“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.
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.
#34, What would be the difference between the way they pay their bills now and the way they would pay it later?
They still spend more than they take in. Besides, their bills are for programs blatantly unconstitutional.
And the renter/landlord is a bad example. Renters sign a contract. If they don’t like the contract they look somewhere else, pay the bill, or get evicted. We never signed a contract. It just is.
We should be paying the rich MORE, and have their taxes reduced to ZERO. After all, they earned their money, and they deserve it.
14,
You made the statement…NOW do that math.
AND after you have done the math, look at the disparity of wages.
You cant compare 250 million with 50 thousand.
It makes the point that you can take MORE money from the rich and it WONT HURT as much as taking it from the POOR.
ALSO you can use the TOTAL number of people in the USA. USE the TOTAL working persons, which is DOWN 20%.
#43 agreed
#14
Fck the 50k, use that family right there that is homeless and make the comparison. I’ll even let you do the math by just having you take $1 from the homeless family. See, ain’t so bad after all right?
Gotta luv the nuts on those Rebloodlikans and the pea brains on us idiots that vote for them.
Tea Party tax cuts!
This explains it
http://tinyurl.com/yaukerv
# 5 gear:
The health insurance industry has been spending about ten million U.S. dollars a week since October — that buys a lot of “tea parties,” Republican talking points and other P.R.
PS..
#14,
According to the BLS, that 60% of the USA makes LESS THEN $12 an hour.
NOW, think of the disparity of THOSE 20% top wage earners, over the wages of those 60%..
Making 7-8 digit income over a 5 digit income, PER YEAR.
Forget trickle down, trickle up, or whatever. Something is seriously wrong with a society that takes $57,000,000 out of one citizen’s pocket and $0 from %50 of others.
The IRS could also reduce 90% of work and administrative costs if they stopped playing games with the middle class. None of our money gets used for government, it is just shuffled around between us depending on what happened last year.
“let’s see…You paid off your student loan, but got divorced and lost custody to the kids(dependents), so we’ll take a bunch of your money and give it to you’re neighbors household because they deserve an “earned income credit” and bought a “cash-for-clunkers” hybrid for their longer commute to work….etc.”
It’s a zero sum effort, just the government deciding how much to take from one to give to another.
Obama in debates said he would like higher taxes even if it means less money for the government, as a matter of fairness. He is getting his wish.
ALSO, an average in Science does an interesting trick.
remove from the TOP and bottom, an equal amount.
AND your average SHOULD be close to the same.
You cant DO THAT in the USA, with wages for some reason..
“# 26 Rabble Rouser said, …
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.”
Do you remember that line in the movie Titanic where the guy said that it was a “mathematical certainty” that the ship would sink?
That’s where we are now. The ship has not yet sunk but it is a mathematical certainty that it will.
I knew a guy that thought he had to declare bankruptcy. His lawyer says: “First thing you do is you go out and max out your credit cards”. And why not? you won’t have to pay it.
That’s what Obama is doing now. He knows that the debt he is piling on will pretty much kill any chance that the economy will recover to the point that it will generate enough tax revenue to ever pay it off. The collapse will come when they can’t borrow enough to pay the current interest due. But it doesn’t matter. The bankruptcy of the US Government is already a mathematical certainty. No point in denying his wall-street buddies some partying money so they can eat, drink and be merry.
When the Social Security and welfare checks stop coming, it’s going to look like the fricking dawn of the dead in the inner cities.
Then you’ll see your revolution.
Is it time to now be an unpaid advocate for the wealthy? Any republican volunteers?
Ok,
Jman..
Let me get on the INSIDE of this and make a couple points that FOULS your statement.
20% top wage earners.
20% unemployed
60% of the USA earns less then $12 per hour.
AS numbers of persons working changes these numbers can be strange.
If you think that the tax from 20% of the people is MORE then the 60% from the bottom..
Lets look at BUYING POWER of the 60%.
After 60% of the people BUY goods/materials and PAY BILLS, and all the associated taxes with those services.. 60% of the people need to drive a car to work, and spend 1-3 gallons per day in FUEL tax. 60% of the people use more electrical power then 20% and end up paying MORE to tax. 60% of the people live in MORE HOMES then the 20%, which incurs MORE tax. 60% of the workers DRINK and smoke MORE then those 20%, and THAT IS TAXED to hell and back..
So your statement is Faulted. and STUPID.
Blame yourself, the voter.
For some reason, Americans DREAM. They DREAM of being wealthy (they won’t), they dream of being powerful and influential, so they vote against their own interests as blue collar wage earners and help ensure rich people get tax breaks.
Because ya know someday, all Americans will be hideously wealthy so we gotta change those tax codes to suit.
Then of course the voter continues to elect rich businessmen, thinking that they somehow would have the average voter’s interests in mind when they legislate.
And we elect a president who cares more about government subsidizing private business interests, than a president would would be concerned about the public welfare.
So blame yourself, its all your fault until you and your fellow working man change their voting habits.
And finally, why NOT tax the rich?
The rich start the wars.
The rich get the tax breaks
The rich own the government
The rich manipulate the public via the media
The rich own all the land, all the infrastructure
The rich determine our futures
So why not charge them for the privilege of being elite?