I must admit I’ve never understood the concept that some people would be excused from paying zero taxes and so would be completely disinvested in the system. I doubt I’m alone in favoring a far simpler tax code or my unease at the government’s willingness to push social or random political agendas through taxation. I doubt I am alone among residents of Montgomery County, Maryland, when I avoid shopping at local outlets and instead head to more consumer-friendly locations in Virginia. I can save 60 cents (!) a gallon simply by driving 15 minutes to Fairfax, Virginia. When it comes to tax burden, a new posting from my colleague Mark Perry offers some damning statistics:
We hear all the time that the “rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes” (123,000 Google search results for that phrase). Here’s an analysis using recent IRS data that suggests otherwise.
1. In 2009, the top 400 taxpayers based on Adjusted Gross Income earned $81 billion as a group, and paid $16.1 billion in federal income taxes (see chart).
2. In 2009, the bottom 50% of taxpayers, a group totaling 69 million, earned collectively more than $1 trillion and paid $19.5 billion in federal income taxes (see chart).
Democracy breaks down when the majority of American citizens pay far less in taxes than they receive in benefits. When the majority expects entitlements for which they need not pay and candidates can win elections not by promoting fiscal responsibility but rather by promising the populist status quo, then we really have become Greece. Here, the web application “Soak the Rich” really is worth a look. How ironic that Greece was once the model for democracy, but now we follow it off the precipice.
Note that Lefties NEVER state how much the "rich" should pay as a percentage of their income, only more. Similarly, they always bleat about the need for more social spending, but never give a maximum amount of spending needed.
The same goes for global warming/climate change. It's never been posited by the environmental advocates what temperature the earth *should* be (or what the temp *should* be for certain regions). It's also never mentioned what weather event(s) would indicate that we've turned the corner and the earth is now safe (More hurricanes? Fewer tornados? Extended winters?). The Left is only interested, in these instances, in more government. It won't stipulate an end point because if we ever got there, it'd have to stop demanding more government. Or have its hypocrisy so blatantly exposed.
Wow, maybe you should use this brilliant train of thought for the war on terrorism too. nPlease define when it will officially be over. n nAnd your comments implying that the government somehow created the global warming controversy are simply ludicrous. This argument came 100% from the scientific community starting in the 90s. nTry to have a little subject knowledge before you post garbage like this.
Omakase, What are you even talking about? Where in my comment did I "imply" that the govt created the global warming "controversy?" What's ludicrous is you hyperventilating about something that I never stated in the first place. n nHave you ever wondered why there is a "global warming controversy?" It started with unscrupulous scientists positing that there was this "global warming" phenomenon created by man and that we were all going to bake unless we rectified it. The reason we have a "controversy" now is it became apparent that man has little or nothing to do with any warming of the planet. As a matter of fact, there hasn't even been any warming for over 15 years. This despite a massive uptick in industrial activity on the planet. n nYou strike me as someone who, when the "Climategate" emails were released, was overcome with a wave of horror. Your preferred "vehicle" for foisting massive govt regulation upon us all just crashed and burned spectacularly. If the Left was intellectually honest, it would have been thrilled to learn that THE *elite* global warming scientists were cooking the books and that the planet was *not* about to drop dead. That should have been the end of the Left's obsession with "global warming." Instead, the Left showed its collective hand by recoiling in horror at the news and has made up any excuse to maintain the "global warming" myth. Which must mean that it all really had nothing to do with the environment in the first place. It had to do with obtaining political power so as to have social control. Or is all that just more "ludicrous" "garbage" in your esteemed opinion?
No actually the reason there is a controversy is because people like you somehow believe there is a massive world wide conspiracy by scientists to promote some political agenda, which is ridiculous. Scientists use data. Why is the earth warming? I have no idea. But there is irrefutable evidence of it. Rather than argue about causation, some critics instead dismiss the entire theory out of hand. Apparently by your reckoning all scientists are liberals also. nSo this is your recipe for social control: n1. Get a supermajority of international scientists (sorry only Liberals invited) to all conspire about some made up data that will show a threat to life on earth. n2. Use that threat to get control of the government. (I must have missed this in the last few election cycles). n3. Run roughshod over the minions by controlling them in unimaginable ways under the guise of "saving the planet". nI'm glad you spelled this out. Maybe you can point to all the socially controlling legislation foisted upon us so I can understand the complete circle here? nPlease be specific as I don't really respond to hand waving in general. n n n
Your response is quite typical of those who pray at the alter of Environmentalism. You completely ignore any possible contradictory fact and press on preaching your chosen religion. I know it's hard to learn that your God doesn't exist, but the fact remains that he doesn't exist. Your protestations otherwise won't revive your God. n nI challenge you to answer these two questions (amongst many that could be asked). n n1. If global warming is indeed a scientific fact, why did your cherished "scientists" have to cook the books? And these weren't a couple of fringe scientists. They were THE top guys. n n2. What's the proper temperature for the earth? If global warming = bad, then it therefore must be getting warmer than what is "right." Can you maybe give me a link to a web site? n nI of course don't expect answers to these questions.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. nAlexis de Tocqueville n
In the 10 years between 1997 and 2007, financial sector profits went from being 20% to being 40% of all corporate profits; the 25 richest hedgefund managers made 3x more than all 80,000 NYC school teachers. And how's our economy doing after this plundering of our society? n nEVERYTHING the right says about economics is wrong. We have entered, as Paul Krugman says, the 'dark ages' of economics. This bleat by Rubin is proof. The reason the middle class tax structure is the way it is is because middle class incomes haven't grown in 30 years. That's right. Zero increase, after inflation, in 30 years. The wealthiest have seen their incomes grow 275% in the same time period. n nAnd the effect on our economy has been disasterous. While conservatives tell us that we have to have a Stockholm syndrome view of economics (QUICK!! MAKE THE RICH RICHER OR THEY WON'T CREATE JOBS!!!), the evidence shows conservatives haven't a clue about economics at all. This economy is a Republican economy. We deregulated Wall Street. There are no private sector unions. Capital gains taxes are at record lows. And it's killing us
If the top 400 earners reported a combined total of $81B in income, that is an average of $200M each, and together paid $16B in federal taxes on that income, then they were taxed at an effective rate of 20%. That is a substantially lesser rate than paid by many with non-stratospheric income, which is but one among many reasons to conclude that our tax system is far from rational and equitable.