Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Tim Steelersfan]

Well worth sharing with your Liberal and Occupy friends.

Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics, UCLA

• A top 10% household makes $150,000/year
• A top 5% household makes $190,000/year
• A top 1% household makes $500,000/year
• What is fair? Fair would seem that those who make 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes, those who make 20% would pay 20% of the taxes, and so on
• According to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners, those making $150,000 and above, pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.
• If anything, the top 10% pay more than their fair share
• The top 1% earns 17% of all income, but pay 37% of all federal taxes
• Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes
• The US Tax system is substantially more progressive (meaning tax rates rise as income rises) than other advanced countries like Germany and Sweden
• If you think our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude the tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.
• So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Throw in Federal Tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50% in California and New York
• Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind
• Do you think a tax rate of 50% is fair? If so, what rate wouldn't be?

Remember, at the time of the American Revolution, there was no Income Tax (that didn't come till the next century) and it's rumored that those in the North were taxed about 1% by Great Britain, those in the South, 3%. The idea of being taxed without representation was one of the sparks leading to war.

Today, we have representation, yet some of us are paying 50% of what we earn in taxes...

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Obviously The Poor do not pay their fair share.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

The last Presidential election cycle when Obama dropped the whole "they need their skin in the game" really pisses me off. I've got skin in the game.....the wife and I got $40K of Federal skin in the game and I'm by no means rich. I want the people with their hands out to get some skin in the game even if it means picking up trash on the highways.

 

[Confluence]

fair is such an unfair word

 

[MT~Forged]

This EXACTLY why I believe in a flat rate tax for EVERYONE. Just because you are poor does not mean you do not get to enjoy things that Tax Payers fund.

If you don't want to be poor, get off your *** and do something about it. There is absolutely no reason you can not get ahead in life. Don't like putting in the effort, guess you like being poor.

 

[Troglodyte]

I'll never understand why this debate only understands whole numbers. Forget 1% and $500k, what about the .01%? Those making $50 million (or whatever).

The 10%ers and the 5%ers are paying too much, the .01% ers aren't paying nearly enough.

I don't want to hear some guy who just outbid another guy on a $15 million classic car ***** that he is taxed unfairly.

 

[Sarge]

I think all of America is taxed unfairly. We have a wasteful, bloated government, and handing them more money to waste is madness.

The American revolution was started over a 2 cent tax on tea (basically). In its current form, our government is taking trillions from us, and all we worry about is the Kardashians.

 

[Troglodyte]

[*]What is fair? Fair would seem that those who make 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes, those who make 20% would pay 20% of the taxes, and so on

This definition of fair is also mathematically impossible. We'd first need a whole hell of a lot of income redistribution for this to happen.

 

[SteelChip]

I We have a wasteful, bloated government, and handing them more money to waste is madness.

The American revolution was started over a 2 cent tax on tea (basically). In its current form, our government is taking trillions from us, and all we worry about is the Kardashians.

And some are worse than others Sarge....

...and he ain't done yet by a long shot.

 

[Rod Farva]

He might surpass the liberal God, FDR.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

He might surpass the liberal God, FDR.

Partly because the economy sucks and generates less wealth for the majority of people, therefore less money comes into the government as well. For example, I own a small business. My gross sales are 35% less than they were pre-recession in 2007. This means that I pay a bunch less in sales tax to the state than I used to. I have 15 employees instead of the 21 I used to have. That means that much less wage and SS tax coming in to the local, state, and Federal governments too, plus my own income tax is a lot less because my profit is a lot less.

 

[ark steel]

I'll never understand why this debate only understands whole numbers. Forget 1% and $500k, what about the .01%? Those making $50 million (or whatever).

The 10%ers and the 5%ers are paying too much, the .01% ers aren't paying nearly enough.

I don't want to hear some guy who just outbid another guy on a $15 million classic car ***** that he is taxed unfairly.

Why is it more 'fair' to steal from him because he has more money? Is it OK to pirate movies from Sony, but not from a smaller independent filmmaker? Is it OK to shop lift from Walmart, but not from a mom and pop shop?

 

[Sarge]

He doesn't need all that money. It's not fair.

 

[ark steel]

The people down the street from me have a much bigger house and a corvette. i think I will just start going down to their house, let myself in to get stuff to eat rather than grocery shopping. that would make it more fair.

 

[Troglodyte]

Why is it more 'fair' to steal from him because he has more money?

Because he has excess, by large amounts. Would you be in favor of paying more taxes so he can pay less?

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Because he has excess, by large amounts. Would you be in favor of paying more taxes so he can pay less?

Such a weak attempt at an argument. So much wrong with it.

 

[Troglodyte]

The people down the street from me have a much bigger house and a corvette. i think I will just start going down to their house, let myself in to get stuff to eat rather than grocery shopping. that would make it more fair.

On the contrary, you should see if they need anything as you surely pay less in taxes.

 

[Omar10213245]

Because he has excess, by large amounts. Would you be in favor of paying more taxes so he can pay less?

Lol this has to be a joke, right? Please tell this is all sarcasm and you forgot the smiley

 

[ark steel]

Because he has excess, by large amounts. Would you be in favor of paying more taxes so he can pay less?

Whether he has whatever "excess" means should be irrelevant to how much I pay in taxes. what you don't get is that our tax code is not designed to create revenue, per se, but it is designed to control. It is designed that way, in part, due to your exact statement and to keep you at odds with that person with the "excess'.

THEY have something you don't. Therefore, it is OK to take it away from them. It is not. it is stealing because they can afford it. No different from shoplifting except that, for some reason, you feel better about it.

 

[Troglodyte]

Such a weak attempt at an argument. So much wrong with it.

Yes, because "everybody should pay less" is such a strong argument.

 

[Steeltime]

I'll never understand why this debate only understands whole numbers. Forget 1% and $500k, what about the .01%? Those making $50 million (or whatever).

What about them? Tax them above 42% Federal, and whatever the state rate is (California is 10.5% for millionaires)? So tax them at 52%? More?

Experience shows that for income at that level, increased tax rates do NOT generate increased revenues. The people subject to the tax simply defer the income, or take the income in a retirement package, or transfer the income to family members in trust funds, or whatever.


Experience also shows that decreasing tax rates has led to INCREASED revenues, both from the Kennedy tax cuts in 1964 and the Reagan tax cuts in 1981.

Stop being lazy, and believing that "tax increases = more revenue, tax decreases = less revenue." That is in fact NOT TRUE. Further, it is undisputed but that decreased tax rates - Kennedy, Reagan for example - lead to substantial economic growth.

Economic growth is good for ALL citizens. Reagan phrased it, "A rising tide raises all boats."

I don't want to hear some guy who just outbid another guy on a $15 million classic car ***** that he is taxed unfairly.

Your understanding of economics is uninspiring. To wit:

Tax the person and try to take more income - fail, since he does not need the money to pay the bills. He or she defers the income, turns it into a retirement plan, moves the money to tax-protected shelters (including government bonds, chief).

So the guy does not buy the $15 million car.

Guess what happens? The mechanic who repairs that car gets a bucket full of **** you. The auctioneer with a business and employees gets a big bucket full of **** you. The garage where such a gem is stored is empty, or the employee paid to look after the car is looking for other work. Both share, once again, the giant bucket of "**** you because liberals are too stupid to figure out economics." The driver paid to transport the vehicle, the insurance agent who sells coverage, and on and on ... hey, good news, that guy's tax rate is higher (even though he winds up paying less in taxes). So you can just eat a **** sandwich, and share the "**** you" bucket.

The facts are these: Lower tax rates produce higher median income levels in this country:

But hey, don't we all feel better that the guy's tax rate went up ... no matter it produced less income, hurt the national economy, drives down median income, and basically results in a giant **** sandwich we all need to force down our throats. Right???

 

[Troglodyte]

Whether he has whatever "excess" means should be irrelevant to how much I pay in taxes. what you don't get is that our tax code is not designed to create revenue, per se, but it is designed to control. It is designed that way, in part, due to your exact statement and to keep you at odds with that person with the "excess'.

THEY have something you don't. Therefore, it is OK to take it away from them. It is not. it is stealing because they can afford it. No different from shoplifting except that, for some reason, you feel better about it.

if our government was interested in controlling wealth, we certainly wouldn't have people worth hundreds of millions or billions.

I'm not a 1%er, but I know finances and life get easier as you attain wealth. Taxes don't sting nearly as much when you're not financing anything.

 

[DBS1970]

Yes, because "everybody should pay less" is such a strong argument.

Indeed it is. It speaks to the most basic human condition, weather you are a free man or property of the state. Tell me, what am I if I do not wholly own that which a produce and earn by the sweat of my brow?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Because he has excess, by large amounts. Would you be in favor of paying more taxes so he can pay less?

I don't see how making someone else pay more taxes helps me. On the contrary, when the govt takes more money out of peoples' pockets that leaves them less money to spend on my company doing work for them. And in turn I pay less in sales tax, etc. (see my previous post).

 

[ark steel]

if our government was interested in controlling wealth, we certainly wouldn't have people worth hundreds of millions or billions.

Really? You DO know who donates all those billions of dollars for elections, right?