Tax Breaks for the Rich!

[fintstone]

Just wondered if folks really realize how progressive the federal income taxes really are. According to the IRS, in the year 2000 (even before Bush's tax cuts for the poor):
the top 1% of wage earners paid 37.4% of all federal income the
the top 5% paid 56.5% of federal taxes
the top 50% of earners paid 96.1%
the bottom 50% of earners paid practically zero in taxes

19.2 million Americans divided a total of $31.8 Billion in the earned income tax credit (EITC)
The average EITC check received was $1,658 per person. About 86% of that went to workers who did not pay any federal income taxes

[speeder]

So what's your point? That this should be changed so that poor people w/ deductions, (kids), should take some of the load off of "Kenny-boy" Lane and Oprah Winfrey??

[Neilk]

Taxes and statistics are never a good combo. You can play with the numbers to support any argument you want to make.

[lendaddy]

He is getting at a bigger picture where as people like yourself are being lead like sheep into a system where more and more people will simply vote themselves money and services hence becoming useless leaches on our country. Now before you bust an artery I dont blame the people, I blame the politicians who sell em this crap to keep em dependant, ala welfare. I would just love to see the stat on % of people who come off welfare. It's trap by design and it locks up one hell of a voter block. It's sad that people like yourself think this is help, when in fact it is anything but.

[fintstone]

Good point! With over half of the electorate paying no taxes and a huge group getting back an average of more than $1650 more than they paid in....what is to keep them from electing whatever fool promises to take even more money from other people to give to them? It is almost foolproof. Just promise the lower 50% you will give them everything the top 25% earns and you are guaranteed to get elected.

[fintstone]

What did it take to be one of the "rich" and get into that exalted top 25% of earners? A measly AGI of $55,225.

[fintstone]

So what's your point? That this should be changed so that poor people w/ deductions, (kids), should take some of the load off of "Kenny-boy" Lane and Oprah Winfrey??

Not my point, but I will field it anyways. This is where responsibility comes in...anyone who cannot afford children without government support should not have them.

[singpilot]

Oh man..... Maury Povich just came on. The girl who has tested 16 men for paternity of her 4 children is on. She is still unsuccessfully looking for the fathers....

[fintstone]

Guess all you employed guys with "earned income" will effectively be the fathers.....at least financially.

[RickM]

Sing, Youre kidding. Same chick from 2 years ago?

I was out for a week and caught the show. She was at about 6 at that point. Jeez...pretty pathetic.

[BGCarrera32]

Originally posted by Neilk
Taxes and statistics are never a good combo. You can play with the numbers to support any argument you want to make.

Not really, unless you lie about the numbers.

The next time you hear someone whine about tax cuts for the rich, ask them what the figure is in real dollars to define "rich".

What is the number?

Well?

The top 50% of wage earners paying 96% of the tax burden are those earning $26,000 a year and up.

So we could conclude that $26,000 a year qualifies you as rich.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.

[djmcmath]

I'm gonna side with Neil on this one. 83% of all statistics are totally meaningless, and tax numbers are generally so complex that without a whole lot more information, they're more meaningless than 92% of the statistics we see.

I'm just waiting for JP to wander in and write another eloquent thesis on the topic.


Dan

[Superman]

Looks like you guys have it figured out. I wonder:

This top 1% of "wage earners" who pay 37.4% of income taxes, I wonder what percent of the nation's wealth they control.

These are "wage earners." What about folks who have no time for a job since tracking their various holdings (real estate, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc) takes up all their time?

And how much of the nation's tax burden should be shouldered by households earning minimum wage ($14,500 per year, gross)? And what sort of "quality time" do parents find to teach values to their children when they are working two jobs in order to make ends meet?

Is the welfare system the problem? Or is the real problem the fact that a family-wage job (with health benefits, perhaps?) is not the "other option" compared to welfare. A step from welfare to work is a big step down, and I do not believe it is because of the lavish lifestyles of welfare families as much as it is the dirth of family-wage jobs. Job creation is fine, but every new minimum wage job created costs you and I money. Employers do not pay the full price of a minumum wage worker. They pay just the (minimum) wage. You and I pay the rest (food, transportation, health care, etc.).

And how much of our taxes are paid by Wal Mart?

[lendaddy]

"This top 1% of "wage earners" who pay 37.4% of income taxes, I wonder what percent of the nation's wealth they control."

I am struggling to figure out how this is any of your or my business????

[Superman]

This is a democracy, right?

[lendaddy]

No, it's not. But that's besides the point.

[milehi914]

I am not an economics guy but if memory serves me...for an ideal capatalistic society to work it requires an unemployment rate of ~ 4%. Some people are just not going to work and what are we to do with those people? Welfare not the answer? Maybe they will make a living by selling stolen items...from your house. Whatever puts food on the table, at least they are working for it, right? Maybe they should just go and get a job...making $7 an hour. That wage goes a long way to raising a family and don't forget to factor in the cost of childcare. What do you mean they don't have childcare at night or in the evenings. Oh maybe they shouldn't have children you say. Who should enforce that form of birth control? The government?

Oh, if the bottom 50% actually voted maybe you would be on to something...it would be fool proof then. Isn't the reason that some people in the government work hard to keep big business out of politics is because big business runs the government?

I'm not in the top 1% and I pay my taxes. If the welfare system allows a single mother to stay home and raise her kids and that keeps them out of trouble I am for it. I will not be jumping up and down with excitment to pay those taxes but I do it. If Dr. Laura has a problem paying her taxes or Oprah or Halburton Execs...I don't care.

Chris in Denver

[speeder]

Originally posted by fintstone
Not my point, but I will field it anyways. This is where responsibility comes in...anyone who cannot afford children without government support should not have them.

It may surprise you that I agree with you competely, at least in principle. The question though is what do we then do when someone w/ no $$ or education goes ahead and reproduces anyways? I don't have a brilliant answer for this one, but I agree wholeheartedly that govt. policies should promote self-sufficiency(sp?). This is one of those areas where I am more of a right-winger, I guess.

This actually brings me around to another point, which is the commonly heard complaint that govt. should "get/stay out of people's lives", and let capitalism ("market forces") handle all social engineering. There is a persistent wet dream among business people that if govt. slashed taxes, everyone would be just fine, social problems such as civil rights and serious environmental issues would be solved by Enron and Phillip Morris.

The problem is that govt. is always involved in social engineering, even when they do nothing. "Doing nothing" in this case means letting the coal industry set their own emission standards. ("Voluntary compliance"). It's the same w/ healthcare, (let the pharm bigs determine policy), definitely all energy issues, etc... We need to decide what kind of playing field we want as a group, (that's where democracy or at least representative democracy comes in), otherwise we have a system where whomever has the most economic power, (gained through god-knows-what), controls all policy. And the standard of fairness will be, "whatever works out best for me/my people".

[s_wilwerding]

There is no "required" level of unemployment, 4% or otherwise. I think the point he is trying to make is that unemployment will always be at least x% because there will always be people who won't work. In other words, you can't completely eradicate unemployment.

[911ctS]

Originally posted by lendaddy
"This top 1% of "wage earners" who pay 37.4% of income taxes, I wonder what percent of the nation's wealth they control."

I am struggling to figure out how this is any of your or my business????

Wow, did you just say that?

It should be all of our business. Part of running an effective democracy is knowing the balance and distribution of wealth.

I know learning from history is a far off concept for some people but... If our country gets further twisted in to RICH and POOR classifications with no middle class then it will certainly change for the worse. We will just end up like other failed democracies over time. (as if the extremely wealthy really care though, they're all for here, now, and the all mighty dollar)