INCOME TAX
Back when the 16th amendment was illegally adopted the tax rate was 1-7%f income and only affected the very rich. Everyone making less that $20,000 was exempt. In today’s dollars that would be $430,707. The top bracket was 92% in the 50s. The rate for the richest had receded while the rate for middle income has increased.
Today the top 1% of all wage-earners pay over 40% of the taxes while middle income earners pay 15% individually to make up the 60%. All taxpayers pay SS at 15.3% and Medicare at 3.07%. All taxpayers pay the highest tax of all, called inflation. Inflation has grown 5-10% since 2002.
Democrats keep wanting to take from the rich and give to the poor. How much more do they want? 1% pays 40% of the taxes now. That leaves 99% paying the remaining 60%.
The IRS lists Income Tax as voluntary but prosecutes anyone who does not “voluntarily” pay it. There are still questions about the Constitutionality of Income Tax.
“The 16th "Income Tax" Amendment of 1913 may never have been officially ratified, and even if it was, in 1916 the Supreme Court ruled "the Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes"
It is important to realize that the Congress can stop the income tax without first revoking the 16th Amendment. After all, the 16th Amendment did not really create a NEW tax; all it did was allow for DIRECT taxation of the citizens. Before the 16th, federal taxes were apportioned; that is, each state paid their "dues" to the federal government based on population. Washington, D.C. never sent a tax bill to each individual citizen. The 16th changed all this.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 53
Grooooannn, my shoulders hurt from this tax burden!
This is why I don't understand the tax the rich cries I hear... they are already taxed a plenty!
$33,315. If your income tax is raised just from 15% to 25% to pay for health care or to pay off the debt you are then working for about $28,315 That is close to poverty level.
If you are married with no dependents, $50,000 income requires $3,860 in income tax and $3,825 in SS and Medicare in 2009. Net is $42,315.
For Single with no dependent, $50,000 income requires $6,350 in income tax and $3,825 in SS and Medicare in 2009. Net is $39,825.
Both assumes using standard deduction and taxpayers under 65.
Yes Income tax is charged on all wages including SS. They all deduct from the 50k. I'm wonder where you got your figures?
According to the above article. The 50k is my figure for illustration purposess. No the entire paycheck is taxed for all, SS, Medicare, and income tax. The 85% you mention is income tax on SS benefits if your income is over a certian amount.
I'm willing to protest any regressive, or flat tax, though.
Estate tax might only exist on paper, so that would not fit my definition.
Sales tax might not exist at all, for the poor, or on a fixed budget.
Property tax can cause an elderly person to sell, and live in a higher priced apartment, or institution.
Most any regressive, or flat, tax has this as a downside.
Only the capital gains tax, and the income tax fit my definition of a tax on real money, in existence, at the moment, and available.
All other taxes are regressive, or flat (alternative minimum tax) and are hardest on the poor.
I'm fine with you saying they are all bad, but income tax is the least bad of the bunch.
A tariff on imports harkens back to tributes paid to Rome. Basically imposing taxes on another country to maintain your own standard of living.
What exactly is wrong with protecting our own industrial base with a tariff? No the tributes paid to Rome were to pay Rome not to wipe them out entirely. It was "we own you so pay us or die"
Tariffs would tend to keep our manufacturing base here and discourage them from moving over seas.
If you own all the oil, you can get away with tariffs, once the oil is gone, you can't. The same applies to our status as an economic power, which will ebb in my lifetime. Then it won't be quite as funny anymore.
As the tax gets larger the effect is to discourage people to make more money limiting progress, causiing tax fraud, causing people to put their money in places that are not taxed. i.e. in other countries. Therefore it does have regressive aspects that affect the tax base negatively.
They make progressive tax supporters, like me, look bad.
I still would eject any of the regressive taxes, if you said I could get rid of one. But no one is going to ask me, anyway.
My income tax went WAY down, but none of the regressive taxes did.
Yeah I'll bet your income tax went down. When you make Old Fart status even some of thosse regressive taxes will go down if you apply for them. I just discovered this year that I could have been paying less than half of my property tax for the last 9 years when I bought this place. *&&*&^**&&&&*&^ people will not reemburse me either. My hunting and fishing license is less than 5 bucks. and that goes for conservation.
A partial solution to some of this would be to remove the cap on social security contributions where the rich do NOT pay their fair share.
Social security is touted as a retirement and fallback plan for everyone. That's why the "contributions" were at the same rate-it wasn't just supposed to be a wealth transfer program. That it is still a tax is obvious but removing that cap makes it plain that it's just another government theft scheme.
SS is nothing like it. The States are supposed to be the holders of those funds not the federal government.
IMPOSITION OF TAX
SECTION 901. On and after January 1, 1936, every employer (as defined in section 907) shall pay for each calendar year an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the total wages (as defined in section 907) payable by him (regardless of the time of payment) with respect to employment (as defined in section 907) during such calendar year:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar year 1936 the rate shall be 1 per centum;
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar year 1937 the rate shall be 2 per centum;
(3) With respect to employment after December 31, 1937, the rate shall be 3 per centum.
The above mentioned 3% was refering to interest income from investing SS taxes.
"In the beginning, income tax did not apply to wage earners but primarily to such as investment income."
It had to do with the defination of "Income". Maybe someone can find it. I haven't been able to do it.
The author says.....
Today the top 1% of all wage-earners pay over 40% of the taxes while middle income earners pay 15% individually to make up the 60%. All taxpayers pay SS at 15.3% and Medicare at 3.07%. Inflation has grown 5-10% since 2002.
The facts I found at IRS and FTC on CPI are as follows. Do the math yourself.
Income Tax collected in 2006 (IRS). First column is the tax bracket, and second column is the Total tax collected in each tax bracket (from IRS)
5% 0.0%
10% 0.7%
15% 17.5%
25% 25.5%
28% 12.0%
33% 44.2%
35% 0.1%
Inflation rate (2009) represents the first 6 months
Year CPI
2002 1.6%
2003 2.3%
2004 2.7%
2005 3.4%
2006 3.2%
2007 2.8%
2008 3.8%
2009 -1.4%
15.3% includes both SS and Medicare. Please do homework before believing statistics.
60% is paid at various brackets as you pointed out.
No the 15.3 is only SS. Medicare is a seperate tax and there is another tax
called unemployment tax ,
Acording to your %s from IRS The top 2 brackets pay 44.3% of the income tax and the next 4 lower brackets spay 55.7% the fifth bracket is not included because they pay no taxes. That affirms what what was said.
"The Social Security tax rate for 2009 is 15.3 percent on self-employment income up to $106,800. If your net earnings exceed $106,800, you continue to pay only the Medicare portion of the Social Security tax, which is 2.9 percent, on the rest of your earnings."
Search for my posts about saving on income tax:
"Ask Jeff - Q&A #8" is one example.