Top 1% Now Pays More in Tax Than Bottom 95%

Forum: Political Forum - Spirited Political comedy. All serious political and World Event posting is also to be posted in this forum.

Thread: Top 1% Now Pays More in Tax Than Bottom 95%

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
  1. #1 Top 1% Now Pays More in Tax Than Bottom 95% 
    RX Wizard Mistermj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Facebook n Google
    Posts
    8,112
    Top 1% Now Pays More in Tax Than Bottom 95%
    CARPE DIEM
    By Mark J. Perry

    TAX POLICY BLOG -- Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes and disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.


    Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1% paid 24.8% of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act (see chart above).

    Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1% now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58% of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

    To put this in perspective, the top 1% is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

    Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10% of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

    We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory Willie99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Home of Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun & Looney Libs
    Posts
    40,372
    shhhhhhhhhhhh

    the retard in chief just yesterday repeated his often told lie that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the wealthiest Americans.

    I can say without a doubt that middle America had a significant tax reduction under the 2001 tax cuts, there is no dispute or no argument to be made. It's a fact, a lock, the truth...............................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    RX Wizard punter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    3 miles west of the tasmajerry.
    Posts
    9,500
    What you are seeing is the result of a couple of decades of income graduating to the top percentiles. This is not a healthy situation for any economy. Since the lower income levels have no power to change their lessening cut/the Rich's increasing cut of the income pie, it falls on taxation to do the job. That is tough to get done because the wealthy also have the political clout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    RX Wizard Mistermj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Facebook n Google
    Posts
    8,112
    Quote Originally Posted by punter View Post
    What you are seeing is the result of a couple of decades of income graduating to the top percentiles. This is not a healthy situation for any economy. Since the lower income levels have no power to change their lessening cut/the Rich's increasing cut of the income pie, it falls on taxation to do the job. That is tough to get done because the wealthy also have the political clout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
    the Rich's increasing cut of the income pie, it falls on taxation to do the job. That is tough to get done because the wealthy also have the political clout.
    Apparently it's not tough to get done...look at the chart again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    RX Wizard punter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    3 miles west of the tasmajerry.
    Posts
    9,500
    I would think that the progressive nature of income tax would give you a graph like that as all the income is gravitating to the top.

    Thing is its still not enough to bring the balance back. We are heading to an economy with all the wealth at the top and the rest of us as peons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory Willie99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Home of Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun & Looney Libs
    Posts
    40,372
    Quote Originally Posted by punter View Post
    I would think that the progressive nature of income tax would give you a graph like that as all the income is gravitating to the top.

    Thing is its still not enough to bring the balance back. We are heading to an economy with all the wealth at the top and the rest of us as peons.
    you do know incomes were not decreasing in that time frame, right?

    that being the case, your argument makes no sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    RX Wizard punter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    3 miles west of the tasmajerry.
    Posts
    9,500
    The figures I saw were the bottom 16% going from 14K to 16K in the last 10 years. If that is not going backwards Gods a possum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    RX Wizard Mistermj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Facebook n Google
    Posts
    8,112
    Punters economic plan explained...

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n15nxS7_aMU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n15nxS7_aMU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory Willie99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Home of Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun & Looney Libs
    Posts
    40,372
    Quote Originally Posted by punter View Post
    The figures I saw were the bottom 16% going from 14K to 16K in the last 10 years. If that is not going backwards Gods a possum.

    hehehehe

    those people don't pay taxes, so their tax bill couldn't go down. They have no bearing on this topic. They probably received larger tax refunds than they used to under the welfare program they call the "Earned Income Credit", which has been increasing over the years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit barman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palm Harbor FL
    Posts
    45,135
    Top 1% Now Pays More in Tax Than Bottom 95%


    Good
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit barman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Palm Harbor FL
    Posts
    45,135
    I guess the lesson learned here is that we all want to strive to squeeze into that top 2-4% tier
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    RX SemiGod Scott L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    pa
    Posts
    13,605
    My best friend in HS registered Republican at 18. He was the only one of our group to do so. I asked him why. I still remember his reply.

    "I intend to work very hard and I want to keep more of what I earn, and not have it taken from me to support people who are able-bodied and don't want to work. I'm going to retire by the time I'm 30 and buy my parents a farm."

    He didn't retire at 30 but he could have. He didn't buy that farm either, only because his parents love their house too much. 'H' is still working. Only because he loves to work. And there are 500 people who also love working for him now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by punter View Post
    Since the lower income levels have no power to change their lessening cut....


    Sure they can its called work harder and work smarter. Take a damn risk. 40hr weeks are for losers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    RX Wizard punter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    3 miles west of the tasmajerry.
    Posts
    9,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Georgiaboy View Post
    Sure they can its called work harder and work smarter. Take a damn risk. 40hr weeks are for losers.
    16 to 20 of the population? Get real, there are people working 2 and 3 jobs and still at poverty level. Do you go through life with your eyes closed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,435
    and who do they have to blame?? Wait, I know its those evil rich people. Also, I said work harder and SMARTER. If it was about working hard ditch diggers would be millionaires.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    "Here we go again" Say Hey Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    4,525
    This is flat out theft. Very sickning what is happening to this country, individuals who have the balls not to unjust taxes to this criminal government are true patriots.

    I don't condone doing that if you want to keep your family and life, but I must respect true patriots such as Ed and Elaine Brown.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    RX Wizard punter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    3 miles west of the tasmajerry.
    Posts
    9,500
    George, So the key for poor people is to be born smarter.

    Maybe they should just be born richer that way they wouldn't be troubled by looking down on those less fortunate than themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,435
    Or, they could simply apply themselves, u know like graduate from a 2 year tech school or college. Stop with the "less fortunate" that means people who have money are some how lucky. Also you may have mentioned it previously so I apologize up front. What do you consider "rich". How much does a single person/family have to make?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    RX Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    296
    Is it fair that top %1 have about 20% of the income?


    Is it fair that top %1 have about 34% wealth of the nation?



    Since WW2, top %1 has benefited the most. Their income/wealth has increased more then any other group in the country. It only makes sense they give more to the system which has benefited them the most.

    Most people don't realize that taxes for the rich were once at around 90%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,435
    In 1918 taxes on the top income earners was 77%.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,435
    Is it fair that the top 1% have the most income? Fair? Seriously??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    RX Wizard punter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    3 miles west of the tasmajerry.
    Posts
    9,500
    You are arguing that the top 5% got there because the are smarter, harder working or both and that is often the case but they also get here because of power and influence, something that the lower earners will never have. As a result the lower earners need the govt help. Now before you go wild about socialism this is to the advantage of the rich also because if a large portion of the population is destitute they will have a much smaller customer base for their products.

    Henry Ford realised this early on when he paid his workers more than the going rate so that they could afford his product.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    RX Senior Brooklynbomber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,156
    Quote Originally Posted by barman View Post
    Top 1% Now Pays More in Tax Than Bottom 95%


    Good
    Good lord.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    RX Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Georgiaboy View Post
    Is it fair that the top 1% have the most income? Fair? Seriously??
    1. They don't have most. They have OVERWHELMING the majority of the wealth in this country.

    2. I did not bring up fair/just/right. The initial poster did by implying that the top 1% are being robbed and treated unfairly.

    3. When the top 1% have more wealth/income then the bottom 95%, don't you think they should pay more in taxes?

    4. Somebody has to pay taxes. It makes sense the people who have benefited most from the current system should contribute it more.

    5. Part of the reason they are paying more taxes is primarily because their grabbing more of the income/wealth of the country. Their income has being growing at higher clip then bottom 95% for long period of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    RX Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by punter View Post
    You are arguing that the top 5% got there because the are smarter, harder working or both and that is often the case but they also get here because of power and influence, something that the lower earners will never have. As a result the lower earners need the govt help. Now before you go wild about socialism this is to the advantage of the rich also because if a large portion of the population is destitute they will have a much smaller customer base for their products.

    Henry Ford realised this early on when he paid his workers more than the going rate so that they could afford his product.
    You are exactly right but when discussing things on here you almost have to speak in absolutes. There are people who were born into mondy and probably couldn't tie their shoe or balance a check book. Oh well enjoyed the debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •