Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income.
The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden.
Obama will keep repeating this "fair share" language as part of his call to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. He also wants to close additional loopholes and limit deductions to increase their tax burden further.
But bear this in mind: On top of whatever new taxes go into effect for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year, there will be additional new taxes due to Obama's national health care law.
0.9 percent Medicare tax hike
As well as a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income.
The US has had a progressive income tax for many decades.
The reason the top 5% pay 40% of income taxes is because the top 5% earn 20% of all the income. With a progressive income tax, that means they'll pay more of the income tax.
If thr top 5% earned 10% of all income they'd pay less of the income tax. If lower income Americans earned more they'd pay more of the income tax. This is not difficult.
In terms of what is fair share. I think that depends on the terms of the debate. For me, if incomes for all Americans would have kept growing at roughly the same pace, then the argument that burdening those who make more is unfair.
Those at the top have taken basically all the income gains for over 30years, while the rest have only gained a little. In terms of income taxes, you go where the income is located.
Obama will keep repeating this "fair share" language as part of his call to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. He also wants to close additional loopholes and limit deductions to increase their tax burden further.
But bear this in mind: On top of whatever new taxes go into effect for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year, there will be additional new taxes due to Obama's national health care law.
0.9 percent Medicare tax hike
As well as a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income.
The term "fair" is employed by Obama as part of his class warfare strategy. Make those on the lower rungs feel deprived, and they'll scream for more "fairness". They're not looking for what's fair to the high wage earners (meaning "financially successful"), they want what they perceive as fair to themselves, and greed comes into play.
Obama seems to be very good at capitalizing on peoples' emotions and using them to garner support.
He was divisive first term, he's still looking very divisive now. A leopard and his spots are not easily parted.
The US has had a progressive income tax for many decades.
The reason the top 5% pay 40% of income taxes is because the top 5% earn 20% of all the income. With a progressive income tax, that means they'll pay more of the income tax.
If thr top 5% earned 10% of all income they'd pay less of the income tax. If lower income Americans earned more they'd pay more of the income tax. This is not difficult.
In terms of what is fair share. I think that depends on the terms of the debate. For me, if incomes for all Americans would have kept growing at roughly the same pace, then the argument that burdening those who make more is unfair.
Those at the top have taken basically all the income gains for over 30years, while the rest have only gained a little. In terms of income taxes, you go where the income is located.
The term "fair" is employed by Obama as part of his class warfare strategy. Make those on the lower rungs feel deprived, and they'll scream for more "fairness". They're not looking for what's fair to the high wage earners (meaning "financially successful"), they want what they perceive as fair to themselves, and greed comes into play.
Obama seems to be very good at capitalizing on peoples' emotions and using them to garner support.
He was divisive first term, he's still looking very divisive now. A leopard and his spots are not easily parted.
Actually it was 'empoyed' even more heavily by Ronald Reagan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
