Check out the latest stat's released by IRS (2007) on distribution of income and personal income taxes paid.

Anyone can cherry certain pick numbers, so I'll let you decide what you think.

I will say that I'm quite surprised at the distribution - enough to make me ponder the term: "Paying a fair share."

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The facts are very different than what I expected to see.

Marc

Marc,
That kinda stuff is waay too dry for me....can you simply cut to the chase??

In my world, it's always been soo simple.........

1-How much did you make?
2-How much did you spend?
3-Send us half of #1, regardless........

BTW!  How's life??

Cathi :D

   Looks about right Marc. After deductions, Fuel, bait, capital construction fund etc, my taxes ran about 54-56% every year. I used to get a bit irritated when someone would suggest that people who made more than 6 figures weren't paying their fair share in taxes. I'd like for them to come out and risk their asses at my job, and get pencil whipped for over fifty cents on every dollar they made. Oh well in 05 the Feds decided to make over two thirds of us unemployed anyway, so that must make someone happy.
[smiley=smokin.gif]

It would appear that:

The top 1% wage earners (+/-$500K and above) are paying about 40% of all personal income taxes being paid. (I'm rounding)

The bottom 95% pay about 39% of the total

That's like 100 people going out to dinner and one guy pays for 40% of the bill by himself - and they do it every night

Glad I don't make any money.


ETA: I'm going to recheck my numbers, that seems kinda "out there"

That's correct Marc.

Ya know, the IRS could take 100% of the taxable income from people earning more than $500,000 and it wouldn't pay for Obama's deficit!

Hence the need to raise taxes on the middle class.  Wait for it!

This administration is just one ray of sunshine after another.

I'm gonna need to upgrade to SPF 70.

  Those in the lowest 50% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Am I reading that right Marc?

Quote:

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Marc, is it surprising that the top 1% pays more than 1% of the income tax?  They make 500 times more than the average person at the bottom!  

You seem to think that paying taxes is like buying a gallon of milk, and that everyone should pay the same amount.  Taxes are based on rates, and even if there was only one rate, those 300,000 people in the top 1% would be paying a much larger amount than indicated by the number of people in their group. Add to that the fact that tax rates increase with increasing income, and there are no real surprises.  

Monty,

Yes, that huge disparity does surprise me. I didn't realize how over taxed they are already.

This goes to the core of the divergence of your beliefs and mine.

It is my perception that you feel it is reasonable and just to try and "level the playing field" by stripping money from the wealthy because they "can afford it."  

I see life as being non-Utopian in America, there should always be hard working clever folks will earn more money than most of us. Like it or not, there are also people at the other end of the spectrum who cannot or will not earn money. Reasonable safety nets are required.

I have a question for you:
How much more do you feel should be considered "paying a fair share?"  What percentage of income should be taken from those that have money?

Hmmm, Monty.... level the financial playing ground??
I KNOW!  Let's pay everyone in the country the same wages.... then we can tax them all the same........
'ummm...seems to me that's already been done........
yeahh... let me think.......
thinking..............
OH, YEAH!!
Capitalism!!!
Retiremnent sounds better and better to me.........
'cathi

Marc wrote on Aug 10^th, 2009 at 7:02pm:

Monty, Yes, that huge disparity does surprise me. I didn't realize how over taxed they are already. This goes to the core of the divergence of your beliefs and mine.

Part of goes to numeracy, I believe. Your focus on "1% paying 40%" is a statistic that is misleading.  That "1%" has far more than 1% of the wealth, and would pay far more than 1% of the taxes even under a flat tax rate.  That "1%" or 300,000 people makes as much as 150 million people, and pay far more than indicated by the size of the group, because the tax is on money, not the size of the group.  Nothing unfair there.


Quote:

It is my perception that you feel it is reasonable and just to try and "level the playing field" by stripping money from the wealthy because they "can afford it."

That is not my opinion - Like Adam Smith (the founder of modern capitalism) and Thomas Jefferson, I do believe that a person with a low income (say $12,000 a year) who is barely making it should not be taxed at the same rate as someone who is doing quite well (say $1,000,000).

So I don't believe in a flat tax rate, but the reason is not to 'strip the wealthy of their wealth."  And the wealthy have been doing quite well (thank you very much!) in recent years - they continue to make more and more.  The government is not taking all they have (nor should they) and that wealth doesn't seem to be trickling down to the average person, either.

Here's one quote from Thomas Jefferson:


Quote:

“Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided

Jefferson, like the nation, ultimately decided that "first wants" or basic needs are a reality, and the people should be taxed more on their surplus.

My opinion (and yes I have one - surprised???) is that EVERYONE should pay 10% on EVERYTHING they SPEND... no exceptions. and NO LOOPHOLES!  

Seems fair to me... you buy a gallon of MILK - you pay.... you buy a Yacht you pay MORE. You don't spend  - you don't pay...

In my plan it would give workers MORE disposable income to SPEND, put more lawyers to work collecting (people will try to cheat) and more accountants to work trying to figure it out for people who collect it. It's a WIN WIN situation.

But alas, it's too damn simple... And would only take about a half a page to write up.

Hugs BD :-*

  Did I ever tell ya how much I luv ya Barb?
[smiley=smokin.gif]

How did you arrive at 10%, Barb? And even at that, doesn't a sales tax put a much greater burden on poor folk?

Not really Brew -- if you don't buy you don't pay... 10% seems fair to ALL. I buy Hot dogs so I wouldn't pay as much as people who buy STEAKS. Might get people back to their "raisin'".

I've watched "poor" people all my life and it's always seemed that they can "afford" to buy things that I can't afford.

And we could cut out the FOOD STAMP program and go back to "commodities" (like were around in the 50s). Give the farmers somewhere to SELL their stuff instead of shipping them overseas to "needy" countries. This country needs to be taking care of our own for a change.

Hugs BD :-*

Flat tax was a big thing for Malcom Forbes some years ago. I think he wanted a 17% tax.

A bad idea for those not in Malcom Forbes bracket.

Charlie

BarbaraD wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 9:06am:

Give the farmers somewhere to SELL their stuff instead of shipping them overseas to "needy" countries. This country needs to be taking care of our own for a change. Hugs BD :-*

The "Food for Peace" (which was started by a Republican President) is program that costs about 1.2 billion dollars a year - that works out to about $4 for every American.  It should be reviewed and reconsidered for a variety of reasons, but let's be real.  Even if eliminated entirely (which may not be in the best interests of the country), it is the cherry on the top of the cake, and saying no to the cherry won't lead to real weight loss.

Looking at the budget, we do take care of our own:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGESTART PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are paid for from FICA taxes - and the wealthy actually pay a lower percent here because only the first $102,000 of compensation are taxed, and dividends and interest are not taxed, only wages.  There are no brackets for FICA - the rate is the same for all employees on the first 100 grand.

If we remove the blue and green pieces to get things paid for from the general income tax, then military spending amounts to 47% of that.

I think if you really want to limit the tax rate to 10% Barb, we need to close down our 900+ foreign military bases and convert half our aircraft carriers to floating hotels that will pay their own way.  If Fedex doesn't want to buy fighter jets for its express delivery service, maybe another nation would be interested.  We would also have to shut down NASA, the National Weather Service, and the billions of dollars that the federal government spends each year on medical and scientific research.  That would get us started towards a 10% income tax rate for everyone - but we would still have to make lots of cuts.

Barb,

Check out the "Fair Tax".  Your concept is what was used to develope it.  It has a 23% tax included in the price of every NEW item sold.  They arrived at 23% by including all of the corporate taxes, income taxes, Social Security, and everything else that is hidden in the price of an item you buy.  The need for basic necessities is also built in by a "prebate" sent out to each household to cover what the tax on necessities up to the poverty level.  This would take care of the tax burden for the poor, and taxes would only be taken on those things over and above that level.  In this way the "rich" would still pay a higher share because it would be on their consumption, but it would not be punitive in taking away from their ability or incentive to earn.

The really lovely thing about it is that it would also do away with the IRS and would save me over 50 hours a year doing my taxes.  That alone would allow for higher productivity.  

All government programs would still be funded at the same levels they are now, but there would be no withholding from the pay checks.  Each person would receive their full pay.  THat might cause a revolt though when people found out how much the government was really taking away from them!

It would also increase revenues to the government because those who are now working on a cash basis under the table would end up paying taxes on that money because they would pay on what they spend.

It also would bring several trillion dollars back into the economy by bringing businesses back into the US that have gone to other countries because of tax policies.

It is definitely something to be looked at and considered.

Jerry

BarbaraD wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 9:06am:

Not really Brew -- if you don't buy you don't pay... 10% seems fair to ALL. I buy Hot dogs so I wouldn't pay as much as people who buy STEAKS. Might get people back to their "raisin'". I've watched "poor" people all my life and it's always seemed that they can "afford" to buy things that I can't afford. And we could cut out the FOOD STAMP program and go back to "commodities" (like were around in the 50s). Give the farmers somewhere to SELL their stuff instead of shipping them overseas to "needy" countries. This country needs to be taking care of our own for a change. Hugs BD :-*

But poor folk spend a much higher percentage of their income on necessities than do their rich brethren. For a rich family, they might spend 5% of their income on groceries. But poor folk might spend more like 25% of what they take in.

Seems the tax burden is disproportionately borne by the poor with a flat sales tax.

Now a flat INCOME tax, where the first x dollars are exempt, then everyone pays y% of every dollar in income to our Benevolent Caretaker might make more sense.

Callico wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 9:57am:

Barb, Check out the "Fair Tax".  Your concept is what was used to develope it.  It has a 23% tax included in the price of every NEW item sold.

It is actually a 30% tax rate - the 23% figure is based on a strange way of calculating, designed to make it seem smaller.  If you made something and your wanted a return of $1.00 to cover your costs and profits (ie, you wanted to sell it for $1), it would not sell for $1.23 with taxes, it would sell it for $1.30.   The 30 cents tax on every dollar is 30 percent of the cost according to the normal way of calculating sales tax, but magically is reduced to 23% if taken as a percent of the total cost including taxes.

 

Monty, you're right about the percentage number. 23% of 130 is 29.9 (basic math on mark ups), but what does that have to do with the price of eggs? :-/  (I've been trying to explain mark-ups to clients for years.)

Another thing we could do with my plan is to eliminate the IRS (not a bad idea) - THEN we could cut down the time Congress spends in session thus we could cut their salaries. Say they just need to meet once every other year for about 6 months. They could do LESS harm that way - the taxpayers would save money on useless BS.

Of course we'd have to get a whole NEW congress to vote that in... but it's a thought..... :-*

The reason I made that last post about elimanating Congress except every other year --- Has anyone READ what they ACTUALLY do all day while they're in session???? What they actually spend their time and OUR money doing???? It's ridiculous!!!

They're spending uselss time VOTING on complimenting someone on reaching 90 or serving their community nicely... Give me a damn break -- we've got two wars going on and the economy is a bitch and they're VOTING on paying someone a compliment!!!  :-X

Sorry I guess I just read too much this morning.. And I'm knee deep in the Health Care Bill -- A WHOLE LOT of that could be CUT OUT!!! It's giving me a headache!!!! :-*

I'm for eliminating the income tax.  It was supposed to be temporary.... ::)

Melissa wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 2:21pm:

I'm for eliminating the income tax.  It was supposed to be temporary.... ::)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That was a joke, right?

Melissa wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 2:41pm:

Brew wrote on Aug 11th, 2009 at 2:38pm: That was a joke, right? No.

Check out the history: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Melissa wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 2:47pm:

Melissa wrote on Aug 11th, 2009 at 2:41pm: [quote author=7C4C5B493E0 link=1249591828/24#24 date=1250015902]That was a joke, right? No.

Check out the history: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
Don't need to, Mel. I know that's what the proponents of the 16th amendment said at the time. It was supposed to be a joke, as in "show me a politician that couldn't help themselves spending other people's money." They'll tell us it's temporary, and some of us believe them.

Sick, isn't it Brew?

Off on a tangent, I can understand the want/need for social programs, but the problem with it, is it's coming off the backs of working America.  If we went to just a sales & use tax, eliminating the income tax (plus instilling tarrifs on imports), and it were transparent so the public can see just where the sales tax money is going, things might just turn around and head in the right direction.

Until then, I'll just wait here, grow old and die.  Perhaps I'll be able to watch it happen from afar during my great-great-grandkids lives. :-/

BarbaraD wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 2:05pm:

Monty, you're right about the percentage number. 23% of 130 is 29.9 (basic math on mark ups), but what does that have to do with the price of eggs? :-/  (I've been trying to explain mark-ups to clients for years.)

Well, when people are pushing a tax plan that claims to be 23%, and it turns out it is actually 30% based on the way that taxes are normally calculated, that should raise a few flags.  To put it in terms of eggs, it means that a 'fair tax' would make eggs 30% more expensive than they are now!  

Edited to add:  went to the grocery store last night. The large container of eggs I bought were $2.99. With the fair tax, those eggs would cost $3.89.  That would be an increase of 30%.  Anyone who bills the fair tax as a 23% tax is not being fair.

It's simple. Zillionaires are all for a flat tax. Sadly, the number of them that care more about the country than their bottom lines has shrunk to 19th century levels. I don't mind people making tons of money so long as they treat the country that allows it with a modicum of decency.

In the 1950s, the whole country prospered at historic levels. Why do you suppose that is.....all of us chipped in.

We are in the 21st century with 300 million citizens in a world that is increasingly complex. It's become impossible to exist as what we like to be without expensive governments. That's just the way it is.

Charlie

Charlie,

You view is so skewed, it's laughable.  You consistently demonize the rich as if they don't pair their fair share, when the reality is that they pay the lion's share of taxes.  The stats are right there for you to look at, yet you insist that somehow it is all lies and hand waving to cover up the fact that they are all greedy bastards.  The bottom 50% in earners in this country pay nearly nothing when compared to the top 5% of earners.  You, being on the receiving end of this incredible largess, should be a little more appreciative but instead you act like they are all criminals.

-Shawn

Quote:

I don't mind people making tons of money so long as they treat the country that allows it with a modicum of decency.

People are America, Charlie. We own this country. America doesn't allow men to earn money. It's called Liberty, and it comes from ____________ (fill in the blank - the Constitution calls it God, some say Providence, you get the point). It's the Constitution that guarantees men and women those things - Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It has nothing to do with treating America any one way or another.

I'm tired of working my butt off for other people who decide not to work and contribute.

Why, when there is so much to do in this Country, do we just give people money to sit on their butts and do absolutely nothing?

Who are the real villains here?

Am I morally corrupt for thinking this way? Am I sinister in thinking that this expansion of entitlements is a guise for liberals to prepay for the upcoming election votes? Tell me, is someone who is the recipient of Government handouts,(rent subsidies, food stamps, free medical care...), likely to keep voting for a Party that is in favor of a continuation of these policies? Am I cynical?

I would be less discouraged if I could see my tax contributions manifested in a programs that resulted in work that fixed things that needed fixing and teach the participants a trade and ultimately instilled pride thereby becoming contributing participants in the system. With that, maybe we all would have contribute less because less would be in the trough.

Steve G

stevegeebe wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 10:06pm:

I'm tired of working my butt off for other people who decide not to work and contribute. Why, when there is so much to do in this Country, do we just give people money to sit on their butts and do absolutely nothing? Who are the real villains here? Am I morally corrupt for thinking this way? Am I sinister in thinking that this expansion of entitlements is a guise for liberals to prepay for the upcoming election votes? Tell me, is someone who is the recipient of Government handouts,(rent subsidies, food stamps, free medical care...), likely to keep voting for a Party that is in favor of a continuation of these policies? Am I cynical? I would be less discouraged if I could see my tax contributions manifested in a programs that resulted in work that fixed things that needed fixing and teach the participants a trade and ultimately instilled pride thereby becoming contributing participants in the system. With that, maybe we all would have contribute less because less would be in the trough. Steve G

I agree with you TOTALLY Steve. Everyone can do SOMETHING. (With the exceptions of the totally elderly and totally handicapped - those may need a little help but...).

If the government wants to REALLY help out people ... set up some DAY CARE CENTERS and HIRE some people to run them. Give those mothers on welfare a place to put their kids so they can go to work (they can always hire some Grandparents to man the daycare centers - who better - might teach the kids something!).

Prisons could become self-supporting (the were at one time) - they could PRODUCE what they eat - do their own laundry, etc -- save the taxpayers that much. It's ridiculous to spend $30-40,000 a year to HOUSE a prisoner.

LIke I said, instead of food stamps we could go back to "commodities" - the government can buy those from our farmers. It worked good for a number of years and feed our elderly and poor people well.

If they're not going to eliminate the IRS, then overhaul the IRS code and get it into working order. Start from page ONE and rewrite it - take out the loopholes and make it READABLE and fair to all.

Congress needs to quit spending time on BS and start working for the American people... All this BS stuff needs to be left to the state legislatures - they can handle all that stuff (or the Congressman's secretary can do it with a form letter - it doesn't need the whole damn HOuse to vote on it and waste an hour!).

In other words -- Congress needs a REALITY CHECK!!!

I'm still mad about reading what they ACTUALLY do all day while they're in session!

Hugs BD :-*

Brew wrote on Aug 11^th, 2009 at 8:59pm:

America doesn't allow men to earn money.

The wealthy are earning more money than ever before - they have increased their earnings and their share of the pie.  People on the bottom 50% haven't done so well in the past few decades, and that is more from stagnant wages than anything else.

Yesterday we were told that for the early part of this year, worker productivity rose dramatically, while worker compensation dropped significantly.  The official rhetoric is that a productive worker is worth more and gets paid more, but that niceism is wrong more often than not.


Quote:

Tuesday's Labor Department report says productivity grew at a 6.4 percent annual rate during the second quarter, as managers squeezed more work out of their remaining employees. The data also show labor costs dropping during the period. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

The good news is that we may be leaving the recession. The bad news is that it may be a jobless recovery, and (once again) worker salaries will stay flat while investors rake it in.

Hmmmm

Quote:

The wealthy are earning more money than ever before - they have increased their earnings and their share of the pie.  People on the bottom 50% haven't done so well in the past few decades, and that is more from stagnant wages than anything else.

It's another reminder of the gilded age in the 19th century. Not that friendly to the lower and middle classes.  

Even Nixon knew enough to throw us a bone now and then.

This is about as far as I want to go on this. There is never a meeting of minds on taxes. Good luck kids.

Charlie

Did anyone touch on what Americans making 35K in the 70's were paying?

"The wealthy are earning more money than ever before - they have increased their earnings and their share of the pie."

That's one way to obtain money.

Earn
Function: transitive verb
1. To receive as a return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered.
2. To come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to.

Peculiar choice of words.

Steve G

stevegeebe wrote on Aug 13^th, 2009 at 9:58pm:

"The wealthy are earning more money than ever before - they have increased their earnings and their share of the pie." That's one way to obtain money. Earn Function: transitive verb 1. To receive as a return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered. 2. To come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to. Peculiar choice of words. Steve G

Maybe you are right - maybe I should have said 'were paid' or 'took' instead of 'earned'.  I'm not sure that the Wall Street bankers who received million dollar bonuses for driving the economy over a cliff are 'duly worthy' of the financial bounty that was transferred to them.  I'm not sure that executives should be paying themselves as much money as a thousand other workers when their company does poorly, or does average for their sector.


Quote:

Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data -- without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Eight years ago, executives got 28% of compensation - now they take over 33%.  Did they really do anything to justify that?  IMO, most did not.  Most large companies are being looted, and it is an inside job, led by the management.... to hell with the workers and stockholders.  If investors are willing to sink money into credit default swaps, they sure aren't going to notice an infestation of parasites in the teak rooms.  And even if they notice, what can they do?




Quote:

In reality, of course, everyday American citizens are pulling their weight and then some. They actually pay a higher share of their incomes in taxes—total taxes, not just federal income tax—than super rich Americans. Maverick billionaire investor Warren Buffett has been trying to make this point for some time now. He and his fellow billionaires, Buffett notes, pay taxes at a lower overall rate than their receptionists do. Two years ago, Buffett bet a million dollars to back up that proposition. He challenged any billionaire in the Forbes 400 to prove him wrong. So far not one has. Those Forbes 400 billionaires and their cheerleaders live in a fantasy land where average folk who work hard enough can always "succeed" and get rich. In our real world, here early in the 21st century, average people work hard and watch the rich get richer. START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE