Portman: CBO Tears Down Yet Another Of President Obama's Straw Men I have said this all along, with almost 1/2 of earners having no Federal Income Tax obligation, the top earners paid more along with the cutting of a lot of tax loopholes.
Two points stick out in Rob Portman's Press Release, the first one is retarded as hell conclusion: 1) "In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called 'Bush tax cuts.' 2) "While President Obama calls for higher taxes on jobs creators..." To answer the question of why, "higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden," and the why of the Obamanation wanting to tax them more when they are DOMESTIC job creators; since government is not there to protect Income but Net Worth, from the barbarians wont to rape, pillage, and plunder it, one has to ask: What percentage of Net Worth did higher-income American pay in taxes as compared with the lower-income Americans? If Guy W. Millner paid .75% of his Net Worth in taxes, Bob Dole around 3%, Johnny Isacson around 1%, and a factory worker 4.75%, each Net Worth lower respectively, why would I expect to think that under the Bush Tax cuts, and the expected DOMESTIC job creation, that the temp agency guy with $250,000,000 in Net Worth far above Isacson's 3 million would be paying more of a tax burden than Job creator Isacson? ***** Using income tax burden as the "total tax burden" is just plain stupid. Income tax is NOT the real "total tax burden." The real "total tax burden" can only be found by finding out what percentage of Net Worth one pays in taxes. Is the theoretical guy with $250,000,000 in Net Worth paying more in taxes as a percentage of Net Worth now than under Carter, Raygun, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama? Guy W. Millner paid "0" Federal Income Tax in one of the years NOT calculated, the figure is based upon when he did pay Federal taxes, data is right there in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, but Bob Dole, Johnny Isacson, and the factory worker paid a higher "total tax burden" for the three years listed to protect temp agency owner's $250,000,000 in Net Worth from the barbarians hordes and commie congregations working toward ECONOMIC PARITY. ***** The Foxy Blond Legs Channel says two things but never at the same time: 1) Europe is a basket case, and we are headed down that road with the Obamanation. 2 Europe has lower taxes than we do. {the talking heads said that just yesterday} What happens when we add those two together? We need to raise taxes? If the higher-income Americans are job creators then their increased tax burden under tax cuts came from income derived from DOMESTIC job creation, and if there was DOMESTIC job creation then the income of the lower-income Americans should have increased and subsequently their burden too. Either the Net Worth of the top earners created DOMESTIC jobs or it did not. It obviously did NOT. So was higher-income American's Net Worth increased at the expense of DOMESTIC job creation and lower Net Worth of lower-income Americans? I think yes. To prove me wrong you have to do some math, and not just have stupid bull about "total tax burden," which is not really the real burden. If the higher-income American's Net Worth did not increase, but went down, and their tax burden in that respect to Net Worth was lower than the middle class factory worker and other lower Net Worth types you could say the rich man's "total tax burden" was "bigger and bigger." Net Worth and where the assets come from tells the tale of whether spending (liabilities) is the problem. If the Net Worth of the rich is decreasing, and the Net Worth of those not paying taxes due to entitlements is increasing, then that tells us spending (liabilities) is the problem. If the Net Worth of the rich is increasing while the Net Worth of those liabilities not working is too, we cannot blame entitlements for the bigger and bigger Income tax burden of the rich, we can mostly blame a lack of the higher Net Worth NOT creating DOMESTIC jobs. The only way to tell if the spending (liabilities) is the problem is to figure the real "total tax burden" of percentage of tax on Net Worth by classes, and to do that over time, is it increasing or decreasing from Carter to Obama? Want to create jobs and have a lower "total tax burden," create the jobs HERE. The need for an Obamanation of Desolation, and its going back to old taxes and new Obamanationcare, evaporates with Jobs that can buy private Health Care...so create them already, then the burden of total taxes shifts away from the so-called jobs creators. ***** "In other words, higher-income Americans have been paying a bigger and bigger part of the total tax burden under the so-called 'Bush tax cuts.' I repeat that is retarded, without figuring what percentage of their Net Worth they paid in taxes we cannot know if their total tax burden was bigger. It is no different than when a company poor mouths about corporate income, and then buys another company when the Union takes less pay, because the idiot Union rep could not add and subtract anything other than income. The Foxy Blond Legs Channel saying they are not investing in jobs because they do not know what their taxes WILL BE proves the following could be true; only way to know is to do the math. They could be sitting on a vast amount of Net Worth not creating Jobs for control of electoral outcomes.
I voted for Raygun once because my first ballot went to McMurdo , Bush, Andre V. Marrou, Bush, forgot a Bush, McCain, and most recently my old representative Newt. So after having read what I said spare me the knee-jerk of thinking I prefer Obama to Romney.
They should pay more since they are the ones who have gotten all the income gains since Bush became president while everyone else has lost income and wealth.
It's ridiculous to point to Portman, as he's not telling you that the wealthy also saw income and capital gains grow. It's not complicated math concepts at all.
It's ridiculous to point to Portman, as he's not telling you that the wealthy also saw income and capital gains grow. It's not complicated math concepts at all.
Ah, so your not concerned with taxation used to fund the federal government but instead as a tool to more equalize income.
According to the CBO, the upper income earners have been paying a smaller and smaller percentages of their income in taxes since 2000. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/all_tables2010.pdf Good question. I haven't done those exact calculations, but the following chart shows shares of net worth versus shares of tax liability by income class. If you can calculate total federal tax liabilities for 2007 and figure out what total net worth was during 2007, you should have your answer. -Meta
God this propaganda pisses me off about as much as anything. Why would we separate income tax from all other taxes, and pretend this is the only tax that matters. What did the top 20% pay in overall tax rates compared to the average American? Medicare, Medicade, SS, Gas, property, cigarette, vehicle, payroll, income, Alcohol, school ect. Taxes. All these things add up to a overall tax rate. Why would anyone give a crap what the income tax % is?
They made a heck of a lot more. Income tax is tax on income. If you make 90% of the money you should pay 90% of the taxes. simple.......
That sounds very fair to me. But it doesn't work that way. Instead, the top 25% of earners earned 68% of the national income, but paid 85% of the income taxes. Even more dramatic of a difference is the top 1% of earners who took in 22% of the income and paid 40% of the income tax. The bottom 50% earned 12% of the income but only paid 3% of the income taxes.
They ,the top 20%, paid 68.9% of all federal taxes. Note though that that does not take into account state and local taxes which tend to be more regressive. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/all_tables2010.pdf -Meta
Bush also made the income tax more progressive with his tax cut by cutting another 5% from the tax roles altogether.
I understand and somewhat agree with your sentiment, but federal income taxes are only part of the equation, and only considering them leaves out things like payroll taxes and excise taxes. That said, income itself is somewhat of a volatile metric, especially amongst the higher income earners, wealth shares tend to be a lot less volatile and saying something such as, if you own 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes, not just because of the decreased volatility, but because ultimately governments are there to protect and foster wealth, not simply income. -Meta
So you are proposing a wealth tax? Actually a wealth tax is harder to determine and easier to manipulate than an income tax. For example, what wealth would be considered? How would its value be determined? The difficulty arises from these two questions. If you are considering stocks and use closing price, market players will just make an end-of-day nominal trade at a tenth of a cent, totally eliminating any value and making their wealth appear to be zero. A similar trick would zero out average price. Since most of the wealth you are targeting is in stocks, this would greatly cut any ability to tax it. Similar methods can be used to devalue anything that is used to store large amounts of wealth. All that would really be taxable would be things like cars or homes of people too poor to manipulate the system - things that represent large percentages of the wealth of the poor and middle class, but a tiny percentage of the wealth of the rich.
This is a deliberate corruption of the notion of fairness. To derive anything close we have to refer to marginal rates of tax. We also have to factor in how tax and benefit systems interact.
Well...it seems to me (being an ignorant hillbilly) that taxes are too high for everyone and the government is P(*)(*)(*)ing money away...and everyone should pay less taxes. Just grab your paycheck and figure out how much money you have left after taxes...they take the first off the top...and rape you from then on...rich or poor. I cannot even own my property because I have to pay taxes on it the rest of my life. It is never really mine. A poor man pays a higher percentage of his income for all other taxes besides income taxes. If a poor man in Bama buys a hundred dollars worth of groceries he pays 10% sales tax. A rich man also pays 10% sales tax. The poor man pays a higher percentage of his income for sales tax. The same with car tags, property tax, tire tax electric bill tax, etc.
Well, Alabama is particularly anti-poor, being one of the few states, or nations, that levies a sales tax on food. Alabama also has the longest Constitution on the planet and is held up as an example of what can go wrong in a Constitutional democracy. I suggest you stop voting for the people who perpetrate such horrors.
That is the dilema. Who can be trusted to re-write the State Constitution? Surely no one from B-ham. We put put the last Mayor in jail and we have placed a Governor there also. And getting rid of the sales tax on food always fails. Once you get a tax it is very hard to get rid of. The B-Ham sewer system has bankrupted the whole county. We also have 500 million missing from our only charitable hospital.
Just to weigh in on the stupidity of the original post, I offer the following: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1866&DocTypeID=2 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1865&DocTypeID=1 Please note that about 3 out of 4 taxpaying households pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. As there is cap on payroll taxes, I think it's obvious we're not talking about the rich. This is an obviously regressive tax that offsets the supposedly punitive/progressive income tax (but what about all those tax loopholes?).
