Top 1% of Taxpayers Pay Almost 40% of All Taxes

[red states rule]

Just n time for the election, new US Treasury figures show how Americans are over taxed, and how a small minority of taxpayers are paying a huge majority of the taxes

After the Bush tax cuts, the "rich" are paying MORE is taxes then they were before the tax cut

But the libs and the messiah want them to pay more


Top 1% of Taxpayers Pay Almost 40% of All Taxes

1. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of tax filers increased to 39.38% in 2005 (most recent year available), while the tax share of the top 5% climbed to 59.67%. The income tax share of the top half rose to 96.93%, according to recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data. The tax shares are the highest on record for these groups in comparable IRS data going back to 1986.

2. The share of adjusted gross income generated by the top 1% increased to 21.20% in 2005, relative to a level of 20.81% reached during the height of the stock market bubble in 2000 (when the income tax share of the top 1% was 37.42%). Although the income share of the top 1% is similar in 2000 and 2005, the income tax share was about two percentage points higher in 2005.

3. Between 1992 and 2000, the top one percent’s share of income jumped from 14.23% to 20.81%, an increase of nearly 7 percentage points, before slipping in 2001 and 2002. These data show that the most significant increases in this income share occurred in the 1990s, not in more recent years.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post_26.html

[midcan5]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?


"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

[red states rule]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?


"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

Yes it is moral, and it is what is best for not only America but the world

If you libs were serious about ending poverty, you would encourage more economic growth by lowering taxes, reduce government regulation, and let capitalism work

Why not comment on the fact so few people are paying a majority of the taxes collected - and try to justify why they should pay more

[Little-Acorn]

Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?

The people paying them that money, did so entirely by choice, and even made contracts agreeing to it in advance.

Is it moral to renege on the payments?

(No question but that it's flatly illegal.)

And, is it DESTRUCTIVE TO SOCIETY to renege?

Finally, is it destructive to society (that's actually an excellent measure of morality) for government to step in and restrict or forbid people from paying employees that much money?

I submit that it is highly destructive, and thereby highly immoral. Societies that forbid such (which includes all socialistic societies), invariably fare MUCH worse than societites that do not.

[red states rule]

The people paying them that money, did so entirely by choice, and even made contracts agreeing to it in advance.

Is it moral to renege on the payments?

(No question but that it's flatly illegal.)

And, is it DESTRUCTIVE TO SOCIETY to renege?

Finally, is it destructive to society (that's actually an excellent measure of morality) for government to step in and restrict or forbid people from paying employees that much money?

I submit that it is highly destructive, and thereby highly immoral. Societies that forbid such (which includes all socialistic societies), invariably fare MUCH worse than societites that do not.

Libs are constantly whining about their rights being taken away (even though they can't tell us what they are) but they are always willing to impose their beliefs on us and the free market

[glockmail]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money? …..
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

Instead of filtering your view of morality through a liberal utilitarian perhaps you should go to the actual source of morality:

Matthew 25:14-30 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

The Parable of the Talents
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

[red states rule]

"Ten Men go out for Dinner… Who Pays what?"…

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all 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 like they do now with the present income tax structure.

The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 of the bill.
So that is what the ten men decide to do.

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. “Since you all are such good customers I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20”. Dinner for the 10 men now costs just $80...

The group still wanted to pay the bill the same way that they paid their taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the Paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everybody would get his “Fair Share”?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal…So, the restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each mans bill roughly the same amount; and proceeded to work out the amounts each man would pay.

The fifth, like the first four now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eight man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off then before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings…

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10”…“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got ten times more than me!?”“That’s true”, shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploit’s the poor!”The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up…

The next night the Tenth man did not show up for dinner, so the Nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half the bill!


http://rightsideva.blogspot.com/2008...pays-what.html

[midcan5]

I disagree that is moral to have that much of the capital of the world. The consequences are immoral as their profit is made on the backs of the working poor here and throughout the world.

[red states rule]

I disagree that is moral to have that much of the capital of the world. The consequences are immoral as their profit is made on the backs of the working poor here and throughout the world.

So who will the poor work for? The poor do not create jobs. The poor do not start up companies. The poor do do invest

Have you ever got a job from a poor person?

It is not immoral how much someone makes. What is immoral is the amount of money government takes away from them in taxes

[Little-Acorn]

Saw a political cartoon once, wish I had saved it.

It showed two men walking up a hill. One of them is labelled "Upper 50% of Earners". He is carrying a fat Uncle Sam on his back, labelled "US Tax Burden". Sweat is pouring off the carrier's brow.

The other walker is labelled "Lower 50%", and has Uncle Sam's coattails in his hands, weighing maybe a few ounces.

The man with Uncle Sam on his back is saying, "Whew, let's take a break."

The other says, "No way! That would benefit you more than me!"


An excellent image, nails the reality perfectly.

[red states rule]

Dems and the liberal media go out of their way to whine how much a CEO makes - and what he/she saves due to the tax cut

But they never talk about how much in taxes he/she paid, and how many emplyess work for the company so they can take care of their families

Or how much Oil companies made in profits last year, but not how much in taxes they paid

Libs for some reason, want to punish achievement

[Yurt]

moral? that some should have more than others? that is life in an imperfect world and perfect world. and what really is "more?" should we all look alike, be robots? given the same intellect? the poor will always be with us. should one person work harder so that others who do not have the same as him or her?

as has been asked, without ever being truthfully answered:

would you support giving everyone A's on their report card? it's simply not fair that one or two people at the top receive A's, thus have a better shot at doing "well" in life.


midcan, i need approximately, oh say, $5,000 for an ad. would you give me $5,000? how about $1,000?

[red states rule]

moral? that some should have more than others? that is life in an imperfect world and perfect world. and what really is "more?" should we all look alike, be robots? given the same intellect? the poor will always be with us. should one person work harder so that others who do not have the same as him or her?

as has been asked, without ever being truthfully answered:

would you support giving everyone A's on their report card? it's simply not fair that one or two people at the top receive A's, thus have a better shot at doing "well" in life.


midcan, i need approximately, oh say, $5,000 for an ad. would you give me $5,000? how about $1,000?

Libs never give their own money - they will have the government tax the hell out of someone else - then you can have the money

The poor will always be with us Yurt as long as there are liberals who will pay them to stay poor via wealth transfers. they have no incentive not to be poor

[5stringJeff]

A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?

It's not a hard question. As long as you earn your money without acting unethically, of course it's moral to make that much. Here's the flip side of your question: is it moral for the government to confiscate 39% of your earnings if you make that much? The answer: NO.

[theHawk]

It's not a hard question. As long as you earn your money without acting unethically, of course it's moral to make that much. Here's the flip side of your question: is it moral for the government to confiscate 39% of your earnings if you make that much? The answer: NO.

Bingo.

How do liberals figure that taxing the rich somehow helps "the poor"? How does government holding onto more money help the economy? The more taxes it collects the less money is flowing through the economy.