Taxes.....weathly pay the most

[so.cal.fan]

According to the IRS data from 2005 tax returns:
The top wealthiest filers paid a bigger share of taxes than ever. The data comes from looking at tax returns. You must remember that many Americans do not file, and an entire family my file a single tax return. We have 300 million Americans, but they file only about 130 million returns. Stack the returns in order of income, highest income on top of the stak. Then compare the tax paid with the total income tax collected by the IRS.
From the top of the stack:
Top 1% of filers paid 39.4% of all tax collected, up from 36% the year before. These folks reported income of $364,000 and up.
Top 5% of the stack accounts for 59.7% of all tax collected, and contains returns with income of $145,300 or more.
Top 10%-income of $103,900 or more, and paied 70% of all tax.
Bottom 50% of filers paid only 3.1% of the total income tax.

These figures are from a mid year newsletter: Tax News and Tips from our tax lady , Susan Webb of Equine Management Services in Arcadia, Calif.
I found the figures interesting.

[Tom]

Who contibutes more to our economy - the top half or bottom half?

So it somehow makes sense to reward one and peanlize the other??????
We would be better off without the bottom half. Anchors.

Congress amazes me - 9% seems just too high!

[acorn54]

According to the IRS data from 2005 tax returns:
The top wealthiest filers paid a bigger share of taxes than ever. The data comes from looking at tax returns. You must remember that many Americans do not file, and an entire family my file a single tax return. We have 300 million Americans, but they file only about 130 million returns. Stack the returns in order of income, highest income on top of the stak. Then compare the tax paid with the total income tax collected by the IRS.
From the top of the stack:
Top 1% of filers paid 39.4% of all tax collected, up from 36% the year before. These folks reported income of $364,000 and up.
Top 5% of the stack accounts for 59.7% of all tax collected, and contains returns with income of $145,300 or more.
Top 10%-income of $103,900 or more, and paied 70% of all tax.
Bottom 50% of filers paid only 3.1% of the total income tax.

These figures are from a mid year newsletter: Tax News and Tips from our tax lady , Susan Webb of Equine Management Services in Arcadia, Calif.
I found the figures interesting.



"The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income."

the above is from a n.y. times article. impact values are a more accurate reflection of who is giving a fair share.
the top 1 percent according to your data pay 39.4 percent of taxes yet make 21.8 percent of the income for an impact value of 1.8.
i have explained in a previous thread about marginal utility, the concept where the first $50000 of so of income is needed for living expenses so it makes perfect sense that at the lower end of the income spectrum people contribute little or no money to the government coffers.

[barn32]

According to the IRS data from 2005 tax returns:
The top wealthiest filers paid a bigger share of taxes than ever. The data comes from looking at tax returns. You must remember that many Americans do not file, and an entire family my file a single tax return. We have 300 million Americans, but they file only about 130 million returns.

What percent of that 300 million are kids? (Don't file)

What percent of that 300 million are retired (Don't file)

[Tom]

What percent of those 300 million are leeches? (don't work)
What percent of those 300 million are 2nd and 3rd generation dependent? (don't care)



:bang:

[Tom]

i have explained in a previous thread about marginal utility, the concept where the first $50000 of so of income is needed for living expenses so it makes perfect sense that at the lower end of the income spectrum people contribute little or no money to the government coffers.

Mathematically, yes, but how about socially? Why is it a given that those who do not contribuite share eqaully? Where does responsiblity come in to play? Do we allow anyone not willing to work hard get a free ride? There is a huge difference between unable and unwilling. Why should I pay for Joe Blow's health insuracne when he works part time, has color TV, cable, an SUV, spends money on booze and cigarettes..........what about some definitive dialoge on personal responsibility? Cutting out deadwood would allow the truly needy to receive much more help, and force more inputs into the economy. Work or go hungry is not a bad thing.

[acorn54]

taxation is the cost of having a civilization
government has bills that have to be paid
it comes down to affordability to pay
if you don't like the way government is using the tax money you pay, if you pay taxes then you throw the bums out of office.
the fact that incumbents get re-elected 90 percent of the time tells me that people are satisfied with the way the politicians are spending the tax money.

[ddog]

The half you are tax wise IS the economy.

That would be the bottom.

You do realize that even the stuff about the income tax from the story is at best without point to their further debate from what I could tell.

If that's strictly Fed income tax, then that is a dumb story.

It isn't the real tax load , not even close.

[Tom]

taxation is the cost of having a civilization
government has bills that have to be paid
it comes down to affordability to pay

So anyone who doesn't feel like working gets a free ride?
Nice way to dodge reality with rhetoric. If you belive in evolution, then isn't it rather counter-productive for the strong to carry the weak? ;)

Seriously, I always said we have to help the needy - but the definition of needy needs serious defintion. I wlould also suggst that the foundation of civilization personal responsiblity towards it - everyone pulls thier weight.
Many today would have been shown the gates of colonial America - rightly so. This country was not founded on hand outs, buton hard work. To expect anything less from everyone is crazy.

[barn32]

the fact that incumbents get re-elected 90 percent of the time tells me that people are satisfied with the way the politicians are spending the tax money.
Congressmen spend 85% of their time raising money. Those who raise the most money usually get reelected. If, as you say, 90% of incumbents get reelected, then that is usually because they had the biggest war chest.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not "people" are satisfied wtih anything. In fact, the opposite is most likely true.

Money makes the mare go.

[DRIVEWAY]

Who contibutes more to our economy - the top half or bottom half?

So it somehow makes sense to reward one and peanlize the other??????
We would be better off without the bottom half. Anchors.

Congress amazes me - 9% seems just too high!

What percentage of people in Canandaiqua are anchors?

[acorn54]

politicians can spend all the money they want but the voters decide whether the incumbent has done a good job in representing them.

[Tom]

What percentage of people in Canandaiqua are anchors?

Far too many.

[skate]

acid54;

It's a bit of a reach to think that because so many politicians get re-elected, that means the majority of people are happy with the politicians.

you just can't go off and relate Knowing and Happy.

Oh oh oh , yeh, maybe this years election is a good example. Many here choose to think they have no Choice. But i presume somebody will be elected.
So, start looking happy, at least.
And and and, if the top income peoples from 1980 only doubled, they got cheated.:cool:

[jonnielu]

According to the IRS data from 2005 tax returns:
The top wealthiest filers paid a bigger share of taxes than ever. The data comes from looking at tax returns. You must remember that many Americans do not file, and an entire family my file a single tax return. We have 300 million Americans, but they file only about 130 million returns. Stack the returns in order of income, highest income on top of the stak. Then compare the tax paid with the total income tax collected by the IRS.
From the top of the stack:
Top 1% of filers paid 39.4% of all tax collected, up from 36% the year before. These folks reported income of $364,000 and up.
Top 5% of the stack accounts for 59.7% of all tax collected, and contains returns with income of $145,300 or more.
Top 10%-income of $103,900 or more, and paied 70% of all tax.
Bottom 50% of filers paid only 3.1% of the total income tax.

These figures are from a mid year newsletter: Tax News and Tips from our tax lady , Susan Webb of Equine Management Services in Arcadia, Calif.
I found the figures interesting.

Consumers pay all of the taxes, wealthy or not. This stupid poor v. rich mentality is the way that politicians lined the citizenry up for the hosing that rich and poor alike get. It boils down to, you are overpaying an incompetent employee (congress) to decide who gets the benefit of your labor. Rich or poor.

jdl

[acorn54]

acid54;

It's a bit of a reach to think that because so many politicians get re-elected, that means the majority of people are happy with the politicians.

you just can't go off and relate Knowing and Happy.

Oh oh oh , yeh, maybe this years election is a good example. Many here choose to think they have no Choice. But i presume somebody will be elected.
So, start looking happy, at least.
And and and, if the top income peoples from 1980 only doubled, they got cheated.:cool:

the incumbent is an employee of his constituency, if the constituency doesn't think he did a good job on his watch then they would not re-elect him, similiar to everyone that works for a company, if they fail to perform in a satisfactory manner management fires them.

[jonnielu]

the incumbent is an employee of his constituency, if the constituency doesn't think he did a good job on his watch then they would not re-elect him, similiar to everyone that works for a company, if they fail to perform in a satisfactory manner management fires them.

There's no reason that the sons-of-bitches in office can't be fired by the people either. Except that people are too meek and mild anymore, scared to correct the employees.

"When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is freedom." - Jefferson

jdl

[Sailwolf]

The half you are tax wise IS the economy.

That would be the bottom.

You do realize that even the stuff about the income tax from the story is at best without point to their further debate from what I could tell.

If that's strictly Fed income tax, then that is a dumb story.

It isn't the real tax load , not even close.

I agree; with the social security tax, the sales tax and the state income tax. If you include those taxes, the poor often pay more in percentage of taxes to income than the rich do.

[highnote]

I agree; with the social security tax, the sales tax and the state income tax. If you include those taxes, the poor often pay more in percentage of taxes to income than the rich do.


Agreed. You have to look at the whole tax picture -- not just a slice of it.

[JustRalph]

I agree; with the social security tax, the sales tax and the state income tax. If you include those taxes, the poor often pay more in percentage of taxes to income than the rich do.

What? You don't think the Rich pay those taxes ? I get the SS tax limit part of your argument, but the sales tax? State Income tax? State income tax is different in every state, but it is graduated just like the FED Income Tax, in many places. Unless you live in a state with no income tax, how does that bolster your argument? Those states with no state tax have higher sales taxes and real estate taxes in many cases. You don't think the wealthy individuals don't get hit with those taxes more than the poor?

The poor do not pay more taxes. Your definition of poor needs to be defined. Many of the "poor" pay no taxes at tall. And many of them got tax rebates this year...........when they didn't pay a damn thing............

[acorn54]

There's no reason that the sons-of-bitches in office can't be fired by the people either. Except that people are too meek and mild anymore, scared to correct the employees.

"When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is freedom." - Jefferson

jdl


i remember an article written about why incumbents are re-elected 90 percent of the time, the title was "throw the bums out, but not our bum"