Show this to your Taxed Enough Already cousins and co-workers.
Americans paid the lowest tax rates in 30 years to the federal government in 2009, in part because of tax cuts President Obama sought to combat the Great Recession, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday.
A sharp decline in income — especially among the wealthiest Americans, who pay the highest tax rates — also played a role, according to the report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Household income fell 12 percent on average from 2007 to 2009, with income among the top 1 percent of earners decreasing by more than a third.
Still, at the very moment anti-tax protesters were emerging as the most powerful force in American politics, handing Republicans landslide control of the U.S. House, the data show that people were sending the smallest portion of their income to the federal government since 1979.
It’s the stupidest political movement ever. However, that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been successful in creating power for our plutocrats.
Like the moron I work with who doesn’t want to work overtime because the government takes too much out in taxes. Meanwhile, his house is in foreclosure and the gas and electricity have been shut off for non-payment. He has a well, so no electricity means no water also.
Now, that’s stupid.
Oh, Boo, if I told you how stupid you would think I was making it up.
Three Facts:
The top one percent of income earners earn 19 percent of the nation’s income, yet pay 38 percent of all income taxes.
The bottom fifty percent pay no income taxes.
Between all Federal (income, FICA, medicare, excise, capital gains, etc.), State (income) and Local (sales, property) taxes, I personally paid approximately 46 percent of my income in taxes in 2011. No one should be a 50 percent slave of the Government. Disgusting.
Producers are definitely Taxed Enough Already! I can’t speak to the bottom 50 percenters that pay nothing.
“Producers are definitely Taxed Enough Already! I can’t speak to the bottom 50 percenters that pay nothing”
—————————————–
Ah, yes. The bottom fifty percenters “that pay nothing.” Except for the inconvenient fact that getting a refund of withheld federal income tax (or not having a federal income tax liability), does not exempt one from the other taxes (state income, FICA, medicare, excise, sales, or property taxes. Those can add up to a very sizable percentage of income. And low-income people do not pay a lower sales tax rate, for example.
In addition, not paying federal income tax does not make someone a non-contributing member of society. Plenty of low-income people work hard every day of their lives and contribute their time, talents, and efforts to their communities, schools, and to this country.
So I am not impressed when the suggestion is made that people who do not pay federal income tax are “freeloaders” or need to have “some skin in the game” or “don’t pay their fair share” or in this case, “pay nothing.”
“Producers” are not taxed enough, in my opinion.
So you’d rather live in the 18th century? Good to know!!
The bottom fifty percent includes the retired with Social Security too low to be taxed , the totally unemployed and everyone under the poverty line.
Even though you are probably a fly-by troll, I want you to read something. Take a look at this chart. It shows the top income tax bracket for every year since the income tax was created in 1913.
Now, I want you to look at how many years in that history where the highest bracket was below 50%.
For the first four years, the rate was very, very low. But as we entered World War One it went to 67%. In the second year of the war (for us) it went to 77%. Once Wilson left office and the Republicans took over, it went down, down, down. Starting in 1924, it fell a little below 50%. By the time the Great Depression hit, the rate was at 25% and income inequality had reached a rate unseen before and not again until now.
FDR instantly raised the rate back up to 63%. Then it went to 79%. In preparation for World War Two, it went to 81%. At the peak of the war it was 94%. It fell into the eighties after the war before being jacked back up to 91%-92% to pay for the Korean War.
It remained there for the entirety of Eisenhower’s presidency, coming down only when JFK lowered rates in 1963.
The rate stayed at 70% until 1982, when Reagan dropped them to 50%. And the rates went down again after Bill Bradley revamped the tax code in 1986. That’s when rates fell below 50% where they have remained ever since.
The top income tax bracket isn’t a perfect indicator of rich people’s tax liabilities, of course. Most rich people probably paid more after Reagan/Bradley’s 1986 reform than they did before it. But my point is that there was a consensus for most of the 20th Century that above a certain level of income, you didn’t really need to keep more than 10-30%. And we didn’t have the Saudis and Chinese finance our wars or cut benefits to balance a budget that rich people refused to finance.
What’s the definition of a “Troll”? Just curious.
Regarding your response:
First, I seriously doubt that top income earners paid anywhere close to those rates…no businessperson in his or her right mind work work their ass off for 30 cents on the dollar…why not just kick back in the Cayman Islands?…I know it, and you know it.
Secondly…what’s the point? Even if those were actual tax rates paid…it’s IMMORAL!
I have my money because my customers VOLUNTARILY pay the price of the services that I offer…and my employees VOLUNTARILY work for the salaries that I pay them…
I know, your inner Elizabeth Warren tells me that someone has to pay for the military, and the police, and the fire department, and the courts, etc….but, if you are intellectually honest, those services cost a fraction of our current Government expenditures…
Boo…my question to you and your minions is…why are you entitled to one cent of the money that my customers paid my company? What is your MORAL justification?
When I earned six bucks an hour in 1992 when Billionaire Ross Perot ran for President…I knew this one fact…I WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ONE SINGLE CENT OF HIS BILLIONS…he earned it.
Your philosophy is emotionally appealing to the masses, but morally bankrupt.
Because your “company” would consist of you digging in the mud for tubers if it wasn’t for the society that it made it possible for us to have the kind of economy we do.
And because, Ms. Morality, the well-being of the less FORTUNATE trumps the acquisitiveness of the LUCKIEST.
The former point is not obvious, I admit, but the latter is something that those with a conscience do not need to have explained.
Why? What’s the moral justification? Why are the “less fortunate” entitled to have the “more fortunate” make them “more fortunate”? Isn’t that slavery? A slavery where those who cannot produce wealth (i.e. less fortunate) enslave those who can produce wealth (i.e. fortunate)
Why are you MORALLY justified to steal the wealth of the “fortunate”?
Nice slavery racket, Progs.
Instead of blacks having the efforts of their labor stolen, now it’s the “fortunate”.
Yes, Master.
Why are the “less fortunate” entitled to have the “more fortunate” make them “more fortunate”?
So that these people, every single one of which is as important as you, don’t have to live in misery and poverty. So that there will be less pain and indignity and suffering and hopelessness.
These things matter more than you wanting to have more stuff.
You use the words “steal” and “slave” frequently, but incorrectly. You’re just using words that you hope will be sufficiently emotionally-charged to cause people to fill in a moral argument where you’ve provided none.
Slaves are beaten by their masters.
They’re raped by their masters, and forced to live their lives tending to their rapists.
Slaves are tortured by their masters. They can be killed without consequence.
Slaves are uprooted, ripped away from their families and communities on a whim.
In the worst case scenario, you have to lease a car with the cloth seats instead of the leather because of taxes.
well, what I really meant by “troll” was that I was uncertain you were going to stick around to even read my response let alone respond to it. But you did, so that’s nice.
On your first point, the answer is yes and no. Yes, really rich people actually did pay that rate on their income. But, no, they enjoyed so many tax loopholes that their effective rate was nowhere near than confiscatory. So, for example, people paying 50% in 1986 probably paid more in total taxes in 1987 even though the rate went down below forty. That’s because Bill Bradley closed a ton of loopholes (temporarily).
I am going to skip you point about the morality for a moment to address your point about rights.
According the Health Care Blue Book, the cost of a three-day visitation for renal dialysis is $5,616. Each additional day is $1,800.
Typical dialysis is done three days a week. So, let’s do some math. The cost of renal dialysis for a year is 52 weeks times $5,616. That’s 292,000 dollars a year to stay alive.
Now, what right does anyone have to stay alive? Assuming we all have that right, then someone is going to have to pay $292,000 a year for every one who needs renal dialysis. That can be an insurance company or the government or it can be you and me or the patient until they go bankrupt or their family until they go bankrupt. I don’t care who pays for it, frankly, as long as someone does.
Now, my argument would be that no one should by health insurance. Instead, we should buy health coverage in much the same way that we buy Social Security and Medicare on the installment plan. That way, we all are covered against the misfortune of failing kidneys or cancer or whatever else might befall us. We pay when we’re working and we all share in the risk pool. Some will be winners and some losers, but no one can predict that and it doesn’t matter because we’re all human and we all deserve health care when we get sick.
In the absence of such a fair system, you are obligated to pay for this dialysis because there is no other way to pay for it. You can pay in higher premiums or higher income taxes or however you want, but you will pay. And you will be a good person for paying, because it’s the only moral thing to do.
See, I told you I’d get back to morality.
Boo…let me summarize your moral philosophy…
From each according to his ability, to each according to their need…
Whether that need is food, shelter, clothing…or…dialysis…
What’s the incentive to be able, if neediness entitles you to make the able your servant?
Need entitles the needy to steal from, and enslave, the able.
Forget about the fact that many of the life-saving medicines and technologies only exist because of the EVIL PROFIT MOTIVE!!! The able invent these life-saving products, only to have them stolen by the needy, who despise the very able that make their existence possible! What a racket.
Good system…a system that pits need against ability…
In the end, who do think wins that war?
Don’t get me wrong…I’m all about Christ’s injunction to take care of the least amongst us…I voluntarily donate money to help innocent animals and humans that need help…but don’t put a f—ing gun to my head and tell me that you own my property. Even if you need dialysis, you do not own me…I am not your slave.
Look deep, Booman…your moral philosophy is truly evil.
It disgusts me that you are allowed to keep anything at all that you “earn” above, say, one million dollars a year.
It disgusts me that you are allowed to have more than, say, 100 million in accumulated personal holdings.
And it disgusts me that you are allowed to inherit or pass on more than, say, ten million in accumulated wealth.
In fact, your attitude disgusts me and I think you are due for re-education in Cuba.
And in Cuba only because the “schools” have been closed in Cambodia.
You write of the tea baggers, “It’s the stupidest political movement ever. However, that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been successful in creating power for our plutocrats.”
Couldn’t agree more that this is the open secret of modern conservatism. It is the stupidest political movement ever and is highly successful not in spite of this but because it bases itself squarely and unashamedly on the stupidity of the masses.
Without democracy the people are entirely at the mercy of the ruling class. With democracy things are not always much different.