Tax Facts

[Dos Equis]

The "wealthy" pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  Despite this fact, you have people like Obama, John Edwards, etc. who believe they should pay even more.  Articles like this just reaffirm that some politicians are determined to engage in class warfare. 

April 10, 2007 12:00 AM

Tax Facts
Taking a look at government bucks.

By Bruce Bartlett

Just in time for tax-filing season, the Tax Foundation and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation have compiled some useful facts about the federal tax system. Following are a few worth thinking about as taxpayers write their annual checks to Uncle Sam.
 
In 2005, the federal government took $2.4 trillion out of the pockets of the American people. To put this number into context, it is about the same as the size of the entire U.S. economy in 1959 in inflation-adjusted terms. Only two other countries on earth have economies as large as our federal government: Germany and Japan — and Germany just barely makes the cut, with a gross domestic product of $2.7 trillion. China, which everyone is so alarmed about, has an economy significantly smaller than the federal government, with a GDP of $1.9 trillion — about equal to what the United States raises just from taxes on individuals.

Contrary to popular belief, the vast bulk of federal taxes are paid by the wealthy. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, in 2006, 53.7 percent of all federal income taxes were paid by those with incomes over $200,000. Those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of all individual income taxes. Thus those with incomes over $100,000 paid 82 percent of the total. They also paid 44.4 percent of all payroll taxes.

Those with incomes below $40,000 paid no federal income taxes at all in the aggregate. The positive liability for those who paid anything was more than offset by tax rebates from the Earned Income Tax Credit for many more who paid nothing. In total, the EITC put $41 billion into the pockets of low-income workers in 2005, 91 percent of it being paid to those with no income tax liability. However, according to the Tax Foundation, three-fifths of Americans believe that it is wrong for anyone to pay no taxes at all, that everyone should pay something to finance the government.

So-called tax loopholes — deductions and exclusions that reduce one's tax liability — are mainly used by the middle class, not the wealthy. The largest tax expenditures are the exclusions for pension contributions and health benefits for workers. Among the largest deductions are those for mortgage interest and state and local taxes. In 2005, taxpayers saved $62 billion in taxes due to the mortgage interest deduction, with 72 percent of that going to those with incomes below $200,000. The child credit saved taxpayers $46 billion — almost all of it claimed by the middle class. Just $8 million went to those with incomes over $200,000.

Not surprisingly, three-fifths of taxpayers believe their taxes are too high. Only 2 percent think they are too low. About a third of taxpayers would support a reduction in government services in order to achieve further tax cuts. Just 8 percent favor bigger government financed with higher taxes.

Support for fundamental tax reform is high. Four-fifths of taxpayers believe that the tax system is too complex. Just 3 percent believe the tax system is fine the way it is. By better than a two-to-one margin, taxpayers would be willing to give up major tax deductions, such as that for mortgage interest or state and local taxes, in order to get lower income tax rates.

Almost all taxpayers think that the top federal income-tax rate of 35 percent is too high. More than 90 percent of taxpayers believe that the top rate should be no higher than 29 percent, with 70 percent saying that 19 percent should be the maximum.

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is a rapidly growing federal tax. Originally designed to tax only the rich, increasingly it is a tax on the middle class. In 2005, the AMT affected only 1.3 percent of those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. Unless Congress acts, this will rise to 42.8 percent this year and over 50 percent next year. This illustrates the problem with all soak-the-rich tax proposals — eventually, they end up taxing the middle class, too.

For years, Republicans have largely ignored the problem of the AMT — enacting temporary patches to the tax cut to keep the problem from getting worse, but not even attempting to offer a permanent fix. The latest patch expired at the end of last year, which is why there is such a sharp rise projected in the percentage of taxpayers affected by the AMT.

Consequently, Democrats really have a gun to their heads — they must do something on the AMT by the end of the year. But because they have pledged to pay for all tax cuts, they must raise taxes somehow to pay for an AMT fix. Republicans aren't likely to offer much help in that area, making tax policy in 2007 an interesting spectator sport.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjcxNWFhZTBkYmM2NDE1N2E3ZTRmOTcwMTMwMTY1OWY=

[OzmO]

And those making 200,000+ per year comprise 1% or less of the total tax payers?

[Dos Equis]

And those making 200,000+ per year comprise 1% or less of the total tax payers?

"Contrary to popular belief, the vast bulk of federal taxes are paid by the wealthy. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, in 2006, 53.7 percent of all federal income taxes were paid by those with incomes over $200,000. Those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of all individual income taxes. Thus those with incomes over $100,000 paid 82 percent of the total. They also paid 44.4 percent of all payroll taxes."

[OzmO]

"Contrary to popular belief, the vast bulk of federal taxes are paid by the wealthy. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, in 2006, 53.7 percent of all federal income taxes were paid by those with incomes over $200,000. Those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of all individual income taxes. Thus those with incomes over $100,000 paid 82 percent of the total. They also paid 44.4 percent of all payroll taxes."

i got that part but that didn't answer my question about the 1%

[Dos Equis]

i got that part but that didn't answer my question about the 1%

I'm not sure, but I think the answer is "yes."  Those making $200,000 probably make more than about 99 percent of all wage earners.  I think I've seen numbers to that effect in the past.

But even if they don't, those stats are eye opening IMO.  I think it's important to keep numbers like this in perspective whenever we start talking about tax cuts.   

[Straw Man]

What's so suprising about the fact that the group with the largest income also happens to be the group that pays the most taxes???  Given that we have a progressive tax structure I wouldn't expect it to be any other way 

This doesn't mean that this same group is paying a fair amount or that it would be unfair if they paid a bit more

http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTMLReports/Shifty_Tax_Cuts.html

[Cap]

Don't worry, war or no war, we will always be spending $10 billion more on illegals than what they put into the economy.  Keep that in mind when you think about your tax dollars, where they go, and who is paying into the services. 

"The average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes."

http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/Illegal_ImmigrationFS.html

[240 is Back]

Nothing can, or will, change with the tax structure.

A flat tax would cripple the buying power of 99% of the population.

The top 1% would have a great April 15th, but would see their own portfolios crash when the other 99% of the population loses 1/6 of their paychecks and all elective buying power.

In other words, 300 million people would stop spending so much money.
DOW drops.  WMT drops.  Trade, fuct.

The top 2 million people would lose way more than they made by moving from 39% to 17% tax bracket.

Common sense folks, you should know this.

[Hugo Chavez]

Nothing can, or will, change with the tax structure.

A flat tax would cripple the buying power of 99% of the population.

The top 1% would have a great April 15th, but would see their own portfolios crash when the other 99% of the population loses 1/6 of their paychecks and all elective buying power.

In other words, 300 million people would stop spending so much money.
DOW drops.  WMT drops.  Trade, fuct.

The top 2 million people would lose way more than they made by moving from 39% to 17% tax bracket.

Common sense folks, you should know this.

who advocated the flat tax

[240 is Back]

who advocated the flat tax

sorry - wasn't singling you out.  whoever the whiners were in a few threads here crying that the top 1% pays too much.  They don't understand the need for the poor to have disposable income in order to keep that top 1% rich.

It's like network marketing on a whole nother level.  jag, you wouldn't wipe out all your clients' businesses for a hige one-month gain, would you? No.  They're earners for you.  You keep them alive and doing well.  Likewise, the smart rich people know that 300 million spenders with $50 to $500 a week to waste are what keeps them loaded. 

What we have here are wannabe rich assholes, spewing rich asshole rhetoric they don't understand.

(again - not you at all berserker)

[Dos Equis]

who advocated the flat tax

Steve Forbes.  Dick Armey.  Many others.  But that wasn't the point of the article.  It was about how the top wage earners shoulder the overwhelming majority of the tax burden. 

[240 is Back]

Steve Forbes.  Dick Armey.  Many others.  But that wasn't the point of the article.  It was about how the top wage earners shoulder the overwhelming majority of the tax burden. 

they have to.  we need those billions of dollars.  you can tax the poor, but then the rich won't be rich anymore.  What do you think will happen to the Walton family portfolio when Americans cannot afford to shop at walmart anymore?

[Dos Equis]

they have to.  we need those billions of dollars.  you can tax the poor, but then the rich won't be rich anymore.  What do you think will happen to the Walton family portfolio when Americans cannot afford to shop at walmart anymore?

I don't know who the "Walton family" is. 

I didn’t say the highest wage earners shouldn't shoulder the majority of the tax load.  They always will.   

[24KT]

sorry - wasn't singling you out.  whoever the whiners were in a few threads here crying that the top 1% pays too much.  They don't understand the need for the poor to have disposable income in order to keep that top 1% rich.

It's like network marketing on a whole nother level.  jag, you wouldn't wipe out all your clients' businesses for a hige one-month gain, would you? No.  They're earners for you.  You keep them alive and doing well.  Likewise, the smart rich people know that 300 million spenders with $50 to $500 a week to waste are what keeps them loaded. 

What we have here are wannabe rich assholes, spewing rich asshole rhetoric they don't understand.

(again - not you at all berserker)

240,

That's one of the BEST analogoes I've seen. I'm embarrassed I didn't state it myself... actually I know why I didn't.

In network marketing the lifeblood of your success, is in the success of those in your downline organization.
If your people don't succeed, you don't succeed. Therefore, it is in your best interests to do everything in your power to facilitate their success, and their ability to earn income. The more money they make, ...the more money YOU make, therefore you do everything to ensure their pockets are always full at all times, so that they can continue to afford your product, are motivated to continue to sell your product.

Not all network mktg companies are created equal tho. There are those companies that offer extremely high priced goods and/or services. While their products may be good and well worth the investment, ...if your downline cannot afford to buy them, ...or consumers cannot afford to buy them, ...your income goes down.

When you have a network marketing company such as FFi for instance, whose flagship product is one that retails for $20.⁹⁵, ...however, the consumer by simply using the product, can automatically save up to $200^.oo or more in expenses he would otherwise have had to make, as well as do his part to clean up the pollution and the climate change gases s/he emits into the environment. This puts an additional $200^.oo in spendable income in the person's pocket immediately. Which would you rather put out... $20 vs. $200. It's a no-brainer 

This incentivises your customer to continue purchasing your product, and continue making you money. As customers realize they too can not only SAVE money, but also make money, as other people save money on their own purchases, ...they too choose to enroll as distributors, so they can make money, and clean up the environment.

For 17 yrs. in network mktg., I've always had to justify why my vitamins were more expensive than other vitamins, why my skin care was more expensive than other skincare, ...why my juice was better than the other guy's juice.

For the first time, I have an inexpensive product, that everytime someone uses it... they SAVE money.

That to me is the strongest business model in or out of network mktg. It is why our company has been able to go from $0 - $200,000,000^.oo dollars in sales from a standing start in less than 2 years, and why our product has been embraced in over 216 countries around the globe. 200 Million dollars in sales... and that's just the beginning. With 60% of all revenues being paid back to independent distributors, ...you can only imagine the type of commissions that are being paid out to independent distributors right now.

There is a distinctive difference between what the Wealthy buy, and what everyone else buys.

The wealthy buy/invest in passive income vehicles ...things that continue to put money in their pockets (like network mktg distributorships), ...while the middle class and the poor buy stuff. Stuff that simply comes out of what little disposable income they have. It's important for the middle class and the poor to have disposable income, so they can continue to buy the stuff produced by the wealthy.

When governments implement a similar funding formula that allows general consumers to put more money back into their pockets, they keep the economy stimulated because the more money in people's pockets... the more money they will spend. And spending money on a product like the FFi MPG-cap, just makes sense because it will not only put more money back into your pocket immediately, and indirectly... it's continued usage (as a distributor) can also earn you even more additional income as well.

What would you do with an additional $200^.oo+?  What would you do with an additional $200,000^.oo+?

[240 is Back]

I don't know who the "Walton family" is. 

The family that owns and runs the biggest non-govt corp in America.

Top 10 richest Americans:
   1.  Gates, William H III
   2.  Buffett, Warren Edward
   3.  Allen, Paul Gardner
   4.  Walton, Helen R
   5.  Walton, S Robson
   6.  Walton, John T
   7.  Walton, Jim C
   8.  Walton, Alice L
   9.  Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
   10.  Ballmer, Steven Anthony

Have you heard of WalMart?

ANyway, from this point on, I now understand why you don't follow the arguments about US corporations, or many other things.  You don't have even an elementary level of knowledge of the American Economy.  Sorry Bub.  You stick with Rainbow football and telling us your theories on taxes.  At least we know where you're coming from now.

[24KT]

The family that owns and runs the biggest non-govt corp in America.

Top 10 richest Americans:
   1.  Gates, William H III
   2.  Buffett, Warren Edward
   3.  Allen, Paul Gardner
   4.  Walton, Helen R
   5.  Walton, S Robson
   6.  Walton, John T
   7.  Walton, Jim C
   8.  Walton, Alice L
   9.  Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
   10.  Ballmer, Steven Anthony

Have you heard of WalMart?

ANyway, from this point on, I now understand why you don't follow the arguments about US corporations, or many other things.  You don't have even an elementary level of knowledge of the American Economy.  Sorry Bub.  You stick with Rainbow football and telling us your theories on taxes.  At least we know where you're coming from now.

The interesting thing about Walmart is that when likened to a Network Mktg Company, they'd be the sole seller.
No one has the ability to achieve wealth piggybacking on Walmarts infrastructure or global points of distribution.

In the case of Microsoft, by opening up their OS, and prebundling software, they created many sellers of their products, and as such dominated the market. They incentivised others to use Microsoft as a vehicle to increase their own bottom lines. Microsoft achieved success by enabling many sellers of software & hardware compatible with their OS's thereby creating much wealth and economic stimulation in the IT field. It's symbiotic, and to deny this would be to commit suicide. Government funding formulas work the same way. Empower the spending ability of mass consumers, or commit suicide.