Taxes, even if proportioned to share of wealth, are way too high on the best and brightest. What to you think?

Taxes, even if proportioned to share of wealth, are way too high on the best and brightest. What to you think?

I keep seeing articles and posts related to taxes, and how the rich somehow get unfair tax write-offs and deductions. They claim the rich are the cause of our governments deficits and debt. They claim government cut-backs are due to tax cuts passed back in the Bush era. Well, they never backed it up with real numbers, so I spent the day looking and found a Department of Labor chart showing real taxes collected, who they were collected from, and what their share of the wealth pie really is.

Below is a 2006 chart of the the American workforce in percentile groups, followed by each groups percentage of all adjusted gross income(AGI) earned in the United States, the adjusted gross income threshold of that group, and their percentage of all the income taxes collected by the government.

Percentile----------% of income----------Threshold-------% of income tax

Top 1%................... 21.8%...........(above $388,806)..…......39.9%

95-99%................... 15.4%.........($153,542 - $388,806)...…20.3%

90-95%................... 10.8%.........($108,904 - $153,542)......10.6%

75-90%................... 20.6%.........($64,702 - 108,904)..........15.5%

50-75%................... 18.8%.........($31,987 - $64,702)......… 10.7%

Bottom 50%............ 12.6%...........(below $31,987)..….........3.0%

Now you would think with the progressive income tax scheme we currently use, people would pay the same percentage of income taxes, as their percentage income earned.

All people, rich..poor...everyone.

The poorest make 12.6% of all of the income in this country, and to be "fair", they should pay 12.6% of all of the income taxes. (But they don't, they only pay 3%)

The richest make 21.8% of all of the income, and to be "fair", they should pay 21.8% of all of the income taxes. (They don't, they pay 39.9%)

So, let's be radically progressive!!, and move the "unpaid portion" of the poorest 50% of peoples taxes, and send it up to the richest 1%. It's kind of socialist, but lets call it compassionate conservatism. That would tax shift the richest 1% from a 21.8% income tax burden, up to 31.4%. Now!!, lets tax shift the "unpaid" portion of the 2nd poorest group. That would bring the rich tax to 39.5%...........Still less than they are currently paying!

O.K., forget about the richest 1% of Americans. I think I've showed how they are already providing tax relief for more than three quarters of the country.

Lets look at the 2nd richest group. They pay 4.9% more of the income tax of this country, than their percentage of the income earned in this country. Why? Because the 75-90% group falls 5.1% short of their fair share. So if you tax shift the "unpaid portion" of the 4th richest group to the 2nd richest, you get 20.5%......well thats a little more than they currently pay, but close enough for radical progressives.

The 3rd richest group almost hold their own and should be left alone. They fall a little short, but as we saw above, the 2nd richest took care of that.

The numbers above indicate that, even with the most extreme form of radical, progressive, tax shifting, they believe is fairness, where the richest 1% pay the unpaid taxes of three quarters of the country, and the next richest 4% pay the unpaid taxes of people making between $64,000 and $108,000, there is actually need for a tax cut for the richest 5% of income earners. This, even after moving all of the "unpaid tax burdens" up from the bottom.

I think I have properly explained that our tax system is not fair, it is not just progressive, it is radically progressive. Liberals will not be happy until the two lowest groups, 75% of our workforce, pay none of their "fair share". If they achieve this on the backs of the 6 million most successful Americans, our economy will be doomed and our government will be bankrupt. They will have created a society where 90 million people, of our 120 million man workforce, will be deadbeats in the eyes of fair people everywhere.

I know what your thinking. More tax cuts to the rich? Wont that create even larger deficits and debt? Wont that make matters worse? The answer is no. You could just as easily change all of the numbers above by raising the taxes on the 75% of Americans that are currently not paying their fair share. The amount of money taxed out of our economy is too high already. If government can't make budgets to match high taxes, we need a new government. If government does decide to impose higher taxes, take cover!!

The time for reducing governments size, cost, and its drag on our economy is now. Before events grow out of control, beyond the current non-violent marches, protests and rallies. Unlike most liberal groups, conservatives will not just wave signs for years on end. We are a results

Update:

We are a results-oriented people, and if speaking out does not work, acting out is the next logical step.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    A new study based on unpublished Internal Revenue Service data shows the rich are different when it comes to paying taxes: They hide more of their income.

    The previously unreported study estimates that taxpayers whose true income was between $500,000 and $1 million a year understated their adjusted gross incomes by 21% overall in 2001, compared with an 8% underreporting rate for Americans earning $50,000 to $100,000 and even lower rates for those earning less.

    (The "net misreporting rate," as the IRS calls it, includes both underreported income and inflated deductions.)

    In all, because of their higher noncompliance rates, those with true incomes of $200,000 or more received 25% of all income but accounted for 40% of net underreported income and 42% of underreported tax in 2001, according to the new analysis.

    Talk back: Would you report a tax cheat?

    The study was written by Joel Slemrod, an economics professor and the director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan's business school, and Andrew Johns, an IRS researcher. It has not been officially endorsed or even released by the IRS, but it seems sure to add fuel to the election season debate over whether Americans earning $250,000 or more should pay higher tax rates, as Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed.

    The Slemrod-Johns analysis uses unpublished data from special research audits the IRS conducted on a sample of 45,000 individual returns filed for 2001. It was the IRS' first such research effort since 1988, and it led the agency to estimate the 2001 gross "tax gap" at $345 billion.

    Source(s): Know more, ask less.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Your entire question is based on a falsehood. The richest pay the SAME LOW RATES on their income at every level as you and I do. Also you exclude all other taxes from your little chart, which is a common trick by the class warfare folks on the right who want us to feel sympathy for the poor rich who control the wealth of the country. The middle class pay a higher percentage of their income on property tax, sales tax, social security tax, medicare tax and almost all other tax.

    Finally, your title is misleading. You talk about "share of the wealth" but your chart doesn't include anyting about the mountains of assets that the rich are already sitting on, Your chart only focuses on a small part of their wealth, which is their income year to year, the great majority of which is earned through sitting on their butts, earning interest, dividends, returns, and inheritence, UNLIKE the rest of us who have to provide real value to the economy by working.

    The absolute lowest rates should be on us, and the highest rates should be on those who earn their money by opening a statement every month and maybe making 2 calls a year to their investment advisor or sitting in their lawyers office listening to a will being read leaving them millions for no work on thier part.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    I dont think of this is going to likely be legal, although this is going to likely be decriminalized in quantities below an oz.. i'm a weed consumer, yet no longer in many cases anymore (various the time). If people have been allowed to smoke and drink, there would be worry. additionally, being severe isn't stable if various the society does it. If it have been legal, it ought to have a loopy tax. If its decriminalized, it capacity in case you're caught, you jsut pay a small superb and have it confiscated. no court docket, no checklist.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    You've written so much, and yet you've said so little. Your entire argument is based in a single snapshot, taken of 2006, of the tax base. You compare it to nothing, neither in American history nor elsewhere in the world. You just want to tax people already so poor that they are barely scraping by, and you hide that garbage proposal in bogus talk of fairness and equally ridiculous claims that our tax system is "radically progressive," which is so absurd (compared to what? you never say) that it doesn't merit a response.

    In summary, go away.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Very well done!

    In addition to the financial burdens it imposes, our tax system also acts as a powerful political weapon. It is bent, shaped, and molded to reward some businesses, punish others, control behavior, and buy votes. The solution is the FairTax, which would mark the greatest transfer of power from the federal government to the states and the people since this country's founding.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.