Only the rich pay taxes

[ChristianConservative]

Only the Rich Pay Taxes!

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls


The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However,
their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%




*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security


Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!

The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)


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.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

[ChristianConservative]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5...edTaxRates.pdf

[sweetdaisy]

Where is the article from in the first post? Can't figure out who the author is...

[Patrick]

Well, I can't disagree with you. I've thought the tax codes reguiring rich to pay a higher percentage of taxes have needed to be changed for years now. This is why I've always been in favor of a flat tax, or even a national sales tax that everyone pays. A rich person shouldn't have to pay 50% of his/her income in taxes, when a poor person only pays 3%.

[Midtowner]

I agree. The system punishes success and rewards laziness/poor choices. It's completely unamerican IMHO.

[Luke]

A flat tax seems logical.

Wonder why it hasn't caught on...

[Midtowner]

Luke, it's because those who pay the lowest effective tax rate -- the extremely wealthy are adept at avoiding taxation. Through the use of tax shelters, trust funds, overseas accounts, obtaining unique types of compensation (like stock), they have an effectively lower tax rate.

If we remove these loopholes, they'll have to pay a lot more. Therefore, they're not in favor.

Also, this would strip Congress of one if its greatest "go-to" places to curry favor with special interests -- tax breaks. This is why we'll never see a serious discussion of a flat tax.

Also -- the IRS would have to cut back a lot, and Lauri05 really doesn't want that

[Luke]

Smaller IRS, smaller government... sounds good to me.

Doesn't Forbes push a flat tax?

[Midtowner]

Forbes does. I'd like to see a few allowances made as far as the flat tax goes though. I'd like essentials to be exempt (food, etc.) or maybe just have them exempt for individuals paying with food stamp cards.

It's a trade off though -- the first allowances we make for the flat tax to be progressive/regressive, we should just consider that we're opening the flood gates so to speak.

[Lauri101]

Also -- the IRS would have to cut back a lot, and Lauri05 really doesn't want that

LOL!

That's Lauri101 -just basic Lauri

Besides, I can retire in 3.5 years, so bring it on!

I think a flat tax, if it was designed to not be regressive, would be beneficial. Unfortunately, by the time Congress fine-tunes it, we'd likely end up with a mess just as bad as the one we have now.

[Patrick]

What's so hard about 7% across the board, or whatever rate is decided on? Only problem is there wouldn't be any reason to donate to charities. They'd suffer.

[ChristianConservative]

Only problem is there wouldn't be any reason to donate to charities. They'd suffer.

More people would have money in their pockets, so they'd still donate out of the goodness of their hearts. Most church goers give out of obedience anyways.

[rxis]

Home ownership is greatly encouraged because its good for the economony. Too many real estate owners wouldn't want to give up their tax benefits anyway.

A flat tax would be a tax on the poor since it would be a greater chunk of their marginal utility.

The tax cuts to the middle and lower class allows the money to circulate back through the system and back to the wealthy, thus maintaining social and economic order.



I pay 35-40% tax due to my profession.
now that bites

[rxis]

There is an association of mostly executives that are pushing for advancements in the progressive system and are against Bush's tax cuts. I hope I can find out what they are doing now.

[Midtowner]

Rxis, I think they call that association "Democrats."

At any rate, it wouldn't surprise me one bit that there might be some misguided souls who think it's their personal responsibility to pay for other sit on their butts and do nothing.

For these people, I would propose a voluntary tax -- pay as much as you think you should have to pay.

[Easy180]

midtowner...It sounds good on paper, but spend some time with some of the poorer families who actually work hard and you may back off a little on your stance towards making them pay higher taxes

I know in your mind it's their choice to be poor, but most of the lower paying jobs are vital to our economy and/or quality of life so someone must fill them

[rxis]

The association has many republican members as well.
The members donate a lot or time and money to various organizations.

[Midtowner]

midtowner...It sounds good on paper, but spend some time with some of the poorer families who actually work hard and you may back off a little on your stance towards making them pay higher taxes

I know in your mind it's their choice to be poor, but most of the lower paying jobs are vital to our economy and/or quality of life so someone must fill them

And they make the choice to fill those jobs. Hopefully, they also make the choice to go to night school or trade school, but I'll bet the vast majority do not.

Those low paying jobs are not meant to be careers. If someone decides to treat those jobs as such, that is their own fault.

As far as 'spending time' goes with those folks, I worked through HS and undergrad in retail. I've spent a great deal of time socially with low wage earners. Some were quite satisfied with their lots in life.

I certainly pay my fair share in taxes -- why don't they?

As for your "significant number of Republicans" who support higher taxes, again, if they support this, I'd encourage them to write a check to the I.R.S., and in the memo line write "donation." Otherwise, please show me some evidence of this significant number of rich folk, or drop the argument entirely.

[Easy180]

I guess it's safe to say based on your tax stance on the poor you aren't a Fair Share giver to the United Way

Just razzing you some on this as I suppose in theory it's not fair, but I for one don't really mind throwing in extra taxes to offset those less fortunate regardless of their situation

[Midtowner]

Like I said -- if your tax situation bothers you, donate some money to the IRS.

As to the United Way, I prefer to target my giving a little more locally. At this time, we have a solidly middle class 2-income family -- nothing special. We're well above the average income for our area, but not anything to be amazed at.

That said, upon finishing law school, I expect that'll change.

I think I'll be giving most of my charity money back to my college fraternity and my undergrad college. There might even be a certain charter school that I'll donate to. Who knows? I do think it's a responsibility of the wealthy to give hands up -- but I think it's also up to the people who earned that money to decide where they give, how much they give, etc. rather than having the money taken from them upon pain of imprisonment.

Taxes are a necessary evil in this society. They go for the public good. I start to question those, however, who start to broadly define the "public good" and the "public interst" as what is good for those who do not work. For them, assuming they are of able mind and able body, a swift kick in the backside would be what I'd consider to be in the interest of the "public good."

[dismayed]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are among those who are against Bush's tax cuts.

It makes some sense to me that the top 1% of wage earners in the US are paying 34% of all taxes since they own 35% of all assets in the country. It's a fact, look it up.

I'm not saying it's right, but for most of the 20th Century there were some pretty repressive taxes out there. In 1918 the top tax rate was 80%. In 1940 it was 50%. In 1942 it was 90%. In 1943 it went up to an astonishing 95%. Throughout the 1950's there were 'excess profit taxes' that went as high as 70%. So for a "war time" such as now our current tax structure is quite a bargain.

[Shake2005]

Like I said -- if your tax situation bothers you, donate some money to the IRS.

As to the United Way, I prefer to target my giving a little more locally. At this time, we have a solidly middle class 2-income family -- nothing special. We're well above the average income for our area, but not anything to be amazed at.

That said, upon finishing law school, I expect that'll change.

I think I'll be giving most of my charity money back to my college fraternity and my undergrad college. There might even be a certain charter school that I'll donate to. Who knows? I do think it's a responsibility of the wealthy to give hands up -- but I think it's also up to the people who earned that money to decide where they give, how much they give, etc. rather than having the money taken from them upon pain of imprisonment.

Taxes are a necessary evil in this society. They go for the public good. I start to question those, however, who start to broadly define the "public good" and the "public interst" as what is good for those who do not work. For them, assuming they are of able mind and able body, a swift kick in the backside would be what I'd consider to be in the interest of the "public good."

You are young and haven't seen much of life. I hope you never see any real hardship in your life so that you will never know what "a swift kick in the backside" really feels like.

White, intelligent, educated, sheltered young middle class boys from a small city in the southwest should really not think they are so wise yet to know what is good for others that don’t have the same advantages as they do.

That your version of “charity” is to give money to your frat brothers speaks volumes.

Beware Midtowner, the self righteous and sanctimonious young that would judge people that don’t come from the same place they do have a tendency to experience a big fall because they fail to believe that “that” could ever happen to them. Whatever "that" turns out to be.

Life is the great equalizer, I hope it doesn't happen to you.

[bandnerd]

It's not as if giving money to his fraternity is just going to give them funds for beer...it helps fund the philanthropic activities the fraternity engages in every semester. It helps fund programs to help the kids in the fraternity who are struggling with their grades. I know the fraternity, and they are very much well-deserving of Midtowner's charity.

That said, they are not the only charity we give to, when we have the money/supplies to give. And when law school is over, and we have more to give, I plan to give to other charities as well. It has been an idea of mine to give money to cancer research, as cancer is something my family has dealt with very closely; I am just currently unable to share my measly teacher salary.

Shake: To say that Midtowner doesn't realize that the possibility for a "swift kick" is naive. Do you think we have no money saved? Do you think we aren't prepared?

Also, he is well aware of what life is like for people who weren't born into his situation, as he married someone who had a very different life than he did growing up.

Midtowner's problem with the tax system is that it gives money to some people who abuse the system. People who are on welfare for 20 years. People who just keep having more kids so the government will give them more money. People who beg on the streets, collect government pay, and make more money than teachers (just an example). Those people. Do you not agree that those people should have some consequences for squandering your tax money?

I think some people need a swift kick in the pants for thinking they know everything about a person from a message board.

[Shake2005]

Frats are barely, marginally, charitable groups, that's a sham.

I think that if you think anyone lives well on welfare, you are confused. I also think that we are wealthy enough as a nation that no person in America should go without basic food, shelter and medical care.

Our priorities are screwed up in this nation. I pay would a little more in taxes (or better yet not buy an aircraft carrier) to ensure these basic needs for everyone. That others would not shows how off kilter we are. The average pay for teachers does as well, who is more important to the success of this nation, teachers or lawyers? Who makes more?


If you think I am wrong, I recommend rereading the New Testiment.

[Martin]

oh brother. so if somebody is against giving handouts as part of their taxes, then they're obviously out-of-step with the new testament... as if that was the cornerstone of public policy today, anyway. seriously, shake, haphazardly waving the bible around is pretty cliche.

while i'll agree that fraternities may not be the best charitable organizations to donate money... i'll stick to worrying about where i send my money and not worry about where others choose to send theirs.

as for providing basic needs for every citizen, you're arguing on the basic definition of what a government should be. many think, as you do, that the government should be a huge babysitter that protects us from ourselves and picks us up when we fall down... many others think that its role should be as small as possible... only taking care of what the private sector cannot and should not.

that being said, i'd rather keep more of the money i earn. it should be up to me to donate my money, if i choose, to help put food on others' tables. it should be up to me if i donate some money to defray health insurnace costs of others who can't afford it. so... if you feel guilty for the things you have, you can choose to give a little more. the point is, charity should be your choice... not a tax. -M