More than half the country backs raising taxes on the richest Americans, according to a new Associated Press-GfK Poll. The survey showed that by 54 percent to 44 percent, most people support raising taxes on the highest earners.
A similar majority (to your cited statistic about raising taxes) was duped into voting for Obama for President. Both are good reminders why we are NOT a democracy. Both such majorities can be demonstrated to be incorrect in their thinking.
People are not going to throw the Democratic incumbents out because of anything the republicans did or did not do. They are going to throw them out because of what the progressive democratic leadership tricked/cajoled/ and threatened them into doing. At least have the guts (unlike the democrats who refuse to campaign on their votes) to admit what you support and take responsibility for your actions/views. The people don't want it and will speak. But instead of acting with integrity you fall back on the tired old "blame Bush, blame the republicans, blame fox, blame rush, blame Beck, blame somebody anybody but ourselves" junk. Grow up, both of you.
Republicans are not in charge or in the majority in either side of Congress. This election is not about Republicans (despite the broken record that you all play over and over for your own amusement). It is about incredibly unpopular, government-centric socialist policies that Americans don't like and statements that in-charge democrats say. But please, don't concern yourself with any of that, just continue to throw rocks at Bush , Reagan, etc. and make indefensible statements. Don't move into the present whatever you do.
Ken, So you guys can continue the lie about the bu$h tax cuts and call him the greatest ''president'' ever and spew all the other crap....but liberals can't tell the truth about him, raygun and all the other fascist right !!! You can talk about them...if you say something nice, But if you say something bad....you're living in the past. Is that how it works.
Not sure where you're headed Dr. d but it is clear that fascism shares the characteristic with socialism, monarchy, and totalitarianism that it reduces to one or a few telling the many how to live. Such a characteristic is much more favored by the progressive left than it is by conservatism.
And the right prefers a president like Bush who gets the country into two wars based on lies and who takes the country from a budget surplus to a recession and trillions in national debt.
Carla "Kindergarden Liberal, One was in order to prosecute those that attacked 911. You against that? The other against a regime that had WMD, used them on it's own people, attacked it's neighbors, and violated like 20 UN resolutions. You like that? Obama makes Bush look like a piker at building deficits. You love that? Live in the present.
Ken, why do you feel the need to fling insults and use name calling with people that disagree with you? Speaking of "kindergarden" (which is really spelled kindergarten") you act very immature. Why don't you go play somewhere else. I'm tired of your bad behavior.
Carla, If you are going to repeat endlessly talking points that don't make sense and that presume things like most Americans were against going after El-Qaida in Afghanistan or that ignore that the entire western set of intelligence agencies and many democrats thought WMD were in Iraq still or that ignore the massive spending that the Obama administration has voluntarily undertaken then your comments are those of a child. That progressives repeat this kaka incessantly is not representative of the truth and is itself bad behavior.
We were lied to, Ken. But you're still living in the past it seems and can't grasp that. And you obviously don't understand stimulus spending. But insulting people isn't the way to discuss things. And I won't continue this dialogue with you.
Raise the taxes on the rich? This is not a raise in taxes, it is the elimination of a foolish temporary tax break given by the Bush administration which proved to be a major contributor to our deficit problem. People want a great country they just don't want to pay for it.
"While about three-fourths of Democrats favor raising taxes on the rich, about half of independents and nearly two-thirds of Republicans oppose the idea. Support for cutting everyone's taxes exceeds four in 10 people in every region of the U.S. except the Midwest, where one-third back the proposal."
"By a 46 percent to 41 percent margin, people want Republicans steering the economy — the first GOP edge on that runaway No. 1 concern of voters in the AP-GfK poll."
"Looking ahead to the Nov. 2 elections, the poll showed that public expectations favor the GOP. By 60 percent to 31 percent, more expect Republicans to win control of Congress — including four in 10 Democrats."
"More than one in four expressed support for the conservative tea party movement, which has helped litter the electoral landscape with defeated incumbents in several states. While significant minorities of tea party supporters are critical of the GOP, the poll found they are far likelier to vote in November than other people; 85 percent plan to support their House Republican candidate."
The money somehow has to get into the hands of the poor or we'll never get out of this economic slump.
The rich receive more from government than others so it is only fair if they pay more.
The rich have all sorts of loopholes and other means of hiding income and paying fewer taxes (like that 15% capital gains tax on their income from stock market profits) so they will find ways around higher tax rates as well.
Many pay little or nothing. We have an insanely complicated tax code. Only large businesses and wealthy people can afford to hire the experts necessary to manage their taxes.
Granted, a family whose sole income is from wages has a pretty simple tax picture. The wealthy generally have a complex income structure usually designed in part for tax avoidance.
It's only human nature to try to get and keep as much money as possible. It's the nature of our money that one can do all sorts of thinks that harm others to get money.
Yes, it is hard to bite the bullet sometimes and do what is best for the overall good of the country. But Warren Buffet said that we need to raise taxes on the rich. He is one who is willing to do the right thing.
If they were rich under the Clinton administration, they'll still be rich. This is not going to hit them as hard as they're crying.
They may have to look for ways to invest money if they want to make more. Here's a suggestion- start up some green industries in the USA and put fellow Americans back to work.
As Robert noted above, I see this discussion being -- do we maintain the tax breaks for all; do we maintain the tax breaks for those who do not need them as badly as some; do we maintain the tax breaks for those who do need them -- badly; do we do what gets us the best economic bang for our buck, or not? I am for maintaining them for those who need them, badly, and who will put them back into economic circulation and I do not see that as being the tippy-top of the economic ladder.
Very enlightening, libramoon. Thanks for this. It is something that most people are unaware of. Incidentally, the economy was better in the 90's when Clinton was President and the tax rates were higher.
The economy and the middle class expanded far more under Clinton. However, both administrations prove the point that higher taxes do not slow down the economy as the far right pretends it does.
The answer is simple - because wealthy elites shelter their capital by sending it overseas. This way it is not taxed while it lessens the amount of money supply and domestic investment thereby contracting the economy.
Reports are that anyway from $12 to 20 trillion have been sheltered overseas. So that while the wealthy are pleading poverty and having their Tea Bagger dupes pretending that Obama is a socialist, the wealthy elites are getting away with paying nothing in taxes and the economy is screwed.
There is, of course, a simple solution to this mess: the President can easily exercise emergency power, declare the sheltered capital Federal property (as in executive Order 6102 where President Roosevelt made a similar declaration for gold), and use the money in lieu of tax to pay the deficit, rebuild the infrastructure, create jobs for everyone, and ultimately to end the Republican created income tax.
The power is there. The problem is Obama's unwillingness to exercise it.
Actually the opposite is true, Lower taxes lead to a better economy, part of that is when the rich feel that they are being treated fairly they don't try and shelter their money as when they are being over taxed.
Another is If the wealthy know that the income over "X" will be taxed to the extent that they get to keep only a small portion then why make more than "X" if they can still live comfortably on less than "X"?
Here's something for ya, cross reference from your list above the major cuts in the top tax rate with this list of Historical Federal Receipt and tell me why big tax cuts don't result in big tax revenue reductions?s a matter of fact they show tax cuts for the evil rich usually result in a jump in tax revenue.
My point, the rich (evil or otherwise) do not base their adherence to taxation based on fairness. The rich have tax lawyers and accountants whose fiduciary responsibility it is to minimize their employers' tax outlay, within the very complicated and therefore receptive to creative interpretation tax laws. The best boon would be if tax laws were simplified. As Elizabeth Warren promotes for financial contracts: two pages, large type, simple English.
why big tax cuts don't result in big tax revenue reductions?s a matter of fact they show tax cuts for the evil rich usually result in a jump in tax revenue.
Yet again, correlation is not causation. It's not because the benevolent wealthy charitably give more.
They sure do moon, the more unfair the tax rate is seen as, the harder they work at sheltering funds from those taxes, they are willing to lose money on risky shelters and take the loss rather than pay the taxes. That is one of the reasons why higher tax rates don't lead to long term higher tax revenues.
Dems don't "demonize" the rich, Dan. Just because we want to return to a time of fair taxation and start paying off the debt isn't about demonizing, but the Repubs just want to sell that victim role to the American public so we'll feel sorry or be scared. It won't work. The rich have had it good for awhile now and have gotten by with actually paying less taxes on a percentage wise basis simply because they have so many loopholes and ways to avoid it.
I've posted the figures that shows that lowering taxes on the rich causes federal tax revenues to increase and that the rich in our country already pay the vast majority of taxes collected, So your concern about paying off the deficit is better addressed by allowing the lower taxes stand and there has to be something else besides "fair".
LOL, Dan. I see your information is linked to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that is financed primarily by oil companies and the Koch brothers. One of their directors at Koch Industries served as President. Koch has bailed out the struggling foundation when it had money problems. So, frankly, everything they put out is suspect and biased, in my opinion. Even the NY Times did a piece at one point talking about how they could not be trusted for accuracy and unbiased information.
The top 1% of wage earners with an adjusted income of $410K+ pay more than 40% of all of the taxes paid in the year 2007. The top 50% making 32K+ paid 97%+ of all taxes in 2007 with the bottom 50% of wage earners in this country paid 2.89%.
Larry and Carla, the top 1% wealthiest Americans pay an average tax rate of 22.45%. Any other way of showing the numbers when discussing fair share is done to be deceitful and dishonest.
And that comes from the very conservative Tax Foundation, who go on to show that this rate is only slightly higher than what most Americans pay. It is in fact, less than what many middle class Americans pay.
Of course, that is only on the money that is seen by the US tax system. Many of the very wealthy (and all of the top wealthy) hide much of their income offshore where it is invisible to the US federal tax system. So if you include that hidden wealth you'll find that the very wealthiest Americans pay a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans.
Including those people too ideology to figure out they are being scammed.
"The top 1% of wage earners with an adjusted income of $410K+ pay more than 40% of all of the taxes paid in the year 2007."
What percentage of the total income did they report? I'm assuming that they had about 40% of the adjusted gross income. That introductory statistics class I took has been a great help in later life.
"What percentage of the total income did they report?"
Not sure I understand Nippy,
Everyone pays taxes on their adjusted gross income.
If you are suggesting that the rich as a rule illegally shelter their money please explain.
There are a lot of people on the left and some who claim to not be on the left that would foment the oh so prevalent class warfare in our country, after all when you rob Peter to pay Paul you will always have Paul's vote.
They go to the extent to misinform, knowing that most won't bother to check the facts, I always suggest that any presented facts be verified even my own.
The rich pay less than they used to in income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and estate taxes.
Income: The federal income tax, when it began in 1913, applied only to the highest incomes. It expanded to most wage earners after World War II, but it retained an essential fairness, since the tax is based on ability to pay. The poorest pay no tax, while as taxpayers go up in income, they pay a higher percentage. That fairness has been eroded by successive waves of tax changes benefitting the very rich. At the end of World War II, the top rate was 94 percent — on regular income above $200,000. That top rate drifted mostly downward until it reached 33 percent in 1988, and then went up in the Bush Sr. and Clinton years to about 40 percent. Under President George W. Bush, the top rate was cut again — to 35 percent.
Capital gains: In the Clinton and Bush Jr. years, the tax rate was also cut in half on capital gains — the increase in value of stocks or real estate when it is sold. The top capital gains tax rate fell from 28 to 20 percent under Clinton, and from 20 to 15 percent under Bush, Jr. A capital gains tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich. On average, capital gains make up 3 to 4 percent of the income of taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year. But capital gains make up about 60 percent of the income of those earning over $10 million a year.
Dividends: Taxes on dividends have also fallen — from 70 percent in 1980 to 15 percent today.
Estate: Under a law passed by the Bush Jr. Administration, estate taxes are scheduled to fall from 50 percent to 0 percent through 2010.
Paying less in income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax and estate tax, the wealthiest have been able keep much more of their wealth — and use it to make even more.
Bob McIntyre of the Washington, D.C.,-based Citizens for Tax Justice calculates that since the Reagan era, the cumulative value of all of the federal tax cuts adds up to roughly $2.8 trillion. In other words, a very sizable portion of today’s $7.4 trillion federal debt is the result of these tax cuts.
"And if these tax cuts for the rich continue, we will lose $1 trillion which could be used towards the federal debt."
How so Carla? The facts already show that if you raise taxes it actually lowers the amount of taxes that the top income earners pay. The raising of taxes on the rich will give a temporary boost then taper off as they begin sheltering their income to avoid the higher taxes, that along with the lack of stimulus that those monies provide to the economy is removed.
"Income: The federal income tax, when it began in 1913, applied only to the highest incomes."
Just as today the income tax was applicable to all income levels with generous deductions being given to all, with the result that the lower income earners paid no or little taxes....Just like today, But unlike the past, today we actually give people who don't pay any tax, money in the form of the earned income tax credit.
The top 2% of the population in the USA mostly want to see their tax option raised, as they know that they can pay that increase with no problem at all.
There would be no increase at all for the bottom 98% of the USA population that get less than $250,000 in wages and salaries.
If we had a flat tax, no deductions, no one could complain. The rich would pay more. There could be a threshhold for low income until filing became necessary. Then, those who didn't make much still not pay much. And, of course, those who make alot would not be able to weasel out of paying their fair share.
A flat tax would/will never happen.......I just see the elimination of the middle class, with only the poor and rich....coming, and soon. We get "taxed to death," as my husband is a union trucker.....I am a SAHM (I refuse to work because we'd only get taxed more, so why bother)......it's incredible what is taken out of hubby's weekly paycheck and makes me sick.
Nora, if you look at other countries and even the chart above that libramoon provided, we are not taxed all that much in terms of percentage of our pay. Other countries pay more, but they also get more services.
My hubby IS taxed a LOT......he pays out over $300 a WEEK just in taxes, medicare, etc., etc............he was just complaining the other day about the outrageous taxes we have....$300 a week amounts to $1,200 a month, just in taxes......now, to me that is outrageous!!!!! I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you there....unless you think that $300 a week in taxes isn't much........
We do not need an income tax. As shown above the income tax was created in 1913 and it was done by Republican Nelson Aldrich. Note the year the income tax was created - one year before the start of World War I. The reason for it may not be obvious to most people.
The reason why a wealthy capitalist like him wanted an income tax is because it would enable the government to borrow money and finance foreign wars with people like him profiting. Without an income tax the government cannot raise revenue except through bonds or excises. But most people are not going to waste their money that way. And wealthy elites would get virtually nothing in return via dividends. With an income tax, wealthy elites create these foreign wars, the government borrows money, pays the elites billions in war profits, and the taxpayer is left with the bill as the elites count their money.
It's no small coincidence that Bush created two foreign wars, borrowed enormous sums of money to arm the war machine, Halliburton & Bechtel profited handsomely, and the taxpayers are stuck with the bill. The same pattern as in 1914. Eliminate the income tax and the government will not be able to create these wars because it would not be able to borrow money. As Thomas Jefferson said, if there was one change he would have made to the Constitution it would have been to make it illegal for the Federal government to borrow money. This was there would be no possibility of foreign war and we would have more prosperity.
If Tea Baggers, Republicans, heck even Democrats, were as patriotic as they claim to be, they would revert to the principles under which this country was founded. Things would be a lot better than they are today.
luckky, that seems a bit extreme. And I can just hear the cries of the right now and claims about Obama being a "communist dictator". Besides, what happens after that money is spent?
That's the same thing they said about Lincoln using that authority to free the slaves and Roosevelt used to lessen the Republican created Great Depression.
I could care less whether anyone chooses to declare the president's authority (one granted by those infamous communists known as our Founding Fathers) ''communism''. Since the deficit is $12 trillion, the excess will be deposited and the interest will be used to pay for any costs not covered by excise taxes and imposts. These taxes rather than income taxes on wages is what our Founders intended to use in order to finance government operations.
Part of the problem isn't just the regular income tax cuts for the rich. The rich pay less than they used to in capital gains taxes, dividend taxes and estate taxes.
Income: The federal income tax, when it began in 1913, applied only to the highest incomes. It expanded to most wage earners after World War II, but it retained an essential fairness, since the tax is based on ability to pay. The poorest pay no tax, while as taxpayers go up in income, they pay a higher percentage. That fairness has been eroded by successive waves of tax changes benefitting the very rich. At the end of World War II, the top rate was 94 percent — on regular income above $200,000. That top rate drifted mostly downward until it reached 33 percent in 1988, and then went up in the Bush Sr. and Clinton years to about 40 percent. Under President George W. Bush, the top rate was cut again — to 35 percent.
Capital gains: In the Clinton and Bush Jr. years, the tax rate was also cut in half on capital gains — the increase in value of stocks or real estate when it is sold. The top capital gains tax rate fell from 28 to 20 percent under Clinton, and from 20 to 15 percent under Bush, Jr. A capital gains tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich. On average, capital gains make up 3 to 4 percent of the income of taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year. But capital gains make up about 60 percent of the income of those earning over $10 million a year.
Dividends: Taxes on dividends have also fallen — from 70 percent in 1980 to 15 percent today.
Estate: Under a law passed by the Bush Jr. Administration, estate taxes are scheduled to fall from 50 percent to 0 percent through 2010.
Paying less in income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax and estate tax, the wealthiest have been able keep much more of their wealth — and use it to make even more.
Bob McIntyre of the Washington, D.C.,-based Citizens for Tax Justice calculates that since the Reagan era, the cumulative value of all of the federal tax cuts adds up to roughly $2.8 trillion. In other words, a very sizable portion of today’s $7.4 trillion federal debt is the result of these tax cuts.
''By keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich, we stand to lose $1 trillion in revenue over the decade. ''
By confiscating the estimated $20 trillion sheltered overseas, we would have it all back and make that much in interest alone every year.
The means to end the Republican created recession are there. All it takes is the will to get the job done. Unless Obama and the Democrats show some guts, then they are the part of the problem caused by Republicans, not the solution.
The old saw doesn't sit well with me. I don't like to categorize or stereotype. I feel that I have a brain and a heart. I know that there are Repubs that also do. We just see things differently. And unfortunately, people have been misled a lot and have bought in to some ideologies that are not in their best interest or the best interest of the country.
Wall Street ~ Karl Marx's best friend. A years after this cartoon appeared in a Democratic party newspaper, the Republicans pushed for the creation of the income tax. A year later they started World War I. No, it was no coincidence that the power to tax was made just before by the same pundits who created a foreign war.
Therefore, it is Marxists who want an income tax, Marxists who want foreign war, and Marxists who expand government power and international intrusiveness. And it's no coincidence or mystery as to the fact that these are Wall Street Republicans.
By the way, I'm not a Marxist, but I don't mind paying my fair share of income taxes. My father taught me that paying taxes was one of the responsibilities of living in this country.
''part of your comments didn't show up. Sometimes when you paste things on that happens. ''
The link was a photo, not an article. Nothing is missing.
Your father was correct in that each of us is obligated to obey the law. And in case you didn't know it I worked in the tax field for 20 years.
But the point is that our Founding Fathers did not believe in an income tax. They believed in commercial taxes such as excise and imposts as indicated in the Constitution Article 1, Section 8. If Obama were to do as I have indicated above, upon paying off the Republican created deficit, all of the Federal governments financial needs would be met by those type of taxes.
It was James Madison (4th president of the United States) who wrote that it is the unequal distribution of property that is the cause of violent factionalism in any society. Today you are called a Marxist if you believe that. But he wrote it 50 years before Marx was born.
In ending the tax cut for the ultra-wealthy, even if questionable numbers support or don't support the assertion that maintaining the tax-cut encourages the wealthy to invest and promote the economy--I maintain that for Main St folks the perception is that the wealthy don't need that the way Main St folks do and it simply looks like selfishness and greed.
Let the facts speak. Look around. As a matter of policy, how have the Bush tax cuts for the rich helped anybody but the rich? See any propserity? All we see is an ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots. I don't care what party affiliation you stick on your t-shirt, you can't tell me that is what America is supposed to be all about. Somebody is picking your pocket and it isn't the poor. My advice is to wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late.
Yes, I've been telling the tea partiers to wake up and smell that coffee for awhile now. Doesn't do any good. They are brainwashed from listening to Fox News.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 151
One was in order to prosecute those that attacked 911. You against that?
The other against a regime that had WMD, used them on it's own people, attacked it's neighbors, and violated like 20 UN resolutions. You like that?
Obama makes Bush look like a piker at building deficits. You love that?
Live in the present.
If you are going to repeat endlessly talking points that don't make sense and that presume things like most Americans were against going after El-Qaida in Afghanistan or that ignore that the entire western set of intelligence agencies and many democrats thought WMD were in Iraq still or that ignore the massive spending that the Obama administration has voluntarily undertaken then your comments are those of a child. That progressives repeat this kaka incessantly is not representative of the truth and is itself bad behavior.
Associated Press-GfK Poll
"While about three-fourths of Democrats favor raising taxes on the rich, about half of independents and nearly two-thirds of Republicans oppose the idea. Support for cutting everyone's taxes exceeds four in 10 people in every region of the U.S. except the Midwest, where one-third back the proposal."
"By a 46 percent to 41 percent margin, people want Republicans steering the economy — the first GOP edge on that runaway No. 1 concern of voters in the AP-GfK poll."
"Looking ahead to the Nov. 2 elections, the poll showed that public expectations favor the GOP. By 60 percent to 31 percent, more expect Republicans to win control of Congress — including four in 10 Democrats."
"More than one in four expressed support for the conservative tea party movement, which has helped litter the electoral landscape with defeated incumbents in several states. While significant minorities of tea party supporters are critical of the GOP, the poll found they are far likelier to vote in November than other people; 85 percent plan to support their House Republican candidate."
Yup NOT good news for the Dems...Thanks Carla!
The rich receive more from government than others so it is only fair if they pay more.
The rich have all sorts of loopholes and other means of hiding income and paying fewer taxes (like that 15% capital gains tax on their income from stock market profits) so they will find ways around higher tax rates as well.
Granted, a family whose sole income is from wages has a pretty simple tax picture. The wealthy generally have a complex income structure usually designed in part for tax avoidance.
They may have to look for ways to invest money if they want to make more. Here's a suggestion- start up some green industries in the USA and put fellow Americans back to work.
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table
Tax year Top marginal
tax rate (%) Top marginal
tax rate (%) on
earned income,
if different<1> Taxable
income over--
1913 7 500,000
1914 7 500,000
1915 7 500,000
1916 15 2,000,000
1917 67 2,000,000
1918 77 1,000,000
1919 73 1,000,000
1920 73 1,000,000
1921 73 1,000,000
1922 58 200,000
1923 43.5 200,000
1924 46 500,000
1925 25 100,000
1926 25 100,000
1927 25 100,000
1928 25 100,000
1929 24 100,000
1930 25 100,000
1931 25 100,000
1932 63 1,000,000
1933 63 1,000,000
1934 63 1,000,000
1935 63 1,000,000
1936 79 5,000,000
1937 79 5,000,000
1938 79 5,000,000
1939 79 5,000,000
1940 81.1 5,000,000
1941 81 5,000,000
1942 88 200,000
1943 88 200,000
1944 94 <2> 200,000
1945 94 <2> 200,000
1946 86.45 <3> 200,000
1947 86.45 <3> 200,000
1948 82.13 <4> 400,000
1949 82.13 <4> 400,000
1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 <5> 400,000
1952 92 <6> 400,000
1953 92 <6> 400,000
1954 91 <7> 400,000
1955 91 <7> 400,000
1956 91 <7> 400,000
1957 91 <7> 400,000
1958 91 <7> 400,000
1959 91 <7> 400,000
1960 91 <7> 400,000
1961 91 <7> 400,000
1962 91 <7> 400,000
1963 91 <7> 400,000
1964 77 400,000
1965 70 200,000
1966 70 200,000
1967 70 200,000
1968 75.25 200,000
1969 77 200,000
1970 71.75 200,000
1971 70 60 200,000
1972 70 50 200,000
1973 70 50 200,000
1974 70 50 200,000
1975 70 50 200,000
1976 70 50 200,000
1977 70 50 203,200
1978 70 50 203,200
1979 70 50 215,400
1980 70 50 215,400
1981 69.125 50 215,400
1982 50 85,600
1983 50 109,400
1984 50 162,400
1985 50 169,020
1986 50 175,250
1987 38.5 90,000
1988 28 <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 28 <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 28 <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 31 82,150
1992 31 86,500
1993 39.6 89,150
1994 39.6 250,000
1995 39.6 256,500
1996 39.6 263,750
1997 39.6 271,050
1998 39.6 278,450
1999 39.6 283,150
2000 39.6 288,350
2001 39.1 297,350
2002 38.6 307,050
2003 35 311,950
Maybe you could pass along that "proof"?
Reports are that anyway from $12 to 20 trillion have been sheltered overseas. So that while the wealthy are pleading poverty and having their Tea Bagger dupes pretending that Obama is a socialist, the wealthy elites are getting away with paying nothing in taxes and the economy is screwed.
There is, of course, a simple solution to this mess: the President can easily exercise emergency power, declare the sheltered capital Federal property (as in executive Order 6102 where President Roosevelt made a similar declaration for gold), and use the money in lieu of tax to pay the deficit, rebuild the infrastructure, create jobs for everyone, and ultimately to end the Republican created income tax.
The power is there. The problem is Obama's unwillingness to exercise it.
Lower taxes lead to a better economy, part of that is when the rich feel that they are being treated fairly they don't try and shelter their money as when they are being over taxed.
Another is If the wealthy know that the income over "X" will be taxed to the extent that they get to keep only a small portion then why make more than "X" if they can still live comfortably on less than "X"?
Lower taxes led to recessions under both Bush's.
Oh, come on, Dan. If you truly believe this, I have a nice crumbling bridge to sell you.
It's not a belief it's a fact.
Here's something for ya, cross reference from your list above the major cuts in the top tax rate with this list of Historical Federal Receipt and tell me why big tax cuts don't result in big tax revenue reductions?s a matter of fact they show tax cuts for the evil rich usually result in a jump in tax revenue.
Yet again, correlation is not causation. It's not because the benevolent wealthy charitably give more.
I suggest you visit her post;
Who are those rich people that the Democrats demonize and want to penalize?
"My point,"
They sure do moon, the more unfair the tax rate is seen as, the harder they work at sheltering funds from those taxes, they are willing to lose money on risky shelters and take the loss rather than pay the taxes.
That is one of the reasons why higher tax rates don't lead to long term higher tax revenues.
How's that Carla?
"Just because we want to return to a time of fair taxation"
You keep saying so as if the rich are not already paying their fair share but the facts show that they are already paying their fair share.
People making $50'000 or less pay and effective tax rate of 5% and 8% of all taxes paid.
$50'000-$75'000 it is 8% and 9%
$75'000-$100'000 9% and 9%
$100'000-$200'000 13% and 22%
$200'000 + 22% and 51%
I've posted the figures that shows that lowering taxes on the rich causes federal tax revenues to increase and that the rich in our country already pay the vast majority of taxes collected, So your concern about paying off the deficit is better addressed by allowing the lower taxes stand and there has to be something else besides "fair".
The top 1% of wage earners with an adjusted income of $410K+ pay more than 40% of all of the taxes paid in the year 2007.
The top 50% making 32K+ paid 97%+ of all taxes in 2007 with the bottom 50% of wage earners in this country paid 2.89%.
Again...What is "their fair share"?
National taxpayers union
And that comes from the very conservative Tax Foundation, who go on to show that this rate is only slightly higher than what most Americans pay. It is in fact, less than what many middle class Americans pay.
Of course, that is only on the money that is seen by the US tax system. Many of the very wealthy (and all of the top wealthy) hide much of their income offshore where it is invisible to the US federal tax system. So if you include that hidden wealth you'll find that the very wealthiest Americans pay a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans.
Including those people too ideology to figure out they are being scammed.
What percentage of the total income did they report? I'm assuming that they had about 40% of the adjusted gross income. That introductory statistics class I took has been a great help in later life.
Not sure I understand Nippy,
Everyone pays taxes on their adjusted gross income.
If you are suggesting that the rich as a rule illegally shelter their money please explain.
There are a lot of people on the left and some who claim to not be on the left that would foment the oh so prevalent class warfare in our country, after all when you rob Peter to pay Paul you will always have Paul's vote.
They go to the extent to misinform, knowing that most won't bother to check the facts, I always suggest that any presented facts be verified even my own.
So it's NOT about fair! Right Jim?
"The percentages are misleading."
Well yes the way you are using them Jim, see my response to Carla above.
The lower income earners are averaging a 5% tax rate while those making over $200K are at more than 4 times that rate.
Your not liking the source doesn't show the facts to be incorrect.
It just shows your willingness to ignore what doesn't fit your biases.
Income: The federal income tax, when it began in 1913, applied only to the highest incomes. It expanded to most wage earners after World War II, but it retained an essential fairness, since the tax is based on ability to pay. The poorest pay no tax, while as taxpayers go up in income, they pay a higher percentage. That fairness has been eroded by successive waves of tax changes benefitting the very rich. At the end of World War II, the top rate was 94 percent — on regular income above $200,000. That top rate drifted mostly downward until it reached 33 percent in 1988, and then went up in the Bush Sr. and Clinton years to about 40 percent. Under President George W. Bush, the top rate was cut again — to 35 percent.
Capital gains: In the Clinton and Bush Jr. years, the tax rate was also cut in half on capital gains — the increase in value of stocks or real estate when it is sold. The top capital gains tax rate fell from 28 to 20 percent under Clinton, and from 20 to 15 percent under Bush, Jr. A capital gains tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich. On average, capital gains make up 3 to 4 percent of the income of taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year. But capital gains make up about 60 percent of the income of those earning over $10 million a year.
Dividends: Taxes on dividends have also fallen — from 70 percent in 1980 to 15 percent today.
Estate: Under a law passed by the Bush Jr. Administration, estate taxes are scheduled to fall from 50 percent to 0 percent through 2010.
Paying less in income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax and estate tax, the wealthiest have been able keep much more of their wealth — and use it to make even more.
Bob McIntyre of the Washington, D.C.,-based Citizens for Tax Justice calculates that since the Reagan era, the cumulative value of all of the federal tax cuts adds up to roughly $2.8 trillion. In other words, a very sizable portion of today’s $7.4 trillion federal debt is the result of these tax cuts.
How so Carla?
The facts already show that if you raise taxes it actually lowers the amount of taxes that the top income earners pay.
The raising of taxes on the rich will give a temporary boost then taper off as they begin sheltering their income to avoid the higher taxes, that along with the lack of stimulus that those monies provide to the economy is removed.
"Income: The federal income tax, when it began in 1913, applied only to the highest incomes."
Just as today the income tax was applicable to all income levels with generous deductions being given to all, with the result that the lower income earners paid no or little taxes....Just like today, But unlike the past, today we actually give people who don't pay any tax, money in the form of the earned income tax credit.
Thanks for posting this to 4 US, World News & Opinions.
The top 2% of the population in the USA mostly want to see their tax option raised, as they know that they can pay that increase with no problem at all.There would be no increase at all for the bottom 98% of the USA population that get less than $250,000 in wages and salaries.
Oh, come on, Chris. People always find a way to complain.
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/
The reason why a wealthy capitalist like him wanted an income tax is because it would enable the government to borrow money and finance foreign wars with people like him profiting. Without an income tax the government cannot raise revenue except through bonds or excises. But most people are not going to waste their money that way. And wealthy elites would get virtually nothing in return via dividends. With an income tax, wealthy elites create these foreign wars, the government borrows money, pays the elites billions in war profits, and the taxpayer is left with the bill as the elites count their money.
It's no small coincidence that Bush created two foreign wars, borrowed enormous sums of money to arm the war machine, Halliburton & Bechtel profited handsomely, and the taxpayers are stuck with the bill. The same pattern as in 1914. Eliminate the income tax and the government will not be able to create these wars because it would not be able to borrow money. As Thomas Jefferson said, if there was one change he would have made to the Constitution it would have been to make it illegal for the Federal government to borrow money. This was there would be no possibility of foreign war and we would have more prosperity.
If Tea Baggers, Republicans, heck even Democrats, were as patriotic as they claim to be, they would revert to the principles under which this country was founded. Things would be a lot better than they are today.
I could care less whether anyone chooses to declare the president's authority (one granted by those infamous communists known as our Founding Fathers) ''communism''. Since the deficit is $12 trillion, the excess will be deposited and the interest will be used to pay for any costs not covered by excise taxes and imposts. These taxes rather than income taxes on wages is what our Founders intended to use in order to finance government operations.
Income: The federal income tax, when it began in 1913, applied only to the highest incomes. It expanded to most wage earners after World War II, but it retained an essential fairness, since the tax is based on ability to pay. The poorest pay no tax, while as taxpayers go up in income, they pay a higher percentage. That fairness has been eroded by successive waves of tax changes benefitting the very rich. At the end of World War II, the top rate was 94 percent — on regular income above $200,000. That top rate drifted mostly downward until it reached 33 percent in 1988, and then went up in the Bush Sr. and Clinton years to about 40 percent. Under President George W. Bush, the top rate was cut again — to 35 percent.
Capital gains: In the Clinton and Bush Jr. years, the tax rate was also cut in half on capital gains — the increase in value of stocks or real estate when it is sold. The top capital gains tax rate fell from 28 to 20 percent under Clinton, and from 20 to 15 percent under Bush, Jr. A capital gains tax cut is by definition a tax cut for the rich. On average, capital gains make up 3 to 4 percent of the income of taxpayers earning less than $100,000 a year. But capital gains make up about 60 percent of the income of those earning over $10 million a year.
Dividends: Taxes on dividends have also fallen — from 70 percent in 1980 to 15 percent today.
Estate: Under a law passed by the Bush Jr. Administration, estate taxes are scheduled to fall from 50 percent to 0 percent through 2010.
Paying less in income tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax and estate tax, the wealthiest have been able keep much more of their wealth — and use it to make even more.
Bob McIntyre of the Washington, D.C.,-based Citizens for Tax Justice calculates that since the Reagan era, the cumulative value of all of the federal tax cuts adds up to roughly $2.8 trillion. In other words, a very sizable portion of today’s $7.4 trillion federal debt is the result of these tax cuts.
Repeating it doesn't make it any more a fact the second time around! LOL!
By confiscating the estimated $20 trillion sheltered overseas, we would have it all back and make that much in interest alone every year.
The means to end the Republican created recession are there. All it takes is the will to get the job done. Unless Obama and the Democrats show some guts, then they are the part of the problem caused by Republicans, not the solution.
There's the old saw:
If at a certain age you're not a Democrat, you have no heart. (Re: compassionate social consciousness)
If at certain age you're not a Republican you have no brain. (You don't understand economics and getting your share)
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0809/082409RobertMinorDeeLighted1911.gif
Wall Street ~ Karl Marx's best friend. A years after this cartoon appeared in a Democratic party newspaper, the Republicans pushed for the creation of the income tax. A year later they started World War I. No, it was no coincidence that the power to tax was made just before by the same pundits who created a foreign war.
Therefore, it is Marxists who want an income tax, Marxists who want foreign war, and Marxists who expand government power and international intrusiveness. And it's no coincidence or mystery as to the fact that these are Wall Street Republicans.
The link was a photo, not an article. Nothing is missing.
Your father was correct in that each of us is obligated to obey the law. And in case you didn't know it I worked in the tax field for 20 years.
But the point is that our Founding Fathers did not believe in an income tax. They believed in commercial taxes such as excise and imposts as indicated in the Constitution Article 1, Section 8. If Obama were to do as I have indicated above, upon paying off the Republican created deficit, all of the Federal governments financial needs would be met by those type of taxes.
It was James Madison (4th president of the United States) who wrote that it is the unequal distribution of property that is the cause of violent factionalism in any society. Today you are called a Marxist if you believe that. But he wrote it 50 years before Marx was born.
Featured in the Renewed Activist.