posted on April 6, 2001 01:38:13 PM new
I need your help. I've looked everywhere and in no place that I've gone over does anyone give out this vital info to answer this question: Did the Top 1% of Wealthy Americans put 43% or more INTO the US Tresury through taxes, or not?
I know that you have resources, such as far-right web sites and so forth that I'm not aware of that may have the answer. Since this is YOUR Tax Refund package, can you please, pretty pleeeease, with Sugar on it, please provide any links that show that the Top 1% of Wealthiest Americans actually did pay 43% or more into the kitty? That way, progressives like me and other will simply shut-up about the Bush Tax Refund and maybe, even support it!
posted on April 6, 2001 07:30:28 PM new
Being conservative with compassion requires us to reserve it for the wealthy.
[ edited by figmente on Apr 6, 2001 07:30 PM ]
posted on April 6, 2001 09:35:22 PM new
Am I to understand; you will be declining any reduction in taxes being the plan is a Republican plan and all resulting benefits, therefore, will belong only to the Republicans?
If you take the time to research the Federal IRS records, you will find data that will answer your questions.
In 1999, the IRS reported that (paraphrased) ".....the top 50% of income earners pay exactly 95.7% of the total Federal income taxes. The bottom 50% with incomes below $23,160 pays only 4.34% of the total Federal income tax. Generally, low-income earners pay almost no Federal taxes at all."
posted on April 6, 2001 10:09:10 PM new"Am I to understand; you will be declining any reduction in taxes being the plan is a Republican plan and all resulting benefits, therefore, will belong only to the Republicans?"
No.
I am glad that you have heard at least something. But no definitive answers, no URLs unfortunately.
Even if the Top 50% of income earners do pay 95.7% (which I doubt), then giving 43% of this tax refund to only the Top 1% is unfair to the other Top 49% of income earners -- right?
Now do you understand where my complaint is? Now can anyone supply any verifiable facts that the Top 1% actually paid 43% or more into the system?
C'mon! It can't be that hard of a question -- can it? I mean, if the Republicans are going to hand $680,000,000,000.00 over to the Top 1% of Americans, they have to be basing upon [b]hard data -- right? They didn't do this without facts to back them up . . . would they?
So! Who's going to be the first to shut up the Progressives, hmmm?
In the decade of the ‘90s, the share of federal income taxes paid by
the top 1 percent of income earners rose by 9.7 percentage points,
from 25.1% of the total to 34.8%. The share paid by the top 1%
rose by 1.6 percentage points in the past year alone, from 33.2%
in 1997.
• The increase in the share of income taxes paid was concentrated
at the highest income levels, as is evident from the data showing
the share of taxes paid by the top half of income earners rose only
1.6 percentage points between 1990 and 1998.
• The Bulletin would be remiss if it did not also display data on
income shares over the same period. After all, perhaps taxes paid
by the top 1% rose because income was higher for the top 1%.
• Income did grow for the top 1% (as it did for the top 10% and the
top 50%), but it’s not the whole story. Income rose for these
groups, but the share of taxes paid rose even more.
Although the tax plans gives back 43% to the top 1%, don't forget, that that is over the course of years, and they actually would not get back an equal amount to what they paid in over the same course of the years.
Although I am not anywhere near the top 1% of earners, I don't think it's right to give back an unproportionate amount to those that paid much less. Don't forget also that these top wage earners are generally paying alot more than us in corporate and estate taxes on top of income taxes.
It's no surprise that come tax season, some people are always smiling, and others are always frowning... Becuase the lower income people get checks and the higher income people get bills. Why should those that get refunds every year, get any tax break at all. Or, at least give some of the money back to the people that actually pay it. This is after all, NOT a socialist country (although I guess even that could be argued nowadays)
"When George W. Bush first became governor of Texas, he tried to cut the state tax on business profits while increasing the sales tax — that is, he tried to cut taxes on wealthy shareholders while raising taxes that bear most heavily on ordinary families. This top-down class warfare was too much even for Texas, and Mr. Bush learned that it's better to take a less direct approach: use unrealistically optimistic budget projections to justify tax cuts for the rich, then when reality strikes use the pressure of a tight budget to squeeze programs for the poor and middle class.
...
if Treasury officials had calculated the share of the benefits going to the top 1 percent (they didn't), and if they had included the effects of estate tax repeal (they didn't),
...
But now it seems that this is an underestimate. The Joint Tax Committee tells us that estate tax repeal will make it easier for the rich to avoid income taxes. So we can now surmise that more than half of the benefits of the tax cut will go to the wealthiest 1 percent.
..."
2001 Newspeak Dictionary: "Compassionate Conservatism", definition: reserve compassion for those best able to pay for it.
posted on April 7, 2001 09:51:52 AM new
Right! The New York Times is unbiased. LMAO.
My question is, why should someone's estate be taxed? Everything is the estate has been taxed at least once (and probably more then that).
Since my wife and have no children, our estate will be left to charitable organizations so the government does NOT get one red cent. (After we die, I am sure they will come up with more ways to take it before we die.)
Opinion on the tax cut. Anyone who does not make enough to pay taxes under the current tax structure should NOT get a tax cut. Give it back to the people who paid it, in the exact proportion they paid. (Either that or build a few power plants for those of us here in California.)
posted on April 7, 2001 10:29:44 AM new
I think refund should be based upon income and so should income tax. Therefore, the top 20% population/income bracket makes 98-99% of the National Gross Income and they should get 98-99% of the refund, BUT THEY SHOULD ALSO PAY 98-99% OF THE INCOME TAX!!
At present, they make 98-99% of the income, pay 43% of the income taxes and stand to get 90% of the refund. This is called equitable by Republicans. And Republicans said Al Gore used fuzzy math!
posted on April 7, 2001 10:33:44 AM new
and that other ____,
"Becuase the lower income people get checks and the higher income people get bills. Why should those that get refunds every year, get any tax break at all"
Is the source of a tax refund different than the source of a tax reduction?
"tax plans gives back 43% to the top 1%"
As you say. Not being, as 99% of taxpayers are not, a member of that 1%, do you feel that the tax break is a politically viable action which benefits the great mass of the electorate?
posted on April 7, 2001 10:41:16 AM new
The nation's employers shed 86,000 jobs in March, the largest loss for a single month in more than nine years and an indication to many economists that the United States may be on the verge of a recession.
posted on April 7, 2001 03:23:50 PM newkrs Why should I (or my heirs) be taxed on an increase in equity?
I paid taxes when I earned it or when I bought it. I never believed in the capital gains tax. The government should get some of my money because I was smart enough to invest in something that increased in value? LMAO.
posted on April 7, 2001 04:06:48 PM new
I'm sure that you could gather support amongst those rich that you so carefully protect in your effort to do away with capital gains tax. In fact, I'd say that they'd line up to trade in their paltry tax cut for that as a reality, since most of them dodge the income tax anyway.
posted on April 7, 2001 06:44:15 PM new
I am not rich and don't intend to protect the rich (I live in the SF Bay Area, and am lucky to be able to afford a house in an older neighborhood).
I just don't see why someone should be taxed because they invest in something that increases in value.
Explain to me why capital gains should be taxed.
Explain to me why my Estate (if any) should be taxed. (If we plan it right, when my wife and I die, the check for the cremations will bounce )
The only reason I can see for the government to tax these types of items is to redistribute wealth through government programs.
My wife and I end up paying about HALF of our income in taxes (Federal, State, Social Security, Property, Sales, etc, etc, etc), and that doesn't take into account taxes included in product prices (i.e., almost half the price of a gallon of gas is tax).
Seems outragous that I have to work half of the year (or more) for the stinking government. Being a libertarian, I would like to do away with two thirds of the government and go with a 10% flat tax.
posted on April 7, 2001 07:58:26 PM newThank You jlpiece! Now we have at least something to go on.
Now lessee here . . . hmmm, page 2 of 3, Box entitled: New IRS Data and Income Shares. There! There's some info! Here it is:
1998
-----------
Top 1% paid 34.8% into the system.
Here, this ought to be simple enough for President Bush to understand:
43.0% (tax refund to the Top 1%)
-34.8% (taxes actually paid into the system)
-------
8.2% OVERPAYMENT
Now, the Senate Democrats have whittled down the 1.6 Trillion tax break down to 1.2 Trillion. So here is how it currently breaks down:
On $1,200,000,000,000.00:
Taxes paid into the system from the Top 1%
= $417,000,000,000.00
Tax Refund money back
= $516,000,000,000.00
Resulting in an "overpayment" of:
= $99,000,000,000.00!!!!!!!
That's quite a discrepancy! If Bush changes the Tax Refund for the Top 1% to 34.8%, that means that the Top 1% will have paid nothing at all.
QUESTION: Go look at how much money you paid to the IRS in 1998. Take that amount and ADD 8.2% to it. THAT AMOUNT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT BACK WITH THE BUSH TAX REFUND! Right? That's how it pans out for the Top 1% -- why don't YOU get the same deal????
C'mon Conservatives/Republicans -- go look up your tax returns, add that 8.2% to it and tell us if that's what you expect to get back!
And if you do, and you are DEAD SURE of it, will you bet your home and other property that you will get that amount (plus or minus an insignificant amount of course), even if it doesn't materialize for you?
Well?
Now, does anyone recall how much Bush cut out from Public Schools?
*edited for syntax*
[ edited by Borillar on Apr 7, 2001 07:59 PM ]
posted on April 7, 2001 08:10:05 PM newgisi:, let's Pretend! Let's pretend that one day there is a knock on your door. You answer it an an attorney for some rich relative of yours that you didn't even know existed left you a MILLION DOLLARS!
Wow!
Wouldn't THAT be nice, hmm?
Now, you ask the attorney,"How much of this MILLION BUCKS is Uncle Sam gonna take from me?"
When the attorney tells you, "Nothing, Nada, Zip!" you'll be wondering how that happened. Then you learn that it only applies to over one million dollars!
So, you get one million dollars - tax free! Are you upset?
Instead, let's pretend that you are the heir to Bill Gates and that attorney tells you that you are inheriting 100 BILLION DOLLARS, but, you'll have to pay a portion of it to Uncle Sam. Now you're upset?
Some people -- too greedy!
You didn't work for the money, you didn't earn it, but it drops into your lap anyway. Then, you quibble because it isn't enough, because Uncle Sam says: INCOME IS INCOME, no matter what the source is! It doesn't matter if you won the money in a casino in Las Vegas or found it in a gutter in the street - it's INCOME. And income is taxed -- unless you are lucky enough to inherit ONE MILLION DOLLARS or less, that is.
posted on April 7, 2001 09:00:12 PM new
Borillar -
Your math doesn't look quite right there. My understanding that the $1,200,000,000,000.00 figure (and also the related $516,000,000,000.00 figure) is over a 10 year period. But without figuring it myself (my calculator won't handle numbers that high), it appears the taxes paid figure of $417,000,000,000.00 is over a 1 year period. I beleive that for the formula to be correct, you would need to multiply the $417,000,000,000.00 by 10 years...which would make quite a difference in the $99,000,000,000.00 overpayment figure.
I am not extremely familiar with all of the details of the plan, and as such I am not a supporter or an opponent of it. I just think that the numbers need to be right either way.
posted on April 7, 2001 10:08:12 PM new
You are correct, Borrilar is using a one year figure to compare to ten years worth of tax cut. It's hard to explain these things to some people.
posted on April 7, 2001 10:41:03 PM newBorillar, How am I being greedy if I don't want to pay taxes on money that is given to me. This is NOT what I consider income. Income is what I work for. Income is not from an estate, it is not from a casino or lottery, it is not from capital gains, it is not from interest on money in the bank.
I would willing pay 10-15% of what I EARN, as in what I make at my job. The government should keep is hands off of the rest.
As I said before (and will say again), the ONLY reason I can see for the government to take any NON-EARNED money is wealth re-distribution, as in a socialist government. Last time I checked the United States was a Republic and that kind of thing was frowned on by the founding fathers.
If you would like to give your money to the government so they can give it to those people the government classifies as less fortunate, that's fine with me. Just don't ask me to do the same.
The only people would should get financial support from the government are the war veterans, elderly, the very young and the truly disabled (not the governments current definition of disabled which includes drug addicts and alcoholics, among others).
posted on April 7, 2001 11:11:32 PM newauctionee and jlpiece, you are correct in your assumption that I am having to base my theories of how Bush derived at a "fair" tax rebate with just the information that has been so kindly presented so far. The last I heard, BTW, was that it extends over an 11-year period, not 10. Still, there is no where that I can find to show how Bush derives his facts and figures to prove that those who are receiving the most benefit from this tax rebate package actually are entitled to it.
Now, if you kindly folks would be able to produce something that shows us all how we can figure out who gets what and is it fair, then we'll ALL get some mileage out of this. All I'm for is FAIRNESS, not some political agenda left or right.
posted on April 7, 2001 11:37:13 PM newGreg asks: "How am I being greedy if I don't want to pay taxes on money that is given to me."
Isn't that a rhetorical question?
Still, any form of money or property that comes into your possession is concidered INCOME as defined by Congress and implemented by the Tax Code and collected by the IRS.
>"Income is not from an estate, it is not from a casino or lottery, it is not from capital gains, it is not from interest on money in the bank."
You are welcome to any definition that your heart desires. I suggest you tell it to a judge, or better yet, pay your congressperson a $10,000 bribe to listen to you for 15-minutes.
That is not even a legal dictionary, just a plain, everyday dictionary.
My understanding of why the estate tax exists is because of tax evasion schemes. It was often the case that a rich corporate baron would hire and train his son to run the company while giving him a menial stipend. The huge mansion was provided to him for free, as was the expensive cars that his chauffeur drove for him, and his merry house staff. He owned nothing, earned next to nothing, and lived like the wealthiest of Kings. And when the Senior passed away, the Junior went from poverty to riches -- all tax free.
Gosh! That sounds awfully FAIR to me! I don't get to live like that and neither do most people. We all end up paying taxes and lots of it. Why you are bothered as to how the Rich are made to Play Fair in the Taxation of things is incomprehensible to me.
>"f you would like to give your money to the government so they can give it to those people the government classifies as less fortunate, that's fine with me. Just don't ask me to do the same."
No Problemo! We'll just bill you THREE TIMES AS MUCH! Why? Because the current system is trying to address the causes of crime and poverty. By not addressing those things, it costs three times as much to have the extra police, jails, courts, and prisons. If you enjoy paying MORE, then that's your business. Just let me pay what I owe now!
>"Last time I checked the United States was a Republic and that kind of thing was frowned on by the founding fathers."
Greg, it would be a discussion too long in this forum to educate you in what you erring in. I suggest that you re-read the Federalist Papers and read the lives and philosophy of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. My suggestion is for you take each one of your questions and post it as a separate thread in the RT.
posted on April 8, 2001 02:19:23 AM new
You've got to be kidding me. While we are invoking the "philosophies" etc. of Franklin and Jefferson, could you also tell me which taxes were around back then? Payroll-no, Estate-no, sales-no, capital gains-no, hell, there wasn't even a meager income tax instituted until later on. Exactly where were you going with that, other than to point out the fact that once our bloated government realised in the beginning part of the century how much income they could generate by nickel and diming us to death slowly but surely they haven't turned back since, and you've got to pull teeth to even rollback a small part of the Taxes. If the government tried to institute the taxes we pay now 50 or 100 years ago (in proportion of course) the people would have revolted, and it never would have came to fruition.
It brings to mind the old saying:
"If you throw a frog in a bucket of scalding water, of course he will jump out as quickly as possible, or give his life trying. But if you put that frog in a regular bucket of water and slowly turn the heat up...."
All of you people who believe in this massive redistribution of wealth scheme need to at least come to grips with reality;
posted on April 8, 2001 03:58:35 AM new
A short read about estate tax history confirmed what I had learned in high school history that it was originally used to raise money during national emergencies.
The quote from Andrew Carnegie (who built a few libraries to asuage his "guilt" is an interesting take on the times...
IIRC, some of the reasons our founding fathers died fighting the British had to do with taxes....guess it's always been a hot topic in our country's history...
Interestingly, as a philisophical anarchist, I'm surrounded by a wife who is a strong conservative and a mother who is a staunch liberal, so I get it from both sides...*G*
As a business owner, I despise someone, however less fortunate, benefitting from the fruits of my efforts.....I firmly believe in charity and volunteer work and actively participate in both...in ways which I choose, not by government edict.
The best way to deal with prison overcrowding is the way the government is dealing with the guy who blew up one of their buildings and killed a bunch of people.....I notice Mr. McVeigh got a speedy trial and death sentence...I encourage this same treatment for other criminals as well.
In contrast to my wife's views, I also feel that drug users need punishment as well as treatment. I encourage for-profit prisons which help defray the costs of housing inmates by making them productive at something, even if that means competing with me in the marketplace.
As a schoolboy, I remember my aversion to the cloakroom and what I would get there if I got into mischief....interesting how certain punishments can be a deterrent.
As an adult, I wonder why I should bust my butt making X dollars when the government takes so much of them, both in the form of income, sales, fuel and estate taxes as well as property and asset taxes...
Are taxes punishment for success and hard work and smart investing?
I said back in the late 80's that we would have a taxpayer revolt within the next 10 years and now feel the main reason we haven't is because of our till-now fat and happy economy...it will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple years.
As I am not a scholar, maybe I can put my own spin on the original question...
I have a camping buddy who runs a successful business...I'm lucky enough to be the only non-employee who gets to go on the company sponsored employee fishing trip.....
On the last trip, he and I got to talking about taxes...
I about gulped when he told me how much he paid in personal and corporate business taxes for the last tax year. I don't want to come off as poor but let's just say I'd have to work about 5 years or so to pay just his tax bill for one year.
This isn't some Carnegie wanna-be, just a guy who has a wife and a cat, a couple of grown kids and a regular house like you and me.
So, in one year, he has paid more taxes than I have culmulatively paid in most, if not all, of my years as a working adult.
And he's not even in that top 1%.....
Nice work when you can get it..*G*
Have a nice Sunday!
Pat
edited to correct as many bleary-eyed spelling errors as I could find *G*
posted on April 8, 2001 08:42:19 AM new
Geez.. I just gotta chime in.
Point #1: If ya wanna save fed money, I suggest making Social Security a BENEFIT instead of the current "entitlement"... I've even gotten "it's an entitlement, it's an entitlement!!" blast from the conservative in-laws. Ya know, there's no reason whatsoever that Bill Gates should get social security... but he will, and out here, in Sun City West, a fairly affluent retirement community there's lots o' folks that do. And they shouldn't.
Welfare & unemployment, et.cet, was an entitlement, yet it's not now. Hmm. "Social Security" Making security for the society. Making society safer. Taking care of those that need help. Make Social Security a BENEFIT not an entitlement?
Ok, if you right wingnuts still disagree with me, and you agree that the taxes "should be fair" and the tax reductions/cuts- whatever- should be given equally, fine. STOP THE CUTOFF FOR PAYING SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES. Bill Gates has his Social Security Taxes paid by the end of day on January 1st. What is it? $76,000? Somewhere around there. Totally remove the Social Security cap on payroll taxes (and not just raise it), and keep Social Security taxes paid totally separate from the rest of the budget, and I'll grudgingly go along with Resident Bush's Fuzzy Math Risky Scheme.
If this was done, no doubt about it, taxes for EVERYONE would go down.. the social security tax rate could definitely be lowered, and the benefits would definitely go up. Social Security Crisis? What Crisis? Easy fix. Remember, it's called "Social Security"- I think it's more than fair to make our society more secure by everyone paying the same percentage even though not everyone is getting the same back.
posted on April 8, 2001 10:31:54 AM new
I agree 100% - there has got to be a cutoff for Social Security payments. There is no reason that the rich should be getting social security just like eveeryone else. The only problem with that is that it's their money! They paid into it for years. Consider it just another low risk investment. That's all Social Security is. Except that it isn't a voluntary investment - yet...That's the real problem with Social Security. You should be able to opt out if you want to invest your money your way. However if you put a cutoff on how poor you have to be to collect it, then you are once again, penalising the productive, to give to the less productive.
posted on April 8, 2001 01:33:36 PM new
Geeze! And I thought *I* was painting things with a wide brush!
First, in reply to jlpiece and camachinist, please take a few minutes to go over this kink to a previous AW thread where you will find those answers from me -- it is about the 10th post down and you can't miss it.
As far as taxation goes, I agree wholeheartedly that we all pay too much in taxes. Hell, I can hardly afford to pay my meager payroll taxes to my employees as it is. There are just a few things I'd like to comment on:
1) "Tax and Spend Democrats" That was a lie at the time and it still is. I dislike the outright lies being told by any political party -- we expect them to reveal the truth about the conditions of our society and governement, not take our trust and play us for fools.
2) I am for a Flat Tax, not just because it taxes everyone at the same rate and caps the maximum that everyone pays, but also because it is a minimum tax rate! I do my patriotic duty and pay my Fair Share of taxes, but it angers me that so many folks get away with making tons of money and not paying a dime in taxes (General Motors has not paid a single penny in taxes since the mid-1950's).
I also believe that the government ought to mint its own money and regulate its value as it commands in the US Constitution -- not The Federal Reserve; e.g. Chase-Manhatten Bank! I also do not like the IRS being a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank, e.g. Chase-Manhatten Bank. I do not want to go back to the stupid Gold Standard as it was too easy to manipulate the value.
I just want to go with the verified, substanciated facts - not the political rhetoric that We the People keep getting from fat-cat politicians in Washington!
posted on April 8, 2001 03:26:39 PM new
I don't think as long as my father is alive will he voluntarily give up his social security. He worked all his life, and yes he is pretty wealthy, of which he earned, saved, invested etc.
He also paid taxes out his nose, and gave heavily to charities.
Is it an entitlement or a benefit? Its both.
He is entitled and it does, and was set up to benefit the retired.
And yeah, he's a Republican, large business owner and retired long time politican. [email protected]
)
is an interesting take on the times...