It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.
CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.
The top 1 percent, who President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earns 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income, but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. But that share was down 4.4 percentage points from 2007, CBO said in a finding likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.
The big losers over the last few years were the rest of the well-off, especially those in the top fifth, who saw their tax burdens go up.
Read more: CBO: The wealthy pay 70 percent of taxes - Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
But they certainly should not be taxed any less. Job creators my bottom. That is the solution because right now with incentives and loopholes and adjustments to the tax laws they are not paying the same high percentage of income tax poorer people are paying right now - even though they are the ones who can most afford to pay the higher rate of taxation.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Either that, or do away with income tax alltogether and go with a national sales tax. I like this idea better as you can adjust your tax burdon by how muxh you consume. LIfe frugally and don't buy a new car this year? You pay less in tax. Buy a yacht and a second home? Then you pay more tax.
Originally posted by Mayson
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Either that, or do away with income tax alltogether and go with a national sales tax. I like this idea better as you can adjust your tax burdon by how muxh you consume. LIfe frugally and don't buy a new car this year? You pay less in tax. Buy a yacht and a second home? Then you pay more tax.
I've always likes that idea as well.
Eliminate the federal tax up until a certain income.
Increase the sales tax so that the government makes about as much money as it does now,
but people are happier because they can get more stuff even though they are paying the same amount in taxes. Also, tax money sitting in the bank doing nothing so that it's beneficial for everyone to put money into the system more so than it is to just sit there doing nothing (after a certain amount on savings/checking is reached).
Moving more "product," whatever it may be, is what creates jobs. Making a CEO more money is not what creates jobs; it just gives them more money. You need to increase the buying power of the little guy.
If I make 20 cars a year and sell 10, then I'm going to make 10 next year even if you lower taxes and/or increase my profits. I'm not gonna say, "well I'm making more money, maybe I should just make more cars and throw them away." That's not gonna happen. You're gonna fire people, make less cars, and turn an even greater profit. Or am I way off base here?
Originally posted by Echo007
If most of your income is from dividends, you should be taxed at a higher percent.
Originally posted by Hefficide
When did allowing previous easements of tax burden become the same thing as "raising taxes"???
The Bush era tax cuts were tax cuts. A means of letting the wealthy enjoy the prosperity that America was having at the time. Letting these bonuses expire because the economy is no longer good is NOT a tax increase.
Many workers these days work on "incentive based pay". If you have a killer month at work and get a huge bonus and then have a slow month the following month - thus making less in incentives... Have you received a pay decrease? Of course not.
Same concept here. The rich just don't want to fess up to it - and, sadly, they have the ability to use every pundit on the planet to spin the truth and promulgate the "tax increase" myth.
~Heff
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by newcovenant
But they certainly should not be taxed any less. Job creators my bottom. That is the solution because right now with incentives and loopholes and adjustments to the tax laws they are not paying the same high percentage of income tax poorer people are paying right now - even though they are the ones who can most afford to pay the higher rate of taxation.
But you don't take into consideration that they are paying more in taxes than you earn in a year.
Yet they drive onthe same crappy roads over the same dangerious bridges. They stand in the same lines for auto plates each year.
They don't qualify for free medicaid.
They don't qualify for free college.
They don't qualify for free food stamps.
They don't qualify for free heat allowance.
They don't qualify for that free cell phone deal.
Still with all that they are willing to put their money into the stock market and take a risk on those new startup companies that create those new jobs.
Remember Apple in the 90's? Look at the jobs they have created.
Google Microsoft and so on. Banks won't lend to these garage start ups. It takes those rich people risking their spare money that allows new companies to add employees.
Ever heard of Groupon? Those rich people lost a ton of money on it this year. But they don't get a tax deduction for it.
And yet you want them to pay more for something they will never get any benifit for?
Sounds like communisim to me.
SInce the Bush tax cuts have been around for over ten years, wouldn't they really be considered the going rate, rather than a tax cut?
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
SInce the Bush tax cuts have been around for over ten years, wouldn't they really be considered the going rate, rather than a tax cut?
Maybe because he peddled them as a temporary measure to use up the surplus we had in the economy then and now we don't and we want it back. This economy belongs to all of us.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
SInce the Bush tax cuts have been around for over ten years, wouldn't they really be considered the going rate, rather than a tax cut?
Maybe because he peddled them as a temporary measure to use up the surplus we had in the economy then and now we don't and we want it back. This economy belongs to all of us.
No, the economy belongs to those who contribute to it.edit on 11-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)