Percentage of federal income tax paid

[Chorizos]

Totally agree Saint. As someone who works for partners in the top 1%, and are small business owners, I do not see them cutting back their net income even though they have increased taxes.

I see them, and are currently seeing them cut benefits of their employees mainly through bonuses and salaries. The way I see it, the college educated middle class are the ones that are paying the price in the current situation.

The motivated and achievement based people of the lower and lower middle classes will have plenty of opportunities to succeed through our current government make-up (which I have no problem with)!

However, it is the middle and upper middle classes that are stuck currently, because the upper classes are not going to cut their standards because of increased taxes.

It is the lower classes that are not trying to better themselves, but living off the fruits of the government's give away programs and the increased taxes of the rich that are screwing the middle class.

 

[dawgball]

My point was that I think it has been stated that it's "common knowledge" that the high income earners were carrying less of the burden since Bush was in office.

My original intent was not politically motivated.

And for those of you who don't think that the people in the 3-5% of that top 5% aren't bitching, then you're not talking to them. $153,000 sets the 5% threshold, and they aren't real happy.

But, once again, that wasn't my point. My point was that their tax burden has increased over the last decade.

Who is John Galt?

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Why I am hearing nothing but crickets from the kooky left on this one?

We've just been through the argument before which is probably why dtb didn't want to pull up his numbers to make his point. These graphs talk about %'s but tax collected by income taxes went down from 2001-2006 and tax collected from payroll tax went up. I tried to pull the numbers from the treasury report here

http://madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240034&highlight=Payroll

plus tax on corps get pushed down to the consumer through pricing, so the argument is really more complicated than just pulling numbers from tax returns.

Fairness of a graduated tax system is just one of the fundamental differences between cons and libs and it won't change.

 

[Sun Tzu]

The problem is the definition of "rich." No Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise arent complaining nor should they be. But the notion that a couple earning $250k is "rich" is ludicrous.

And it isnt just the marginal rate - there are phase outs of deductions for things like mortgage interest. Restricting deductions for charitable donations - does anyone really think thats a good idea? Restricting deductions for the state taxes you pay? The death tax - taxed on money you already got taxed on?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

We've just been through the argument before which is probably why dtb didn't want to pull up his numbers to make his point. These graphs talk about %'s but tax collected by income taxes went down from 2001-2006 and tax collected from payroll tax went up. I tried to pull the numbers from the treasury report here

http://madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240034&highlight=Payroll

plus tax on corps get pushed down to the consumer through pricing, so the argument is really more complicated than just pulling numbers from tax returns.

Fairness of a graduated tax system is just one of the fundamental differences between cons and libs and it won't change.

Is indeed a good thread worth reading.

It really boils down to simple logic--
The party bases are pretty well defined.
You got one party against taxes--and they comprise the bulk of tax payors--and you got the other party whose base comprises the free loaders--little wonder which stance they take.

So far we have gumby getting the free loaders more food stamps-increased medicade/welfare-mortgage writedowns etc--and those who have lived responsibly bitching about footing the bills.

Pretty simple to me--can we call it- human nature.:shrug:

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Do we really have time for this? Shouldn't we be looking for ways to reduce our incomes?

 

[rusty]

Believe it or not despite how much I piss and moan about it I have no problem with paying more taxes. If it helps get our country out of the shitter I'm all for it.

I do get frustrated when people who make 300, 400k get lumped in with the mega wealthy. For the record I'm not near that so it's not like I'm talking about my present situation.

The exaggeration game already was played when someone said the wealthy expanded their worth exponentially over the last few years. Either they are exaggerating or they don't know the meaning of exponential.

I've said it before as someone intimately involved in a small business. We will do what many other small businesses do...if we pay more taxes both through the business and personally then the burden will be shifted to employees, their health benefits, compensation packages, bonuses...somewhere. When you take all the risk as a business owner then you get to make that shift in income. But it's really going to affect a whole bunch of employees of those small businesses soon.

They still make more than the average American.
Its like saying A-Rod and Matt Capps should be paid the same,and taxed the same .

 

[rusty]

The problem is the definition of "rich." No Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise arent complaining nor should they be. But the notion that a couple earning $250k is "rich" is ludicrous.

And it isnt just the marginal rate - there are phase outs of deductions for things like mortgage interest. Restricting deductions for charitable donations - does anyone really think thats a good idea? Restricting deductions for the state taxes you pay? The death tax - taxed on money you already got taxed on?

They still make more than the average american.
Its like saying Haynsworth (for example,should he get that much is another story) should earn just as much as Fred Taylor,and taxed the same also.

 

[Cie]

and the ones BITCHING, AREN'T IN THAT CATEGORY!

WTFFFF?

and the ones *IN* that category AREN'T BITCHING.

what am *I* missing??

The folks that are not bitching include Warren Buffet, Sean Penn and A-Roid. They're set barring absolute collapse American soiciety as we know it.

I stand up for the $153K to $387K folks. A dual income 30-something couple earning $250K is not "rich". I know this as fact.

The rich (earnings over 400K) should pay heavily, and the mega rich should carry the load. $100K through $300K earners are not rich, and do not deserve to get kicked in the balls. JMO.

 

[Cie]

They still make more than the average american.
Its like saying Haynsworth (for example,should he get that much is another story) should earn just as much as Fred Taylor,and taxed the same also.

IMO $250K couples should not have to pay the same as $75K couples, but they should not have to suffer any increases either.

From the graph I linked above, it appears that those earning $153-$387 are paying handsomely at the moment.

 

[rusty]

$250K couples do not have to pay the same as $75K couples, but they should not have to suffer any increases.

From the graph I linked above, it appears that those earning $153-$387 are paying handsomely at the moment.

Thats my point,if in fact a couple making 250 or more ,shouldnt that couple be taxed at least a little more,based on there income?I admit I make less than that,but it makes sense to me.

Were all gonna be f%$ed on energy spending anyway ,unless the frieght train gets slowed.

 

[djv]

Wow 55/60% for the top? Well there better off then in the 1970/80's when the paid 72%. And what would they do if Huck's fair tax was made law.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

--and on the corporate tax scene--

ZUG, Switzerland, March 12 (Reuters) - The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom.
Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration-----
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbss...2?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssEnergyNews&rpc=22

 

[djv]

If this country has got the stuff to do it. Oil will be down the list of concerns in 15 years. Other energy will be paying taxes. And loop wholes for off shore tax dodgers will be gone sooner. SOB's suck us blind and don't want to support there own coutry should be tried for treason.

 

[bryanz]

I ran across these numbers here: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

I do not know the credibility of the site. But it has an American flag background, so it has to be trustworthy!!

Total percentage of federal personal income tax paid by the top 5%.

1999: 55.45%
2000: 56.47%
2001: 53.25%
2002: 53.80%
2003: 54.86%
2004: 57.13%
2005: 59.67%
2006: 60.14%

The only reason I am posting this is that it seems to be "common knowledge" that the top 5% were receiving all of the tax cuts under Bush's reign.

It appears that there was some real truth in that statement when he first got into office (notice the drop from 2000 to 2001, but since then we have steadily increased the burden that the top 5% pay.

this post proves the lefts argument...the trend from 01 to 06 shows that the top is paying more and the botton is paying less... You pay > because you have >... you pay < because you have <...... putting politics aside, that is the bottom line.... DID MIDDLE AND POOR AMERICANS STOP WORKING ? WHY DID THE REST OF AMERICA PAY LESS ? That's the question you limbaugh parrots & right wing kooks, talking point regurgitators can't answer, don't want to answer.... Forget about the left or right.. what about logic ? Do you people in this thread ever think for yourself ?

 

[bryanz]

Why I am hearing nothing but crickets from the kooky left on this one?

what do you know about this one or anything ????

 

[bryanz]

I'll bet the economy of America and the world will be back when the top 5% is paying less.. wonder what the #'s are for 08 & 09 .. My guess is over 60 %.... The top didn't pay more because of tax policy that favored them under bush/cheney... They payed more because they were the only ones with money... The bush/cheney administration conducted policy, foreign and domestic that hurt most of America... The #'s posted at the top of this thread can be a huge indicator leading to a bad economy.. Think about it... When the top is paying high 50's to 60%, that can't be good for an economy that needs the botom as close to the top as we can get it.... even the rich took a pay cut under bush/cheney !

 

[bryanz]

we should have a sliding tax scale where no matter how much money you make you end up bringing home 50k per household.

who wants that ?

 

[bryanz]

Believe it or not despite how much I piss and moan about it I have no problem with paying more taxes. If it helps get our country out of the shitter I'm all for it.

I do get frustrated when people who make 300, 400k get lumped in with the mega wealthy. For the record I'm not near that so it's not like I'm talking about my present situation.

The exaggeration game already was played when someone said the wealthy expanded their worth exponentially over the last few years. Either they are exaggerating or they don't know the meaning of exponential.

I've said it before as someone intimately involved in a small business. We will do what many other small businesses do...if we pay more taxes both through the business and personally then the burden will be shifted to employees, their health benefits, compensation packages, bonuses...somewhere. When you take all the risk as a business owner then you get to make that shift in income. But it's really going to affect a whole bunch of employees of those small businesses soon.

you are a cry baby !:thefinger

 

[bryanz]

why do you think bush told everyone to keep spending ... why did he back policy that led to the housing bubble and the collapse of our economy ? There were no fundamentals to support shopping and home buying but home values drove the economy... ( I told you that DTB, right here...go back and look it up )HE DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD CRASH UNDER HIM.... HIS WAR EXPERDITED THE CRASH !!!! GO BACK AND FIND MY POST, I SAID WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF HOME VALUES DROP ??/ I said : America was sending their children to schools, vacations, cars , even going to the grocery store on credit cards.... No credit No economy..... look it up !