Who Pays and How Much? When Is it Enough for the Left?

How Much More do Liberals Want? When Is It Enough?

Source: Congression Budget Office "Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 - 2005, Summary Table 1, Effective Tax Rates 2004 and 2005"

Liberals...please see it for yourself here: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

Why liberals can't defend their class warfare argument...

- - Top 1% of income earners in the U.S. paid 39% of all federal income taxes while earning 18% of pretax income.

- - Top 5% of income earners in the U.S. paid 61% of all federal income taxes while earning 31% of pretax income

- - Top 40% of income earners in the U.S. paid 99.4% of all federal taxes

- - The bottom 40% of income earners paid NO federal income taxes and received 3.8% from the tax system.

- - BTW, the middle 20% of income earners paid only 4.4% of all federal income taxes

Even a recent study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that when measuring household taxes (income taxes and Social Security contributions), the United States "has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10% of the population," placing a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrial nations.

So...How much MORE should producers/achievers/employers or anybody that succeeds in this country PAY??

When is it enough?

Why is it that liberals believe you can tax and spend yourself into prosperity?

 

Are you asking a rhetorical question? How much do YOU think they should pay? I stated a while back that I pay an average of 16% in income because of my deductions and an excellent accountant. But even if I had to pay much more than that I'd still be doing well. Liberals arent the only representatives who tax. I mean they are needed. Here in Nevada the government is facing a nearly billion dollar deficeit. And drastic cuts are demanded by the governor. Yet most of the populace wouldnt mind increases in property tax in leiu of layoffs and cuts that would affect the less fortunate elderly. I'm not saying there isnt any waste of money in the state, but that comes from both sides of the aisle.

 

Did you also know that in 1980 that the Top 1% earned 8.46% of the total in this country. In your 2004-2005 post, it was up to 18%. And in 2007, it was up to 22.8%

Similar increases for the Top 5% - from 21% in 1980 to 31% in your 2004-2005 figures and 37% in 2007. How about the Top 10%? 32% of all income in 1980 to 48% in 2007.

The bottom 50% decreased from 17.6% in 1980 to 12.2% in 2007.


See Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2007 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group) table about halfway down.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

Conversely; How much is enough?

 

One thing is for sure...today's tax rates are more than enough...matter of fact, it is too much! A flat tax is more than fair because if you earn 10 times more, you pay 10 times more too..

I willl ask you again, how much MORE do you want in addition to our already punsihing tax rate.

You represent the people that want to punish tax payers EVEN more...so enlighten us please.

Watch this...

 

The facts simply don't support your fantasy. Even the second wealthiest man in this country disputes your silly ideas. Warren Buffet says that he pays less of a percent than his secretary yet you find that he is paying a crushing amount of tax. In the last decade, there have been three massive tax cuts that have benefited the wealthiest Americans above and beyond everyone else. Two by Bush and one by Obama. The wealthy continue to leave the middle class in the dust and ranks of the poorest Americans swell. That hardly paints a picture of a crushing tax burden on the wealthy so your silly question amounts to "How often do you beat your wife?"

The better question is how much wealth is so extreme that it adversely affects the rest of the country to the point that our economy suffers? Even the founding fathers were wary of wealth concentrating in the hands of the few at the top and recognized the potential for a country not "for the people" but for the wealthy elite. Your theory that the tax rates are crushing in this country is just ridiculous.

Before the 1st Great Depression, Repubs slashed the top marginal Tax rate, leading to a bubble and a bust. From the 30s through the 70s, top marginal tax rates were around 90%, America saw its strongest middle class ever (hello, Detriot!) and there were no economic meltdowns or burst bubbles. Then, Reagan slashed the top marginal tax rates to around 20%, followed by Bush I cutting that rate even further to 15% and all that followed were burst bubbles, meltdowns and hardship for the middle class.

 

I think history has shown pretty well that the rich can get richer and the porr can get poorer for only so long in any country before things go downhill. And I don't think any of us on this forum will be able to get by on the excuse that we have a middle-class stte of mind.

 

Only Moen would equate a question of "How much MORE should the producers of this country pay in new taxes?" with "How often you beat your wife?".

BTW...did he say that B.O. cut taxes? Oh please!

Was that from his "list" that he posted?

FACT: Cut in marginal tax rates saw INCREASES into the U.S. Treasury. Proof is with Kennedy, Reagan and Bush I. However, that doesn't mean that socialists in Congress should spend all of this new found revenue plus some.

Fess up...tell us how you can tax and spend yourself into prosperity.

BTW...the numbers above are from the C.B.O. Why don't you try reinforcing your argument with some facts. Prove to us the raising taxes is a good thing.

I guess it doesn't bother you as long as your university can get MORE federal grants to fund your salary as you hide in your office of "higher" education.

 

Please explain this as it makes no sence??

Only Moen would equate a question of "How much MORE should the producers of this country pay in new taxes?" with "How often you beat your wife?".

As far as I could see he never mentioned wife beating

 

Okay, moen, now I know you know the difference here so let's tell the whole story, shall we?
Buffet's tax rate was based on his accumulated wealth (17%). The secretary's tax rate was based on her income (23%). Buffet is one of the few powerful folks in the country that would point this out.
This all goes back to a point I made a while back- the elite left will usually advocate a tax increase on income because it doesn't effect their constituents so directly- they don't have incomes, they have wealth (what was the last figure...something like 74% of the wealth in this country is held by people who identify themselves as liberal?).
One can attack the right for being in the pocket of big business but at least big business invests in our country & shared prosperity benefits us all even if it is a side effect in some cases. The elite lefties, on the other hand, sit on their money benefiting only themselves and perhaps those hallowed universities they endow to fund the furthering of their left wing agenda.

 

Not sure about in the US but here if you have money in the bank it can be counted as un-earned income, now you having worked in a bank David should have a better idea than me if it counts the same in the US?
Therfore if for the sake of this discussion one had say 10 mill in the bank the interest would be taxable as unearned income.

 

Interest is taxable here too but only after a certain amount.

 

Ah same as us then

 

Ahhh....see post #6

 

We tax it when you earn it, tax it when you spend it and tax it when you save it. We even tax it if you give it to somebody.

 

Thanks I see it now (Response to Midas)
Same as us (Response to Stu)