Top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 64.89%. The top 25% pay 82.9%. The top 50% pay 96.03%. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore!
LINK BELOW
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
2007-10-11 12:56:41 · 12 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, I think it should go back the way it was before republicans gave all the cuts to the wealthy.
Year Income brackets Rate range
1979 15 brackets 14%-70%
1982 12 brackets 12%-50%
1987 5 brackets 11%-38.5%
1988 3 brackets 15%-33%
1991 3 brackets 15%-31%
1993 5 brackets 15%-39.6%
2001 5 brackets 15%-39.1%
2002 6 brackets 10%-38.6%
2003-2006 6 brackets 10%-35%
2007-10-11 13:10:07 · answer #1 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The top 1% own more of the wealth in the US than all of the bottom 90% put together. That is an amazing statistic!
The massive redistribution of wealth that you’re complaining about is that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is struggling to survive.
Of course the wealthiest pay more taxes because they have a lot more money. Even at a very high tax rate, they would still have a lot of money and still be very wealthy.
Before you complain about taxes, you need to look at who has the money and how it is distributed in the United States. Then you can intelligently address the discrepancies in taxation.
2007-10-11 21:06:31 · answer #2 · answered by relevant inquiry 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are speaking of wage earners, not the wealthy, the truly wealthy do not earn wages! The reason that the bottom 50% pay so little in taxes is because they earn so much less than those in the top brackets! How could you tax someone more who is not earning enough to barely keep a shirt on his/her back? The taxes are, perhaps, a bit on the heavy side for those who earn a lot but, I'll bet they still have plenty left over, unlike the ones in the bottom half who have nothing left to save for that rainy day!
2007-10-11 20:31:40 · answer #3 · answered by geegee 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Top 1% --- $364,657 --- 39.38
Top 5% --- $145,283 --- 59.67
Top 10% --- $103,912 --- 70.30
Top 25% --- $62,068 --- 85.99
Top 50% --- $30,881 --- 96.93
Bottom 50% --- <$30,881 --- 3.07
So looking it at this way, it seems the guys in the middle are paying a heck of a lot more per share then those at the top no? And the bottom. But those at the bottom don't have that much do they?
How about a clear 10% across the board, then it would be equal. No matter what you make, 10% tax.
2007-10-11 20:22:58 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
PNAC, once again you completely misread your own charts and stats. Second of all, you need to do some reading on the subject and start educating yourself (again). But I know you won't because you are a lazy thinker who would rather be an idealogue rather than actually think for yourself.
I don't feel sorry for people making over $350,000 a year. Why should I? They should be paying more. The redistribution of wealth is happening from the bottom and it's going to the top. Between 2000 and 2006 the combined
real annual earnings of 93 millionAmerican workers rose by $15.4 billion. That rise is less than halfof the combined bonuses awarded by five Wall Street firms for just one year
This is class warfare in reverse. The fact remains that the millionaires and the billionaires pay a far less tax percentage than those in the middle class and lower middle class because they have alot of write offs and alot of places to hide their money and their earnings. So when it comes to real gross income it is alot higher in reality than what is being stated on their tax forms. Why is it that "Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Why is this? Because investors pay a far lower rate of taxes for their investment income than do working income makers do. And, trust me if the rich paid their fair share of taxes per income they would at least be starting to pay their fair share.
http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/
That top 50% of wage earners include those in the lower middle class all the way to the top of the food chain make billions. That is a huge swath of people. The fact that there are so many people in the U.S making less than $30,000 (the other 50%) a year is more shocking and disturbing than what the richest 1% pays in taxes. $30,000 in Los Angeles where I live isn't even minimum wage, it is below the poverty level because the cost of living is so high here. I think your stats you provided did more harm to your cause than you think.
2007-10-11 20:29:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
The democrats are targeting the Middle Class, those who make between about 30 and 100,000 per year.
It is true that there are A LOT of poor people in this country and they pay very little in federal income tax.
What they should get are MASSIVE tax credits along the lines of the Earned Income Credit.
Do us all a favor. Don't vote.
2007-10-12 12:04:26 · answer #6 · answered by sal 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Guess what--the bottom 50% pay a biggerportion of their incomes in taxes than anyone else--and all the neocon "creative accounting" won't change that simple fact.
2007-10-11 20:08:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
and yet the USA has the lowest tax rates of any of the developed countries in the world
no one is forcing the rich to stay here and pay these taxes, they just know that compared to other couintries they are paying less % of their earnings here in the USA
and I noticed you NEVER mentioned cutting spending, just the tax % on the rich (very revealing)
2007-10-11 20:01:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Oh thankyou I would much rather have the Robber Barons.
Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States as a pejorative reference to businessmen and bankers who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various allegedly anti-competitive or unfair business practices. The term may now be used in relation to any businessman or banker who is perceived to have used questionable business practices in order to become powerful or wealthy.
2007-10-11 20:03:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
So...
If I'm understanding you correctly:
You think it would be fair for the poor to pay more in taxes so that they have even LESS money?
I would have to say that NO, I'm not for that.
2007-10-11 20:05:31 · answer #10 · answered by M & M 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋