Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
I won't dispute the actual numbers (except for "38% of income goes to IRS". That's simply wrong. The federal budget is only about a sixth of the economy -- and much of that is borrowed money, not taxation. And only part of that money comes from income tax).
I do quibble with the complete lack of context.
For instance, average tax burden is less important than median tax burden.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
And income taxes are only one part of the tax structure. Throw in payroll taxes, for instance, and the burden shifts toward lower-income workers.
|
Disagree. For 2008, SS taxes are 6.2% on earnings up to $102,000. For Medicare taxes, there is NO CAP---so it's 1.45% of ALL earnings. BOTH hit the higher income earners harder as far as dollars they pay in. And don't forget more than 6 million low-income earners pay ZERO in federal income taxes. In fact, because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, many receive money back while paying ZERO in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
And all the sympathy for wealthy taxpayers ignores an important factor -- what share of income and wealth those taxpayers receive.
|
By using the word "receive" you act as if they don't work hard for it. As if they don't deserve what they earn. It's NOT given to them; they earn it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
If the top 1% of taxpayers take home 25% of the income, then it would be completely unsurprising if they paid 25% of all income taxes, even with a flat tax.
|
And they should be appreciated for it; not demonized for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
|
Care to count the expenses these top income earners have spent on education, investments in their careers, and planning for their futures? It doesn't happen by accident in most cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
Their income tax burden was higher -- 82.5% -- but if you look at total federal tax burden, it's only 65.3%. That's only slightly higher than their income share, and to be expected in a mildly progressive tax system.
|
Why is it Dems insist on mixing in payroll and state taxes during a discussion of federal income taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
Oh, regarding that claim that the average family pays 38% of taxes to the IRS? Complete bunk. As you can see from the table, even for the highest quintile, the effective income tax rate was just 16.3%. For the middle class it was only 3.8%. The overall income-tax rate was 10.4%.
Finally, regarding the "wealth distribution" claim: while that may be a mild effect of a progressive tax system, it clearly has not had that effect over time. Since 1979, the share of national wealth earned by the poorest 20% of households has fallen from 5.8% to 4.2%.
The share earned by the next-poorest 20% has also fallen, from 11.1% to 9.2%.
Over that same time period, the share of wealth earned by the top 20% has climbed, from 45.5% to 52.4%.
So let's not all cry for the millionaires, okay?
|
A real John Edwards "two Americas" attitude. And you see how far THAT view took him TWICE. Nowhere. That's because MOST Americans, IMHO, do not buy into it. As I've said on this board many times before, I've been poor and I've been rich and I did NOT resent the rich when I wasn't one of them. I KNOW first-hand how much money the rich pay into the system. Most work very hard and very long hours for what they eventually have. Most of the rich are NOT the Teddy Kennedy trust fund babies of the world.