April 24, 201214 yr I saw the chart in the attached link and it conifrmed a lot of what I have been saying for several years with an added twist. Whose Tax Rates Rose or Fell - NYTimes.com Since 1960, our tax structure has been giving large amounts of money to the highest income earners, it has also increased taxes for the upper middle class earners. That is the thing that always gets me when people scream bloody murder about a tax increase for the highest income earners. Don't you realize you are paying for it? Who can better afford to pay more in taxes as our government wallows in debt? Here are some quick numbers on average tax rates if you can't pull up the link: Top 0.1% - 60% in 1960; 33.6% in 2004 Top 1% - 44.4% in 1960; 30.4% in 2004 Top 10% - 28% in 1960; 27.4% in 2004 Top 20% - 24.5% in 1960; 25.7% in 2004 Second 20% - 16.7% in 1960; 20.5% in 2004 Middle 20% - 15.9% in 1960; 16.1% in 2004 One other key note, the chart points out that the overall tax rate has reduced between 1-1.5% for many households under the Obama stimulus. For perhaps the one person who is on here that has seen their taxes reduced, congratulations. For all you other posters, especially those ranting against the high earner tax increase, I hope you enjoy paying their taxes for them.
April 24, 201214 yr 1960 was the when the high income bracket was at its peak. That peak started in the early 1930s - during the deperession. And that hike has been blamed for prolonging the depression by some. Overall rates over time here: http://timiacono.com/wp-content/uploads/11-04-17_tax_rates.png
April 24, 201214 yr Statistics and percentages are an interesting thing. The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes Since the passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, critics have claimed incessantly that they disproportionately benefited the rich while burdening the poor. Now that the data is in, these claims have been shown to be unquestionably false. Squeezing the Wealthy Even More According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton's final year in office. In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply: - The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006; - The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent; - The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and - The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent. Each of these four quintiles' shares was an all-time low.
April 24, 201214 yr I find it interesting VOR chose not to give ALL the rates but I guess that wouldn't fit the agenda.
April 24, 201214 yr I saw the chart in the attached link and it conifrmed a lot of what I have been saying for several years with an added twist. Whose Tax Rates Rose or Fell - NYTimes.com Since 1960, our tax structure has been giving large amounts of money to the highest income earners, it has also increased taxes for the upper middle class earners. That is the thing that always gets me when people scream bloody murder about a tax increase for the highest income earners. Don't you realize you are paying for it? Who can better afford to pay more in taxes as our government wallows in debt? Here are some quick numbers on average tax rates if you can't pull up the link: Top 0.1% - 60% in 1960; 33.6% in 2004 Top 1% - 44.4% in 1960; 30.4% in 2004 Top 10% - 28% in 1960; 27.4% in 2004 Top 20% - 24.5% in 1960; 25.7% in 2004 Second 20% - 16.7% in 1960; 20.5% in 2004 Middle 20% - 15.9% in 1960; 16.1% in 2004 One other key note, the chart points out that the overall tax rate has reduced between 1-1.5% for many households under the Obama stimulus. For perhaps the one person who is on here that has seen their taxes reduced, congratulations. For all you other posters, especially those ranting against the high earner tax increase, I hope you enjoy paying their taxes for them. The difference between you and I: I believe that folks should be able to keep what they earn, it DOES NOT belong to the Fed. If the "rich" guy down the street gets to keep more of what he earns then more power to him. You on the other hand, have a collectivist mindset that believes that all money belongs to the Fed to "distribute" as they see fit. Again, we are NOT undertaxed! The Fed has a spending problem!
April 24, 201214 yr I saw the chart in the attached link and it conifrmed a lot of what I have been saying for several years with an added twist. Whose Tax Rates Rose or Fell - NYTimes.com Since 1960, our tax structure has been giving large amounts of money to the highest income earners, it has also increased taxes for the upper middle class earners. That is the thing that always gets me when people scream bloody murder about a tax increase for the highest income earners. Don't you realize you are paying for it? Who can better afford to pay more in taxes as our government wallows in debt? Here are some quick numbers on average tax rates if you can't pull up the link: Top 0.1% - 60% in 1960; 33.6% in 2004 Top 1% - 44.4% in 1960; 30.4% in 2004 Top 10% - 28% in 1960; 27.4% in 2004 Top 20% - 24.5% in 1960; 25.7% in 2004 Second 20% - 16.7% in 1960; 20.5% in 2004 Middle 20% - 15.9% in 1960; 16.1% in 2004 One other key note, the chart points out that the overall tax rate has reduced between 1-1.5% for many households under the Obama stimulus. For perhaps the one person who is on here that has seen their taxes reduced, congratulations. For all you other posters, especially those ranting against the high earner tax increase, I hope you enjoy paying their taxes for them. A few questions. 1. Can you explain what you mean by the part in bold? Is the government sending these folks a check or simply allowing them to keep more of their own money? 2. How is anyone paying the top earners taxes for them? Are you saying high earner's got to keep 100% of their pay check and folks like you and I had to pay their tax bill? 3. What would you consider a fair % for the top earners?
April 24, 201214 yr :thumb: A few questions. 1. Can you explain what you mean by the part in bold? Is the government sending these folks a check or simply allowing them to keep more of their own money? 2. How is anyone paying the top earners taxes for them? Are you saying high earner's got to keep 100% of their pay check and folks like you and I had to pay their tax bill? 3. What would you consider a fair % for the top earners? You beat me to it.
April 25, 201214 yr A few questions. 1. Can you explain what you mean by the part in bold? Is the government sending these folks a check or simply allowing them to keep more of their own money? 2. How is anyone paying the top earners taxes for them? Are you saying high earner's got to keep 100% of their pay check and folks like you and I had to pay their tax bill? 3. What would you consider a fair % for the top earners? Isn't it amazing that those clamoring for "fairness" never have an answer for this.
April 25, 201214 yr Author To answer some questions in posts above: 1. My point is that taxes INCREASED on the middle class while they DECREASED significantly on the rich. It doesn't seem like I made that point clear enough. Yes, we should keep what we earn. So why is the middle class paying more while the highest earners are paying less? Does no one see that? 2. I didn't include the lowest tax brackets because they didn't need to be included to "fit the agenda". The agenda is the middle class is paying more taxes while the rich get to put more in their pocket. Being in the middle class, I don't like that and it doesn't seem fair. Do the above clarifications help see the point I was making? Edited April 25, 201214 yr by Voice of Reason
April 25, 201214 yr To answer some questions in posts above: 1. My point is that taxes INCREASED on the middle class while they DECREASED significantly on the rich. It doesn't seem like I made that point clear enough. Yes, we should keep what we earn. So why is the middle class paying more while the highest earners are paying less? Does no one see that? 2. I didn't include the lowest tax brackets because they didn't need to be included to "fit the agenda". The agenda is the middle class is paying more taxes while the rich get to put more in their pocket. Being in the middle class, I don't like that and it doesn't seem fair. Do the above clarifications help see the point I was making? Yes, I see your point. But, your thought process speaks volumes on the subject. You would be surprised to know that very many folks in this country that are considered "middle class" pay little to zero income taxes. No, I don't have any stats to back that up, but it is true.
April 25, 201214 yr Author Yes, I see your point. But, your thought process speaks volumes on the subject. You would be surprised to know that very many folks in this country that are considered "middle class" pay little to zero income taxes. No, I don't have any stats to back that up, but it is true. My thought process is very simple - I want equitable treatment. My taxes going up while the elite income earners get huge tax reductions is not equitable. Everyone needs to get outside their tax argument box and see the light. Yes, I want budget reduction and control on spending first and foremost. I want to pay as little taxes as it takes to keep our country strong. I want my taxes to go down. But I realize taxes are necessary and I want to be treated fairly by the tax code. I think it is fair that those earning over $250,000 pay an extra 7% in taxes so that those earning less than $250,000 don't have to pay more in taxes. Put another way, those making less than $250,000 should not be asked to pay more in taxes so that those earning over $250K can get a tax cut. That is what has happened to us over the past 50 years.
April 25, 201214 yr My thought process is very simple - I want equitable treatment. My taxes going up while the elite income earners get huge tax reductions is not equitable. Everyone needs to get outside their tax argument box and see the light. Yes, I want budget reduction and control on spending first and foremost. I want to pay as little taxes as it takes to keep our country strong. I want my taxes to go down. But I realize taxes are necessary and I want to be treated fairly by the tax code. I think it is fair that those earning over $250,000 pay an extra 7% in taxes so that those earning less than $250,000 don't have to pay more in taxes. Put another way, those making less than $250,000 should not be asked to pay more in taxes so that those earning over $250K can get a tax cut. That is what has happened to us over the past 50 years. Using the table here the only time rates went up for lower brackets while going down for upper brackets was in 1988. Lower rates when up 1% and upper rates went down from 50 to 28%. Otherwise there is no apparent evidence of cutting the top and putting the burden on the bottom. Rates at the bottom have been stable mostly while high end rates have swung from 90% to 28% since 1916. Under very similar rates there were surpluses in the late 1990s. That was at the end of a good steady run economically - and I will even say it was under Mr. Bill. The 90s were good with a steady stock market leading to steady tax revenues for capital gains. Not the case since 2001 though. Would this be an issue if it weren't in the news and we did not have a huge, giant deficit to deal with?
April 25, 201214 yr Author ^ Do you think it is ok for the upper 1-2% to get huge cuts and the middle class to have an increase? And yes, this is more of an issue because of ongoing deficit spending for the past 10+ years and the huge deficit. We can not get out of the hole by budget cuts alone. Some re-working of the tax code is needed. The middle class has carried this burden for the past 50 years and it should not be on their shoulders. It is time for the upper 1-2% to stop riding on the middle class' shoulders and pay up.
April 25, 201214 yr ^ Do you think it is ok for the upper 1-2% to get huge cuts and the middle class to have an increase? And yes, this is more of an issue because of ongoing deficit spending for the past 10+ years and the huge deficit. We can not get out of the hole by budget cuts alone. Some re-working of the tax code is needed. The middle class has carried this burden for the past 50 years and it should not be on their shoulders. It is time for the upper 1-2% to stop riding on the middle class' shoulders and pay up. Once again. I reiterate. The top 20% in this country carry 86.3% of the total tax burden. That leaves 13.7% for the other 80%. How much more would you have them carry?
April 25, 201214 yr My thought process is very simple - I want equitable treatment. My taxes going up while the elite income earners get huge tax reductions is not equitable. Everyone needs to get outside their tax argument box and see the light. Yes, I want budget reduction and control on spending first and foremost. I want to pay as little taxes as it takes to keep our country strong. I want my taxes to go down. But I realize taxes are necessary and I want to be treated fairly by the tax code. I think it is fair that those earning over $250,000 pay an extra 7% in taxes so that those earning less than $250,000 don't have to pay more in taxes. Put another way, those making less than $250,000 should not be asked to pay more in taxes so that those earning over $250K can get a tax cut. That is what has happened to us over the past 50 years. Why isn't it equitable when the elite income earners started out so high in the first place? Also, do you know for a fact that your taxes increased? My bet is they didn't. You've fallen into the trap NYT wanted you to by confusing tax rates with taxes paid. Big difference.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.