Back to Lessons
05.21.2012 ... Another view of "Taxation": Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980-2009, From http://www.taxfoundation.org/
09.28.2011 ... Breaking news: Hong Kong policies that can not possibly be applied to the US...
Y'know why it is unacceptable in the US? Because it might result in unemployment numbers like these...
Based on the Internal Revenue Service's 2010 database below, here's how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
Air time: Thurs. Apr. 15 2010 | 7:31 PM ET Discussing whether America can maximize its future under the current tax system, with Rep. Bill Pascrell, (D-NJ) and Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI).
Does that surprise you?
Who doesn't want you to know things like that?
We'll need fewer IRS people. They'll fight to keep their jobs instead of having a flat tax.
Some accountant firms and, of course, tax preparers [think: H&R Block, for example...] will oppose the idea.
But, just like farm subsidies' specious arguments, keeping the IRS and H&R Block in business wastes billions of dollars per year of your tax money, which just might go towards lowering that 13% number to 12%, or maybe even 10% !
Wouldn't you rather pay less, and get the same services from government?
I sure would.
Think about it, and if you can, do the math yourself.
Now, here's the really hard part......
Most of the arguments against the flat tax start with views like, "this is a giveaway to the rich... they'll pay less taxes than they do today.... That's unfair to the little guy... the blue collar wage-earner!"
What you need to think about is this:
You probably wouldn't believe John Stossel of ABC News, either, would you?
"Myth No. 5 .... The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
We've all heard this one during the presidential campaign. When it comes to income taxes, the Democratic presidential candidates keep telling us, the rich don't pay enough.
That's a widespread belief, but do the politicians even know how much of the income tax burden the rich pay now?
According to presidential candidate Al Sharpton, "The top one percent in this country pays very much less than ten percent, very much less than five percent."
Sharpton said he thinks the wealthy should pay "somewhere around 15 percent."
But that's so silly because -- and I bet most of you don't know this -- the IRS says the richest 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 34 percent of all income taxes. Twice what Sharpton wanted them to pay.
Still you may feel the rich should pay even more. It's a tempting thought, since they have so much.
But let's remember the facts: the top 1 percent of Americans -- those who earn more than about $300,000 a year -- pay 34 percent, more than a third of all income taxes, and the top 5 percent, those making over $125,000, pay more than half. "
I didn't think so........
Sorry for the inexcusable delay, but tonight [04.05.2006] I ran some numbers through my spreadsheet.
Using some old data from the San Jose Mercury News, published 09.21.2003, I finally proved to myself what I had theorized back in about '77: a 7.5% flat tax would bring as much or more revenue to the governments than their "fair" graduated taxes do.
Bullcrap on the graduated taxes.
Here's the numbers:
|Mercury News, 09.21.2003|
|Average Family Income||$11,100.||$23,700.||$38,300.||$61,900.||$111,200.||$241,700.||$1,630,000.||$2,117,900.|
|Californians' state, local tax burden (2002) - %||11.30%||10.10%||9.2%||8.7%||8.1%||7.6%||7.2%|
|Californians' state, local tax burden (2002) - $||$1,254.30||$2,394.00||$3,523.60||$5,385.30||$9,007.20||$18,369.20||$117,360.00||$157,293.60|
What's the CA Tax Take if everyone had a 7.5% rate with no deductions? See Next Row:
|CA tax revenue with flat tax everyone pays:||7.5%||$1,254.30||$1,777.50||$2,872.50||$4,642.50||$8,340.00||$18,127.50||$122,250.00||$159,264.30|
Hey, wait a minute! Isn't $159 more than $157?! We just suggested a flat tax and the government's revenue went up!
|CA tax revenue with flat tax zero tax for bottom quintile:||7.5%||$1,777.50||$2,872.50||$4,642.50||$8,340.00||$18,127.50||$122,250.00||$158,010.00|
Let's exempt the bottom 40% of all taxpayers:
|CA tax revenue with flat tax zero tax for two bottom quintiles:||7.5%||$2,872.50||$4,642.50||$8,340.00||$18,127.50||$122,250.00||$156,232.50|
One of those bozos got the idea that a flat tax was a good idea, and that all it had to be was just 13%.
[maybe with a few deductions... (wink-wink, nod-nod: government as usual):
|CA tax revenue with flat tax zero tax for two bottom quintiles:||13%||$4,979.00||$8,047.00||$14,456.00||$31,421.00||$211,900.00||$270,803.00|
Can you get that a flat 13% tax on the top 1% of taxpayers alone would supply the government nearly 35% more in net revenue?!
(Though, of course, the next year, that 1% would all quit working.)
Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?
A quick note on "trickle-down" versus "trickle-up" economics....
Next time you hear someone say "trickle down" is no good, picture the person who's making enough money to hire someone to clean their house or mow their lawn.
Raise that family's taxes, and they just might cut back on some of their expenditures, like the cleaning person or the lawn care folks.
That tax increase just put the housecleaner and the lawn care guy out of work. Maybe they won't be able to buy as much bread or milk for their kids, or gas for their car.
Think about that, too, when someone talks "trickle-down is bad economics."
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.
The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers?
How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same % amount that they normally paid, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
So, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
Once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he pointing to the tenth, "But he got $7!".
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too.... It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?"
The wealthy get all the breaks!".
The first four men that had paid nothing yelled all at once, "Wait a minute! We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered (a little late) what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of meeting the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?
Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic! "
T. Davies Professor of Accounting &Chair,
Division of Accounting and Business Law
The University of South Dakota School of Business
414 E. Clark Street
Vermillion, SD 57069
Also attributed in an email to...
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
From Reason Magazine, 7.04 issue:
|Income and Tax Shares by Income Quintile|
Still not "Progressive Enough" for you? What would be????
"Let's look at the following distribution of taxes paid by various wage earners in the US, as reported by the IRS, for the tax year 2000 (the latest year for which the figures are available):
The top 1% paid 37.4% of all federal income taxes;
The top 5% paid 56.7%.....
The top 10% paid 67.3%.....
The top 25% paid 84.0%.....
The top 50% paid 96.1%.....
That means that 50% of the country paid less than 4% of all incomes taxes. The proportion of taxes paid by the top half increases with each year, and will continue to do so. As Gartman points out, we will soon be in the situation where 50% of the voters pay no income tax, yet can vote for higher taxes to be paid by the top half."
From the San Jose Mercury News, an article by Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post:
"The [Congressional Budget Office] study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of this total, from 22.2 percent.
Over the same period, taxpayers with incomes around %51,500 to $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose income averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent.
... Once Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are actually paying a higher of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO also found.
If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would be paying 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will be paying 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed.
I don't want you to be my "benevolent dictator," thanks.
From an 09.21.04 letter from The Oxford Club....
Keep these numbers in mind next time someone tells you that the tax refunds go disproportionately to the rich!
Remind them that the tax payments mostly came disproportionately from the rich!
***Quote of the Day: from taipangroup.com] ]
"Of course, the bulk of Bush's 2003 tax cuts on dividends and capital gains will help people with the highest incomes, but they pay the most taxes in the first place. The tax cuts will also help the entire 100-million-strong investor class - about 50 percent of U.S. households. But when the new IRS income statistics for 2004 and 2005 are published, we will undoubtedly find that lower tax rates - particularly on investment - have again generated much higher tax collections for the so-called richest among us. Already, for the twelve months ending April 2005, non-withheld tax receipts (read capital gains and dividends) rose an astronomical 36 percent."
--Larry Kudlow, June 7, 2005
Gee, lower taxes create more tax receipts.... Why didn't Kerry think that would work? Oh, yeah, blind fixation on a misguided belief .... that's why...
04.15-16.2008... from David R and Larry R. (a different R)
Part 1... Remember the election in 2006? Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
--Barack Obama [... change what part of that, again? ..... +af
Part 2: Taxes...Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
Your Social Security
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are Facts!!! Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not; some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson