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.
For those who keep claiming that high income earners are not paying their fair share
Data for calendar year 2003 released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
And the top 5% have 85% of the wealth. Shuffle things around some, the top 60% could be paying 85% of the taxes. Ohhh that funny math!
The top 10% have around 75% of the wealth. That is funny math and apparently completely pulled out of the sky. If you use the world as the basis 10% do own 85% of the worlds wealth. That means somewhere else things are worse than here. The middle east comes to mind.
By payroll taxes, do you mean Social Security? That would be the only payroll tax they would pay.
Well, there is Medicare. Treatment of federal unemployment insurance (typically paid by employers on a per employee basis) might vary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UpperPeninsulaRon
And by excise taxes, do you refer to things like cigarette and alcohol taxes?
Yes...tobacco and alcohol and gasoline and gasohol and kerosene and diesel and aviation and marine fuels and coal and trucks and tires and firearms and ammunition and archery and fishing supplies and local and long distance telephone service and gambling, among other things.
Whose work do you think creates the wealth? An empty factory creates nothing but dust.
Quite true, but a bunch of workers don't accomplish much standing around in the middle of an empty field either. It kind of takes two to tango. The real mistake that these various right-wing whackos make is in their unshakable belief that there exists some constant exchange rate between "work" and "reward". Under such assumptions, the wealthy by definition must have worked very, very hard for their money and the poor must have put forth not nearly so much effort since they have so much less to show for it. This sort of reasoning is patently stupid of course, but that doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people on the right. They just go right on believing that work and reward go hand in hand according to some very simplistic transitive formula...
Last edited by saganista; 03-30-2009 at 10:16 AM..
Why are they not supposed to? Morally? Legally? Just curious.
Mathematically. It's a simple fact that everyone realizes (but that some refuse to recognize) that depending on family size and structure, there are ranges at the low end of the income scale where all or very nearly all of every dollar's worth of income has to go toward simply keeping the basics of a tenable lifestyle going on some reasonably consistent basis. Then there are ranges at the high end of the income scale where all or nearly all of every dollar's worth of income is devoted to non-essential goods and services, the basics of a tenable lifestyle having been long ago assured dozens of times over. The burden imposed by taking extra tax dollars from this latter group is tiny. The burden imposed by taking a similar number of (and in some cases, any) dollars from the former group is large. Sensible tax policy seeks to minimize inequalities in burden consistent with other objectives. Therefore, some low and very low income ranges are exempted from paying income tax altogther.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
What was the intent when we amended the Constitution to allow taxation?
The amendment doesn't state an intention. It merely allows a function. Namely that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived. One might reasonably conclude that the Congress meant to expand the means by which the federal government could raise revenue. Beyond that, you would be on shaky ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
Did the amendment address income and wealth?
Income yes, wealth no, but more to the point, it neither endorsed nor precluded any form of Congressional approach to the matter of taxing incomes from whatever source derived. It left that determination to be made within the legislature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
I have no issue with a progressive system; I do have issue when half pay nothing. Zero. I do have an issue when 40% actually get something back (negative effective rate).
Then you should have opposed welfare reform and the establishment of refundable childcare tax credits. While there are others, these two are among the most significant factors in bringing about negative income tax bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D
Everybody needs to pay something - even the poorest can afford $100. Get some skin in the game!!
Skin in the game??? Is society now the equivalent of six guys with a beer sitting around a table playing Texas Hold Em??? Unless you are about doing away with welfare and other income support entirely, we are in the process of sending these people money. Would you somehow feel better if instead of sending them a check for $4,350 each year, we sent them a check for $4,450 and required that they turn right around and send us $100 back again??? Would you simply look past the obviously wasted time, effort, and money involved in such a thing???
Top Wealthholders by State of Residence
2004:
Funny Alaska has 1. Hi Ted. Only 7 in D.C. Could be me but most of it seems centered in democratic leaning states.
They also get 98% of al the money so it would stand to reason.
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.
A Case Study for Thought
Could be me but most of it seems centered in democratic leaning states.
