It's amazing what the facts are compared to what the politicians tell you. Here are 10 truths about our taxes pulled from official IRS data. These are facts from the data, not spin or massaged.

http://www.politibyte.com/modules.ph...article&sid=44

I wonder do the candidates running for office actually know this data and just choose to continue spouting off their populists, "tax the rich" rhetoric because they know it sells?

__________________
www.politibyte.com
Check out the new Video section.

Good article. We currently spend $100 billion just on compliance - again, that money could be going towards purely productive measures for the economy.

Class envy, jealousy, hatred, etc. fuel our tax policies.

One thing the article doesn't mention though is that the first income tax passed under the tyrant Lincoln was correctly struck down as unconstitutional.

Another point:

Eliminate the Income Tax and You Still Have the Same Federal Revenue as 10 Years Ago

Ron Paul has said this several times, and it turns out to be “mostly true,” according to this site. It would be nice to eliminate those other taxes as well, but it does put into perspective how much the era of big government is not over.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

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.

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.

And all the sympathy for wealthy taxpayers ignores an important factor -- what share of income and wealth those taxpayers receive.

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.

Here's a decent look at income share and tax burden:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=...ence=0#table1A

In 2001, the top 20% of taxpayers earned about 52% of national income.

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.

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?

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Well, "mostly true" if by that you mean "plus or minus 30%." And recognize that to get there you need to make drastic cuts in spending.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I can buy the 38% number for some people if it includes all taxes paid to the Federal government, not just to the IRS. When you add income taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, import taxes, cable TV taxes, phone taxes, airline taxes etc., etc., etc. I think you could hit 38%. And I haven't even mentioned state taxes. But no one pays 38% to the IRS unless they just got hit with back taxes and penalties.

__________________
This space for rent.

Some people, sure. But as the CBO link shows, the overall federal tax rate -- the effective rate counting all federal taxes -- was just 21.5% in 2001. Even the top 1% only paid a 33% rate as a group.

Someone paying 38% of their income to the federal government is in no way "average."

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Give me a break. Even the article notes the 30% figure isn't exact and is roughly adjusted for inflation ( is caused solely from government action - printing too much fiat currency). They then conclude with a statement acknowledging the actual 12% figure.

Not if you sell off some non-essential federal assets to pay down on the national debt - thereby reducing the tax revenue needed, currently over one third of the income tax, to pay down on that interest.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

It can also be hard to tell because many taxes are hidden or not easy to break out per person. Income taxes and payroll taxes are easy to track, but others are harder.

__________________
This space for rent.

Failing to adjust for inflation over a 10-year period is a mistake, not a valid alternative.

Clearly, reducing the debt reduces costs in the long-term.... but it increases costs in the short term. There ain't no free lunch.

Plus I'm sure you have an interesting definition of "non-essential." Considering that Ron Paul's definition of that term includes most of our military, the Dept. of Education and various other entities.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.