| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:13 pm The Truth about Taxes |
|
From www.rushlimbaugh.com (read on, please)
| Quote: | Top 20% Pay 80% of Taxes
August 13, 2004
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The New York Times has done it again, and they are quoting the Congressional Budget Office, I don't think accurately. Here's the headline: "Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy."
Now, the New York Times is actually blaming Reuters in this story, because they're the first ones that did it. Let me tell you what The Times says and then we'll give you the truth and this is why we keep the information on who pays what in taxes permanently at RushLimbaugh.com, because you're going to see this story in the New York Times today and you're going to be able to go to my website and see the truth about who pays taxes, who pays the vast majority of taxes.
And, of course, when there's a tax cut that comes down, it's inevitable that the people who pay taxes get the tax cut. And I forgot the number off the top of my head, but we're up to now something like 38% of all taxes are paid by the top 1%. How can you have a tax cut and those people not get one? And if the purpose for the tax cut is to stimulate the economy the people that pay the taxes have got to get the tax cut.
At any rate (reading from Times), "Fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1% of income who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the CBO to be published today. The new estimates confirm what independent tax analysts have long said, that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have been heavily skewed to the very wealthiest taxpayers. Those are the people, however, who pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes."
So we are making inroads. The New York Times finally makes that admission. This used to never show up anywhere near a mainstream press report on tax cuts. "In addition, the report gave Republicans support for their contention that tax reduction had brought some benefit to people in almost all income categories." Well, there's the story! But what's the headline? "Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy."
Well, we find out that those are the people who pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes and we find out buried down deep, "The report also gave Republicans support for their contention that tax reduction had brought some benefit to people in all income categories. People with the bottom fifth of income, for example, averaging earnings of $16,000 a year saw their effective tax rate drop to 5.2% from 6.7%. Yet because lower and many middle-income families have been paying very little federal income tax in the first place, those in that bottom fifth of earnings received an average tax cut of only $250."
So? They're not paying any taxes! They're paying a very small portion of the federal income tax burden in the first place! That's the whole point. It's all on my website, ladies and gentlemen. "The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced tax rates for people in all income brackets but they had a disproportionate effect on people at the very highest levels because they had already been paying a disproportionate share of total federal taxes and in part because stock dividends get a special lower rate." Two times in the same article the New York Times is forced somehow to get it right, amazing progress, ladies and gentlemen! I'm feeling extremely happy about this, despite their misleading headline.
Now, I have just received from a guy who works for the Joint Economic Committee in the Senate a little report here about the CBO tax report, and there's of course a different spin on this from what Reuters gave it, which is where the New York Times got it. The New York Times got their data from Reuters.
A new CBO report produced at the request of congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners. Increased! It increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners, while decreasing the tax share of lower and middle income groups. This always happens. Every time you lower the marginal rates they end up paying more, because they report more income, and there's more tax on the income because the rates are lower, so they're reporting more income. They pay more taxes. Their share of the total bite increases even though their tax rate goes down. This has always been the case. That's the whole point of supply-side economics. You know, this is what's never ceased to amaze me. The Democrats have always run around and said the rich need to pay their fair share. They're paying more than their fair share! And every tax cut they get they end up paying even more, of more of their fair share.
The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Law, 2001 to 2014, shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, the top 5% of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes. As a result of the tax cuts since 2001, all taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts. While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, the CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20% of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts.
Because when you take it down to the lower 20%, you're into the income levels where you people are still being paid with withholding, it's not all -- independent contractor -- the point is that they report more income. They shelter less, they report more income, and the rate comes down, and tax revenue increases. And since their taxes, even though the percentage is higher. So the amount of money taken from them in taxes is higher. It's all common sense. It never has ceased to amaze me how people don't get this.
They get stuck on these percentages and they get stuck on the size of a tax cut, and they say, well, somebody making $400,000 a year gets a tax cut of $4,000, and somebody making $16,000 gets a tax cuts of $250. How's that fair? Somebody gets $4,000 and they don't need it. They don't need it. That's nobody's job to tell you who and what you don't need, especially not the government's. And that's what they focus on and everybody gets sidetracked.
Here are the numbers. You'll be stunned. The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. The top 20%.
Now, if you're going to have a tax cut that is broad-based and reaches 78% of the people, I'm sorry, you're going to be cutting taxes on the top 20%. It's unavoidable! And guess what? It worked! It stimulated the economy. Where would we be without them?
Here's the final number. The bottom four-fifths, 80% - the bottom 80% of income earners pay just 20%, 22% of the federal income tax burden. The bottom 80% pay only 20% of the burden. Now, how in the world can anybody with a brain come forth and say, "I am against tax cuts for the rich. I'm only going to have a tax cut for the middle class." If you give a tax cut to people in the bottom 20%, you're not going to stimulate anything. They're not paying any taxes anyway. But we're making progress. We're making progress. That's why this thing is going to stay on my website in perpetuity. So you can see it.
END TRANSCRIPT
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/ny_times_top_20__pay_80__of_taxes_.guest.html |
| Quote: | Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes
October 10, 2003
There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.
*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html |
Also check out http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
