giver.

Furthermore, what is to be said of the greed of those who vote for the taxation of the "wealthy" because of class envy or greed? What is to be said of the greed of a government that desires more and more taxation? I will not stop discussing the governments growing appetite of taxes for fear of being labled as greedy.
Junto

The tail is chasing the dog here..........


If spending were to be reduced, then many taxes could be reduced. (The old fiscal conservative in me rears his head...) It all goes back to the out of control, reckless spending that the Republicans have been guilty of. (Now, THAT should get KG and junto vibrating...:D ). I have said it before- the only decent Repub Prez was Bush 1 in the last 40 years. If you just freeze spending- thats all, just quit increasing it- like we did in the 90's we would catch up. But you don't stay in power (see Bush1, again) if you actually do the fiscally responsible thing. You get elected by promising New Drug Programs (gee, that sounded like a Hillary idea!), or setting up ANOTHER silly cabinet post (Homeland security, anyone?), or doing anything but the right thing, apparently.


Gotta say, though, I am surprised no one questioned KG on these numbers. They sound like a Rush show- not a GAO study. Plus there is a difference between capital gains versus income tax, estate tax- the list goes on for about a mile, and I don't think - haven't researched it in a while- that Income tax is the biggest supplier of our governments income. If I get a chance this weekend, I'll do some looking; but since most of the wealthy do not have a huge proportional income (meaning- billionaires don't get a paycheck of 20 mil a week), it does not seem possible that the INCOME tax they pay is that much bigger. Corporations pay taxes- I have some doubts about the numbers. And a surveyor lives and dies by numbers....;)

I also am a proponant of the Flat tax- but that is to get rid of the IRS and all the silly rules and regulations that we run up against. In the 70's, any interest was deductible- now its just the house. Unless you set up a business (sigh) and take advantage of the loopholes (I'm still lookin' for 'em, myself), and then you can pay 0 taxes JUST LIKE BUSINESS PEOPLE DO!!! (ahem). We won't mention all the extra taxes I pay as a business owner- might scare the people that fall for that stuff.....:biglaugh:

A lot of people making 29,000 a year made those choices for themselves that gave them that income. Why is it that people demand the rich pay for everything while they skate by on selfish life choices? I think we should equally demand that people in that situation do something about it and stop being a burden on society. There are many people with legitimate needs that society should care for. Taking care of irresponsible people should not cut into that. At some point, they need to take responsibility for their lives and their income.

And yes Bush certainly tops the list in irresponsible behavior with record-breaking, unconscionable government spending. And they expect the "rich", meaning the middle-class, to pay for it all.

Numbers are from the House Base, check the link.

Agree that the current Congress has spent like a drunken sailor, some of it makes sense (defense for example), but non-Military discretionary spending has been out of control - imagine what it might have been with the other party in control - given historical trends. No bad vibrations, truth is truth - and it has been a disappointment.

The stats are purely income tax, it ignores death tax (estate tax), and the biz taxes and such - which also hit the wealthy at a disproportionate rate.

Coach, I am not suggesting the bottom 50% should be begrudged, my point was only to counter the typical class warfare we normally get as part of the election cycle, and evidenced by others even on this thread, that mistakenly suggest the middle class bears the brunt of our income tax burden, it is not true.

I only wanted to show who actually pays the bills and to highlight the ridiculousness of suggesting only the wealthy benefit.

But let's be honest here. Taxes are paid by people getting a paycheck. The rich don't get a paycheck if they have any brains. It's mainly the middle class that get hit with it. Do you really think Congress pays much taxes? Most if not all of them are the rich! They don't even have to pay for their health insurance. They will pay taxes on whatever pathetic salary they get, the bribes are tax-free and the rest which is most of what they get in a year is run through various entities or their "campaign account". You seem to think the top taxpayers are the rich. I doubt it. No one knows how much the rich really make except them. They have the means to obscure their situation that the person with a paystub does not. And with every attempt to tax the "rich", every level of the middle class seems to get hit with more taxes and less deductions which no one will admit. And they all seem to want to buy votes from the lowest denominator by continually reducing their tax burden every year. And they all do it, Bush included. My tax situation hasn't gotten any better under his reign of terror being "The Decider". And now I have an enormous national debt that I am expected to pay later for his drunken spending.

Guys the stats are real simple, and we are only talking about the income tax which includes payroll income (e.g., jobs), investment income (e.g., Capital Gains), the Alternate\Minimum Tax, and all other income taxes - it does not address the estate tax (which only STARTS at estates valued at $1.5M, clearly not affecting the poor, and only beginning to effect the middle class - obviously a double taxation on the wealthy), it does not address self-employment or other business taxes typically not paid by the poor.

The top 1% is anyone with an adjusted gross income on form 1040, 1040A or 1040EZ of $290,000 or more. This makes up 1% of all returns but pays 35% of the total income tax paid - really simple math - and rather unfair in my estimation. They also have the highest effective tax rate at 24%.

If you use poverty level as the floor, and $100K per year as the ceiling for defining middle class, then the 'middle class' filed 40% of all returns and paid approximately 31% of the bill. Effective tax rates in this group range from 13% to 18%.

Clearly then, the top 1% of income earners in the US, pay more than the ENTIRE middle class (35% vs 31%).

John - WE know that!

All thinking, enquiring people know that.

All people truly interested in the facts know that.

The people who do not know that are the ones who are forever crying 'Make the rich pay their fair share' - not realizing that if the rich DID pay their fair share, the tax burden on everyone else would double!

And those people aren't listening to you, John.

Sorry to so advise, but just thought you'd like to know before you injure yourself -- :banghead:

If you use poverty level as the floor, and $100K per year as the ceiling for defining middle class, then the 'middle class' filed 40% of all returns and paid approximately 31% of the bill. Effective tax rates in this group range from 13% to 18%.

Clearly then, the top 1% of income earners in the US, pay more than the ENTIRE middle class (35% vs 31%).

Damn lies and statistics. I would hardly consider 100k as the floor of the rich! That's completely ridiculous! And what is your point?

Damn lies and statistics. I would hardly consider 100k as the floor of the rich! That's completely ridiculous! And what is your point?What income level, to you, defines the middle class?

I was trying to be generous with my definition of 'middle' class. Wiki suggests 2 fiscal definitions of 'middle' class, the median income ($35-53K) or a median lifestyle ($25-$100K). I picked the latter which includes between the 50% and 90% of wage earners. Nearly all discussion of the 'middle' class in America consider it to 'end' at around $100K in household income - perhaps you would like to correct this widespread misnomer?

$100K per year in 'taxable' or AGI income is the top 10%, hardly sounds 'middle' to me.

To further bake your noodle, although the top 1% pays 35-37% of the total income tax burden, they only earn 17% of the income in the US, whereas the 'middle' class as I defined it earns 38% of all income in the US and pays 31% of the income tax burden. The bottom 50% of tax payers in the US earn 14% of the income in the US and pay only 3% of the total tax burden.

Simply put, the progressive income tax structure we have currently is patently unfair. As Spider pointed out, if the 'rich' paid their fair share, the middle class would see its' tax burden double, and the bottom 50% would see their tax burden more than triple.

And Base is spot on, that a more responsible government could lower the overall tax burden by returning a more fiscally responsible approach and ending the countless approaches to buy influence with pork projects and endless government programs.

My point Penelope is that looking at the actual numbers proves that anyone who says the middle class pays the bulk of the income tax in the US, or that the rich don't pay their 'fair' share, is either saying that based on their misplaced 'feelings' about the rich, or out of ignorance - it is not factually supportable. While I can't help anyone with their bitternes or envy, I can at least provide a factual basis for discussion with folks who are interested in an intellectually honest examination of the issue.

I don't think we are disagreeing. But I do think the income ranges are about 20 years too old. In most major cities, a 40,000-50,000 salary range is basically scrimping by and if you have a family you are poor. That is the reality. 100k is not going to make you rich it just makes life livable. I think over 250-300k is where you start getting enough leverage to be called "rich", even then you are poser.

I don't think we are disagreeing. But I do think the income ranges are about 20 years too old. In most major cities, a 40,000-50,000 salary range is basically scrimping by and if you have a family you are poor. That is the reality. 100k is not going to make you rich it just makes life livable. I think over 250-300k is where you start getting enough leverage to be called "rich", even then you are poser.

I think your opinion that the $40,000-50,000 salary range is "scrimping by" may be a bit offensive to many members of this forum. I live in Orange County, California and I can tell you that the salary range is not what I would call "scrimping by" and if 100k to you makes life "livable" I would hate to hear what you think about my salary.
Also, what is poor? I don't think anyone in America knows what poverty really is. I would venture to guess that those you would categorize as poor probably have a larger TV than you.
Many have this view that the rich earn a salary similar to that of a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. For the most part, this is not true. They drive used cars, live in modest homes and rehupulster their furniture a few times before buying new. Reading "The Millionaire Next Door" gives a realistic picture of Americas true millionaires and is quite insightfull as well.
Junto

The tail is chasing the dog here..........


If spending were to be reduced, then many taxes could be reduced. (The old fiscal conservative in me rears his head...) It all goes back to the out of control, reckless spending that the Republicans have been guilty of. (Now, THAT should get KG and junto vibrating...:D ). I have said it before- the only decent Repub Prez was Bush 1 in the last 40 years. If you just freeze spending- thats all, just quit increasing it- like we did in the 90's we would catch up. But you don't stay in power (see Bush1, again) if you actually do the fiscally responsible thing. You get elected by promising New Drug Programs (gee, that sounded like a Hillary idea!), or setting up ANOTHER silly cabinet post (Homeland security, anyone?), or doing anything but the right thing, apparently.


Gotta say, though, I am surprised no one questioned KG on these numbers. They sound like a Rush show- not a GAO study. Plus there is a difference between capital gains versus income tax, estate tax- the list goes on for about a mile, and I don't think - haven't researched it in a while- that Income tax is the biggest supplier of our governments income. If I get a chance this weekend, I'll do some looking; but since most of the wealthy do not have a huge proportional income (meaning- billionaires don't get a paycheck of 20 mil a week), it does not seem possible that the INCOME tax they pay is that much bigger. Corporations pay taxes- I have some doubts about the numbers. And a surveyor lives and dies by numbers....;)

I also am a proponant of the Flat tax- but that is to get rid of the IRS and all the silly rules and regulations that we run up against. In the 70's, any interest was deductible- now its just the house. Unless you set up a business (sigh) and take advantage of the loopholes (I'm still lookin' for 'em, myself), and then you can pay 0 taxes JUST LIKE BUSINESS PEOPLE DO!!! (ahem). We won't mention all the extra taxes I pay as a business owner- might scare the people that fall for that stuff.....:biglaugh:

I would have to agree with you Baseline. What about Reagan though? Don't forget, he was surrounded by Democrats his whole term.
Junto

I don't think we are disagreeing. But I do think the income ranges are about 20 years too old. In most major cities, a 40,000-50,000 salary range is basically scrimping by and if you have a family you are poor. That is the reality. 100k is not going to make you rich it just makes life livable. I think over 250-300k is where you start getting enough leverage to be called "rich", even then you are poser.

I hate to agree with her, but I make Ploppy right here.

£50,000 isnt going to make you righ over here either.

We - me and Mrs Chuck - just about come into your upper bracket, but we certainly are not rich.

Well, I'm not a Ronnie fan for policy- but I rank him and FDR as the 2 most influential of the last century. They completely changed the public discourse into accepting them as the mainstream- props to them for that. But Stockman (and Bush1) were right about the vodoo economics- and Reagan, after the first 2 years, didn't really do much with domestic, fiscal policy. He did get the sweeping tax cuts in his first term- but the deficit spiraled up, and the budget got worse until the tax hike/spending freeze that Bush1 hammered out with the Dems. Then Clinton took credit for that- but thats politics for ya.....

I'm in a minority on the foreign policy legacy, as well, because I think it was the containment policy, not our increased military spending, that put pressure on the old USSR; and after Iceland, Gorby had some faith that the US wasn't going to attack if they showed some "weakness", and tried a little capitalism. The tidal wave of that broke apart the USSR- not us having more bombs. But that is my opinion....

I think your opinion that the $40,000-50,000 salary range is "scrimping by" may be a bit offensive to many members of this forum. I live in Orange County, California and I can tell you that the salary range is not what I would call "scrimping by" and if 100k to you makes life "livable" I would hate to hear what you think about my salary.
Also, what is poor? I don't think anyone in America knows what poverty really is. I would venture to guess that those you would categorize as poor probably have a larger TV than you.
Many have this view that the rich earn a salary similar to that of a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. For the most part, this is not true. They drive used cars, live in modest homes and rehupulster their furniture a few times before buying new. Reading "The Millionaire Next Door" gives a realistic picture of Americas true millionaires and is quite insightfull as well.
Junto

How you can find that offensive is beyond me. I am arguing for improving the lives of those people. But seeing your posts, you take offense at many things. And I thought this was a success forum where people are trying to improve their situation, not a "low standards" forum where people are proud of non-achievement.

How you can find that offensive is beyond me. I am arguing for improving the lives of those people. But seeing your posts, you take offense at many things. And I thought this was a success forum where people are trying to improve their situation, not a "low standards" forum where people are proud of non-achievement.

Penelope, I think you took everything I had to say the wrong way. I would think from reading my posts you would find that I give no excuses to those whom live in either poverty of the mind or finances. I have never made excuses for anyone's "low standards" and I don't ever intend to. You have missunderstood my post. If you really wish to know what I was trying to get accross please read it again.
Also, I was not offended by your post and I typically give no regard to those whom are offended. My point was that there are probably many members at this forum whom you categorize as earning a "scrimp" wage and they may or may not be taken back by your statement.
Junto

I agree with KG that the more money a person makes (whether they are called rich or not) the more money they will pay in taxes.

The idea behind a graduated tax structure (as unfair as that may seem in terms of actual $$ paid to the irs) is to spread the tax burden across the population by creating income brackets where the tax liability is determined based on what an individual can afford.

I'm a little disappointed with some of the posts I've read so far, as they seem to belittle people who don't earn much, for example refferring to them as being lazy or underachievers. So, I will continue, using my own experience to make my point.

I've been married for over 21 years. For the first 12 years of marriage I lived below the poverty level (7 of those years was as an enlisted man in the Army). The 8th year was spent working any odd job I could find to support us (roofing, construction laborer, etc...). The 9th year I spent working in Germany as an Iron Worker (actually that year would have to be considered just above the poverty level).

The 10th, 11th and 12th years were spent trying to make a go of business as a Subway franchisee, which wasn't working too well so I worked in the store and took a second job to bring in more money. My wife worked in the store as well. We traded in our new cars for old cars and we moved from the golf course to the backwoods (from a 2400 sq. ft tri-level to a 900 sq. ft. shack).

During these years we could barely afford to live, let alone afford to pay taxes, but we paid SS and Medicare taxes on earnings, plus sales tax (which is a poor man's tax) for the non-food items we bought. There's not a day that goes by that I am not grateful for earned income credit and other credits designed to help low income citizens survive.

To make a long story short, today I have succeeded in business, owning not just one, but 5 Subway franchises. I make a nice six figure income and live in a 2500 sq. ft two story home (built in 2001) with attached 2 car garage and an unattached 1 1/2 car garage with a 720 sq. ft Family Rec room attached, all sitting on 17 acres of Michigan forest.

I don't mention this to brag, but in order to make my point. I have never been a slacker, lazy or an underachiever. I was always willing to do whatever it took to get the job done - always willing to stand up for doing the right thing. So be careful when you get caught up labelling poor people and lumping them into nice little catergories of the lazy, indifferent or undeserving class of losers. I would hope the folks in this forum are capable of having a more enlightened view.

Our tax system is not perfect. It has many flaws. The rich pay more than their "fair" share in taxes, even though they pay less than they can afford. I don't think we can cut taxes on any bracket while the country operates at a loss. Politicians (from both major parties) must stop wasting money. That's my view.

In the end, I would still prefer to have the current after tax income from a $290k per year salary than that of a $29k per year salary.

Just a little FFT from the FWIWD.
gm

As usual, well said Coach! :thumb: