Reply With Quote
I guess this is a CBO data is good issue.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094
(CNSNews.com) - Middle-class Americans--not the rich or the poor--pay the majority of annual tax revenues taken in by the federal government, according to data released in a new Congressional Budget Office study. Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate.
Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.
Households in the top 1 percent for annual income (those earning more than $352,900) paid a healthy 28.1 percent of all federal taxes, but households in the lower income brackets paid relatively little. Those earning less than $34,300 paid only 5.2 percent of all federal taxes, and those earning less than $20,500 carried almost none of the federal tax burden (just 0.8 percent of the total) in 2007.
The average overall federal tax rate (including income, Social Security, Medicare, excise and other taxes) for all American households was 20.4 percent in 2007. But the average rate rose dramatically as household income rose. Households earning less than $34,300 paid an average overall federal tax rate of 10.6 percent, while households earning more than $74,700 paid an average overall federal tax rate of almost two and half times that much--25.1 percent.
When it comes to the federal income tax alone (as opposed to Social Security, Medicare, excise and other taxes) the lower income brackets actually paid a negative rate, thanks to programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit that paid people a “credit” for income taxes they never paid. The average federal income tax rate for households earning less than $34,300, according to the CBO, was -0.4 percent in 2007, and the average federal income tax rate for households earning less than $20,500 was -6.8 percent.
Over the past three decades, according to the CBO data, taxation has been getting more progressive, as the tax burden has lightened on lower income households while increasing on higher income households. During those three decades, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush signed laws cutting the top marginal income tax rates, but Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton signed laws increasing the rates.
The CBO divided the 116.9 million American households of 2007 into five roughly equal parts (quintiles) graded by income. The income range for the lowest quintile was $0 to $20,500; the second quintile, $20,500 to $34,300; the third quintile, $34,300 to $50,000; the fourth quintile, $50,000 to $74,700; and the fifth quintile, $74,700 and above. The share of overall federal taxes paid by each of the first four quintiles decreased from 1979 to 2007, while the share of overall federal taxes paid by the highest-income [/equintile increased, meaning the overall tax burden was shifting away from that class of Americans making less than $74,700 per year in 2007 toward those earning more.
I guess this is a CBO data is good issue.
The left just doesn't get it, and I doubt this tidbit of truth will change anything.
CBO data is relatively good at current and past numbers. They just stink at forecasts.
This is why the corps and capitalists target the wealth of the middle. It's the wealth they don't have, yet.
Using absolute tax receipt numbers, rather than percentage of revenue, is of course why this CBO report is total bull as conservative cut-taxes argument.
you conservatives "just don't get" that we non-conservatives saw through your bull long ago.
Loud noises
Is this a surprise? I'm assuming that poor and rich people are on the ends of the Bell Curve, so it makes sense that the majority of people end up paying the majority of taxes.
Makes sense
That is a bit of a "duh" thought, isn't it.
This report said that 59% of the people paid 67% of the taxes, 1% paid 28%, meaning the bottom 40% of people paid 5%.
Very few would be surprised at these numbers. The point that libs will make (with some justification, seemingly), is that the 'rich' are not paying enough in taxes. So why not support a tax increase on the rich so that they can pay as much as the middle class? Or more?
Most repubs. would argue that we shouldn't tax the 'rich' any more because they (the rich) are the ones that provide jobs to others, etc., etc.,...so, what remedy do you want here? More from the poor?
Really?
Remember when W. campaigned on tax cuts for the richest 2% because they 'paid more' in taxes than anyone else? He won, and now the richest in this country pay much less than the middle class. How did that work out for the economy?
Everybody happy?
Depends on how you want to look at it.
The top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden per percent of population.
The next 59% pay 1.15% of the tax burden per percent of population.
The next 40% pay 0.13% of the tax burden per percent of population.
The top earners are a little low. Idealy (IMO) the top 1% should pay somewhere between 30-35%.
Sounds good to me. Why don't we do it?
I understand that the whole "majority of people pay the majority of taxes" sounds right, but (and I don't know the numbers here), it is only right if there is a proportional distribution of wealth.
if the top 1% hold 60% of the wealth, then they should pay 60% of the taxes. etc.
I don't know how to accomplish this, but it also means that those at the bottom who hold say 10% of the wealth should pay 10% of the taxes (i.e. it should work both ways)
Would the flat tax fix this?
maybe they should tax welfare
The issue isn't taxes. The US government pulls in enough money to run 50 countries.
The issue is the spending side of the equation.
Yep. The government far overspends (on the advice of economists no less), and no one can ethically defend more tax hikes while we wage two large-scale wars with no meaning and spends hundreds of billions, if not trillions on private bailouts. And the incredibly huge national debt ?... our leaders have far overextended our means, and against the best interests of the people they were supposedly representing.
we have military bases in damn near every country on the globe. Listen, I'm about as hawk as it gets but goddamn man ...do we really need 14 aircraft carriers ? My philosophy is this. You have a kick ass nuclear deterrent. As long as we have that, I can sleep well at night. But they are now even ing with that. Russia has a more modern nuclear force than the us. And they were bankrupt 20 years ago. We're using 1980's technology, Russia is building new long range missiles. And Obama wants to do away with THAT. It's insanity.
When the alternative is escalation, perhaps not.
You mean, like this ? From the CBC:
From the Daily Mail (UK)Reports in Russian news media have suggested Russia is developing a nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of four tonnes, and a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile.
The Topol-M has a range of 10,000 kilometres, and have been deployed in silos since 1998. They reportedly can manoeuvre in ways that are difficult to detect.
Since taking office, Putin has often vowed to restore Russia's military power.
President Obama is set to announce plans for drastic reductions in America's nuclear arsenal.
Officials say thousands of weapons would be cut from their stockpile as part of a major rethink on U.S. nuclear strategy.
It is understood that the review would lead to America halting production of any new weapons with nuclear capability.
Tax cuts for the rich, belt-tightening austerity measures for working people. Notice that the spending cuts always target social programs while military spending and other corporate welfare/bailouts, such as our for-profit healthcare system, are untouchable.
yep, (the lower 90%) America is ed, just like the top 10% want it and have conspired for 30+ years to rig it.
Notice that heads of states from other countries like oh..Canada..have come to the US recently for health care or that our military spending per GDP ranks 25th in the world at 4.3 GDP. We are numba 1 in spending on health care at 16% of GDP. US corporations pay the second highest, behind Japan, corporate taxes in the world. 22 US states have higher corporate tax rates than Japan. Conversely, Americans enjoy some of the lowest personal tax rates in the world. Citizens of France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Finland...pay anywhere from 45% to 55% in personal income tax. The US tax table taps out at 35% for those making over $371,000/yr. 'Working people', as you call them, in the US pay either zero or 25% tops under 85k. It depends on your definition of 'working people'. 50% pay no income tax at all in the US. Zip. Depends on various factors but the fact is, Americans..ALL Americans..enjoy some of the lowest taxes on the globe and it drives you left wang nutters MAD even though you benefit from it.
No surprise here, and why raising the taxes on the rich, who are already over taxed, don't do as much as lib s thing. Many of them relocate, making revenues less, not more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
