“Ha! I pay less taxes than a billionaire!”
Ah, the joys of being able to bribe… er, um… send campaign contributions to those who write the tax laws.
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, newly disclosed tax data show.
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.
The figures came at the peak of the last economic cycle and show that widely published reports in major newspapers asserting that the richest Americans are losing relative ground and “becoming poorer” are not supported by the official income data.
The long-term data show that under current tax and economic rules, the incomes of the top earners rise when the economy expands and contract during recessions, only to rise again. Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007.
I don’t know why you’re all discussing small businesses. I doubt that any small business owners are making 100s of millions of dollars annually.
#14
I dont know why you suggest that they drop the class warfare BS. If you understood that the banking system creates money from debt you would know that the more money the upper class hoards the more debt the lower and middle class is in.
This headline is misleading. The amount paid is still higher, regardless of the effective tax rate. The top 5% of wage earners pay over half of the taxes. 96.54% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. Taxes are high because we all want government handouts, and government doesn’t produce wealth. We do.
http://wurl.us/w5AM
How about the math :
for 2007, 344.8 million x16.6 percent=57.2 million
for 2006, 263.3 million x17.17 percent=45.2 million,
So the 55.2 million in taxes paid in 2007 is less than the 45.2 million in taxes paid in 2006 ?
Just stop playing the “rate card”, it is the “bottom line card” that pays the bills— 57 million will pay more bills than 45 million
#23 You proved my point about tax revenue at least.
Which is why tax rates should be flat and fixed at every census. FIx the tax rate at 15% for everyone add a small percentage VAT 2% on all sales fixed for 10 years and walk away. It should take a 3/4 majority to change it after that.
Low and unchanging rates spur investment and growth. There’s no “trickle down” because every couple of years the tax code changes and if you made a long term investment you get screwed. Every other day Obama talks about a new tax strategy. “Spread the wealth”.. “target the tax”… “make it fair”… “$200,000 $250,000 over $400,000″. Nobody is going to hire anyone in a situation like that.
Keep it low, fix it for 10 years and you will generate as much revenue as you need. Taxes are about turning over dollars, relatively small amounts turned over many times are the key to generating revenue (because there is no cost basis to tax, you don’t even need to pay people to collect it, just to enforce a tiny percentage of it).
Of course they will never do that because politicians don’t use the tax code to raise revenue for projects they want to do. They use the tax code to enhance their power, to choose their own “winners” and “losers”, and you can pay them to be a winner.
The only thing that I have seen trickle down, is when I am in the bathroom, and I forget to drain the weasel completely.
It’s no wonder that the rich have more rights. They have bought and paid for it. And now who is it who wants to not stop the tax cuts for the rich? I think if we brought back Eisenhower Era taxes, the middle class would be a whole lot better off. Right now there is a war on. It’s called a class war, and the rich are winning. They own the media, the politicians, and the means of production. There will not be a revolution, because too many people believe the propaganda that they are being fed from the media outlets that are owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the same rich people who own the politicians.
Rich are rich and well deserved because they are not aholes like we are. They don’t spend their time on stupid blogs like DU arguing and fighting over carefully selected topics.
So while we complain they do the real thing and make the bucks and keep them. Go figure. Notice there is no mention of “Right” or “wrong” here.
Do you realize that when you make the argument:
“the top 5% or 10% pay 80% or 90% of the total taxes”
you are simply proving the absolutely insane disparity between the rich and the poor?
>I never understood why middle class Americans seem unwilling to see the rich pay more in taxes.
Well, let’s look at the numbers the editors gave us. 16.62% of 344.8 million is about $57 million in taxes paid. The previous year, they paid 17.17% of 263.3 million, which is about $45 million. So would you rather have the rich pay $45 million in taxes on $263 million or $57 million in taxes on 344 million?
Now let’s get some comparisons to more recent years.
Either do a flat income tax for all or do away with all income tax and just have a fair tax for all consumable goods and services.
Under the fair tax, every person would get a monthly stipend to cover their geographic cost of living for each person’s “basic needs”. This way EVERYONE’s basic needs are covered and “tax free” (including the poor). If you choose to live a more opulent lifestyle then that tax comes out of your pocket.
The problem is this form of taxation gives too much power to the people by allowing them control their spending. In addition, it’s too transparent for government and forces them to be more accountable. As much as I’d love to have a fair tax, it’s will be heavily against by liberals who want as many entitlement programs as possible.
Last I heard if we did away with the Income Tax, a Fair Tax (sales tax on steroids) would be something around 30% for all goods and services consumed.
Guyver,
Given your scenario, I would begin buying crap for people up to my maximum “tax free” limit, and then put it on the Black Market (ie eBay) at a discount versus the full “taxed” price.
I’d make at home everything I needed, and pay zero tax!
I am more concerned about the near 50% who pay NO federal income taxes.
Everyone needs to pay taxes or no one should pay them.
There should be a minimum % tax… one rate across the board.
#30, Agreed, on all points except the If you choose to live a more opulent lifestyle then that tax comes out of your pocket.
Who gets to decide opulent vs. basic needs?
IMO, it’s either all or nothing — if it can be ingested or is healthcare, it is not taxed. Everything else is fair game and scales nicely — a $25 watch is taxed at $7.50. A $5,000 watch is taxed at $1,500.
The problem is this form of taxation gives too much power to the people by allowing them control their spending. In addition, it’s too transparent for government and forces them to be more accountable.
That is the most succinct and astute statement I’ve ever seen written on that subject. I applaud you, sir.
“The problem is this form of taxation gives too much power to the people by allowing them control their spending. In addition, it’s too transparent for government and forces them to be more accountable.”
Yet the Government must pay its bills based on taxes.
It is like having the renters choose how much rent to pay, and then the renters complain there is no heat and the building is falling down – after they’ve decided to provide 10% of the required rent.
#30 Your consumption tax idea would better be termed “Blatantly Unfair Tax.” High taxes on goods would depress economic activity because people who have less money would be able to consume fewer products. Taxing richer people, who are more likely to save money, returns money to the economy that would otherwise sit idle.
Regressive tax schemes don’t help economies to grow, only to skew wealth distribution toward the top end. They also tend to promote social instability.
Tax cuts are sometimes useful in times of hardship, but should be targeted to the less well off. The best example of this is to extend unemployment benefits. That money will get spent and will flow through the system help everybody, not just the initial recipient.
Did anyone care to think that those with the top 5 or 10% of income makers(I won’t call it earnings!), pay 80 to 90% of the taxes because despite being only 5 to 10% of the population, they make 80-90% (more actually, I think)
Did anyone care to think that those with the top 5 or 10% of income makers (I won’t call it earnings!), pay 80 to 90% of the taxes because despite being only 5 to 10% of the population, they make 80-90% (more actually, since their rates as a percentage of total income are lower) of the money and have 80-90% of the wealth????
I have news for everyone: this isn’t going to change. As my economics professor once said “You aren’t going to outsmart a guy worth a billion dollars with a guy that makes 40K/yr. The billionaire will simply hire armies of tax accountants to mitigate their tax liability.” That’s why Mrs. Kerry’s tax rate is somewhere around 12% instead of 60%. The way to increase tax revenue is to encourage people to invest in taxable ventures.
#38
Like I said, we’re dumb and the rich are well deserved
This so typical, I paid taxes out the wazoo and it sickens me.