| Subject: Re: WHO PAYS WHAT TAXES … THE LATEST |
Author:
Ronlee
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:10:21 01/19/02 Sat
In reply to:
Rootbeer :o)
's message, "Re: WHO PAYS WHAT TAXES … THE LATEST" on 14:33:50 01/19/02 Sat
>You're not grasping the figures. The top 50% are paying 96% of the taxes. That means the bottom 50% are paying a whopping 4%. That's out of whack right there. So you say the top 50% should just vote accordingly because it's them against the lower 50%. Not quite. Take the top 50% and start dividing them up. Those at the lower end of the top 50% have had their tax burden lessened so that they line up with the lower 50% and say, "yea, make them rich bastards pay". Everytime you hear this 'fair share' nonsense that's what is happening.
The object of taxation in this country has become twisted. It used to be people paid taxes to contribute to society. Now the Government continually tells people that 'you haven't gained anything from this society' therefor you shouldn't have to pay anything. That's bull! I'm becoming weary of people who want to contribute nothing and collect everything.
Okay...so I understand what you're saying about who is
>paying more and who is paying less. My point was that
>now that the balance of who is paying more and who is
>paying less or nothing has balanced out to a 50-50
>level, doesn't it make sense that the top 50% have a
>better chance of swaying policy and enacting what you
>and Mr. Roark would say is a more equitable tax
>distribution, than if the top percentage of tax payers
>was only say..20% or 30%. See what I mean? The voting
>percentage is more equal now than it was before.
>Rootbeer :o)
>
>>> That's the whole point Rootbeer. It ain't a 50/50
>>proposition any longer. In other words, it has been
>>reduced to class warfare. What is middle income?
>>According to this:
>> Data on federal taxes from the two leading sources
>>of tax information for Congress — the Congressional
>>Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation —
>>indicate that the federal tax bite on families in the
>>middle of the income distribution is smaller than it
>>was four years ago. Families with incomes of
>>approximately $40,000, for example, would be paying
>>about $580 less in 2001 than they would have paid if
>>they still were paying the same percentage of income
>>in federal taxes as in 1995. Tax burdens on these
>>families have declined by an amount that equals about
>>one percent of their income.
>>
>>Now if the middle income folks are paying less who is
>>making up the difference? We already know that those
>>on the lower end are falling off the tax rolls
>>completely and the rates at the bottom end are
>>dropping. That leaves the evil rich, of which I am not
>>a member, but whom I will gladly defend, to foot the
>>bill.
>>Therein lies Mr. Roarks contention.
>>
>>
>>Can't say it ain't so...but I can say that there was
>>>some "mention" of these figures on Disney's ABC news
>>>recently. Can't say exactly what day it was but I do
>>>remember that it was spoken out loud on the air. For
>>>what it's worth.
>>>
>>>So now explain why it is if the top 50%'s tax rates
>>>keep going up, the top 50% don't do something about
>>>it? If 50% are getting tax breaks and 50% are getting
>>>tax broke, then they should be on equal footing to
>>>butt heads about evening it out.
>>>Rootbeer :o)
>>>
>>>>The latest numbers are out … these for 1999 … on
>just
>>>>what segment of our population pays what share of
>our
>>>>income tax burden. As columnist Bruce Bartlett puts
>>>>it, this is excellent anti-class envy material.
>>>>Over the years there has been a steady progression
>in
>>>>the shift of the responsibility for the payment of
>>>>federal income taxes to high-achievers. As I have
>>>>told you countless times, this is all according to
>>the
>>>>plan. The plan to shift the entire responsibility
>>for
>>>>the payment of federal income taxes to a minority of
>>>>the taxpayers. This, of course, leaves the
>>>>class-warfare party, the Democratic Party, free to
>>>>soak the rich minority, who pay all the taxes, for
>>the
>>>>benefit of the lower and middle income majority,
>>which
>>>>pays virtually none of the income taxes. A sure
>>>>vote-buying formula.
>>>>OK .. here’s the latest from Bruce Bartlett’s colum.
>>>>For some historical reference Bartlett points out
>>that
>>>>in 1975 the top 1 percent of income earners in this
>>>>country paid about 18.7 percent of all federal
>income
>>>>taxes. Keep that figure in mind.
>>>>Now .. the figures for 1999. The top 1 percent of
>>>>income earners now pay 36.2 of all federal income
>>>>taxes. For those of you who attended government
>>>>schools, that’s over one-third. This is double
>their
>>>>share of the tax burden from 1975. If you have any
>>>>brains at all you will want to know just what share
>>of
>>>>total income this top 1 percent earned. After all,
>>if
>>>>they’re earning 36.2 percent of the income then they
>>>>should be paying 36.2 percent of the income taxes.
>>>>That would only be fair, wouldn’t it? Well, the
>fact
>>>>is that this evil top 1 percent of income earners
>>only
>>>>earned 19.5 percent of the income in 1999. As
>>>>Bartlett points out, their share of the income taxes
>>>>exceeds their share of the income by almost 17
>>>percent.
>>>>Now for some other income-earning segments.
>>>>If you’re in the 5 percent of income earners your
>>>>share of the income taxes paid went from 36.6 to
>55.5
>>>>percent from 1975 to 1999. The top 10 percent saw
>>>>their share increase from 48.7 percent to 66.5
>>>>percent. If you’re in the top 25 percent you’re now
>>>>paying 83.5 percent of the income taxes. In 1975
>you
>>>>paid 72 percent. How about the top half? Your
>>share
>>>>is now at 96 percent. The bottom half pays 4
>>percent.
>>>>Guessing game. Of all the segments I mentioned
>>above,
>>>>which segment saw their share of the total income
>>>>taxes paid actually go down in the last 25 years?
>>>>You’re right. Only one segment. The bottom 50
>>>>percent.
>>>>Another question. Which segment listed above has an
>>>>income share that exceeds their share of the income
>>>>taxes paid? Again, only one. The bottom 50
>>percent.
>>>>When these figures first came out in 1975 liberal
>>>>Democrats in congress denied them. They refused to
>>>>believe the figures could be correct. They demanded
>>>>that the Congressional Research Service develop the
>>>>correct figures. After their own study was done,
>>they
>>>>found the figures were true.
>>>>These figures never fail to amaze those who actually
>>>>see them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of
>people
>>>>in this country don’t listen to talk radio and don’t
>>>>study Treasury publications. So, since these
>figures
>>>>certainly aren’t going to be featured on ABC News or
>>>>Entertainment Tonight --- most people will never
>>know.
>>>>Bottom line? The evil, hated rich most certainly
>are
>>>>paying “their fare share” of the taxes and are
>richly
>>>>deserving of a tax cut. Just try to say it ain’t
>so.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 