and these aren't the wealthy. It's those of us earning over $100k per year So, with 13% of us paying 72% of the burden, is that enough? Is it our "fair share" If not, how much should the 13%ers be paying? linky linky http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/100k-plus-earners-pay-72-federal-income-taxes snip n 2011, according to the IRS, there were 145,370,240 individual income tax returns filed. Among those returns, 125,914,418 or 86.6%, belonged to taxpayers earning a salary less than $100,000. The remaining 19,455,822 returns belonged to those taxpayers earning more than $100,000, or 13.4% of the total.
They just want "MORE." It will never be enough. If the 13% of us were paying 100% of the federal bills, they would complain that we were "just paying the bills," and not doing our fair share.
"The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective—a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.' Theodore Roosevelt....REPUBLICAN....August 31st, 1910
And Ike had an 85%+ top marginal rate. Seems like the GOP used to be rather sane and moderate years ago.
I live in this bracket. It's outrageous.... I just wish the Liberals I pay for were more grateful. But, I have found that when you give to those that do not deserve it, they are not only not grateful, they are resentful. It's a weird psychology. - - - Updated - - - The Federal Government taking 85% is sane in your view? How much do you make a year? What do you contribute?
No one should be made to pay bills over which they have no say or control, and when it comes to the feds, we don't. The elections are a sham. No individual vote affects anything, and our "choices" every election are determined by other means.
Everybody pays taxes one way or another. Some just get better breaks. The richest and the poorest fall into that category.
the democratic party has clearly disavowed Jim Crow laws. Are you suggesting that Republicans no longer consider Teddy Roosevelt to be a GOP president in good standing?
You make twice as much as the average household (with more than one income), and you are sad? I think the word you are looking for is confused.
Here's an approximation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/us-is-now-the-most-unequa_b_4408647.html So we can calculate that if 10% of the people own 75% of the wealth, but 13% of the people are paying 72% of the taxes, then the wealthy are underpaying relative to their wealth.
yes, we should reward those that make over 100k with a huge tax cut for making so much money.... cause lord knows the 'making so much money' is not reward enough .
Those Democrats became Republicans when civil rights legislation became part of the Democrat's platform.
No, it's far too much given that 20% of Americans own 72% of the wealth. and the the poorest 20% only 3% of the wealth. Given that there is an ongoing redistribution that increasingly concentrates that wealth in fewer pockets, taxation should be a fair reflection of the reality.
You will NEVER get a straight answer from those how spout the nonsense about the high earners not paying "their fair share".
I highly doubt that Teddy was talking about the top 1% paying 40% of income taxes or the top 10% paying 60% or the top 20% paying over 80% and the bottom half paying virtually nothing. If the system is not graduated enough now what would be?
