Where did our real wealth go?

[Guest]

A very sobering piece. Be sure to read both pages.

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/where-did-our-real-wealth-go/

[Guest]

A very sobering piece. Be sure to read both pages.

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/where-did-our-real-wealth-go/


Thanks Donna for a great link......two qoutes stand out to me and validate my own thinking....

"Modern Western society is in some sense becoming drone-like, its entitled sensitive citizens assuming ceremonial roles and attitudes about the very landscape they inherited from their industrious predecessors."

AND

"PS. Why am I not too optimistic right now? Our President, who submitted the largest deficits in recent memory, and who is on track to nearly double the national debt in record time, continues to blame Bush — not just for Bush’s lamentable deficits, but for Obama’s own new unsustainable ones. I think his weird logic is: “Bush’s bad deficits made me trump them by a factor of four.” When the Commander-in-Chief expects the populace to believe that, or drops real unemployment figures and talks instead of theoretical jobs saved, or flip-flops on everything from evil Wall Street bankers now suddenly good, or bad nuclear power now vital, then we have about as much hope as we would have under Jimmy Carter."


Thanks again Donna...makes no difference what party is involved....we, as the voters, better wake up quickly. The road we are on right now is not the correct one.

[Guest]

...makes no difference what party is involved......... The road we are on right now is not the correct one.

I agree. The current situation has been predicted for a long time by many brilliant people; and is best summarized at
http://15yearsleft.com
At some point must decide on what one is going to spend one's energy, attention, and effort, so as not to be blindsided, instead of just talking about, or pointing out, the problem; the urgency is much greater than most people imagine.

[Guest]

I sometimes enjoy reading the comments at the end of a good read. Number 12 & 13 are especially good.

[Guest]

Did I miss something Freeda? What I got was a podcast infomercial for Mark Yarnell with no real information? Maybe I clicked on the wrong thing...

[Guest]

Did I miss something Freeda? What I got was a podcast infomercial for Mark Yarnell with no real information? Maybe I clicked on the wrong thing...

+ 1 I waited for info and there was no alternate link.

[Guest]

Donna, thanks for the informative read. I resurrected an old post that I believe supplements the information in the article, fills in some blanks and qualifies some "whys". As time marches on, the points in the post become more self evident. I do not believe the deficit crisis is a product of a "clueless", inexperienced administration. To the contrary I believe it is a cold, calculated and diabolically sinister assault on freedom, democracy and the American way of life by ideologues in the White House.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25952

[Guest]

President Obama has named the leaders of his deficit panel:

http://www.newsobserver.com/business/economy/story/342530.html

http://people.forbes.com/profile/erskine-b-bowles/23669

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/18/alan-simpson-vs-the-deficit-again/

[Guest]

How's this hope and changey working out??????

[Guest]

Watch what this panel does. Can you say VAT? It will sting every single American, Obama will support it and blame breaking his promise not to raise taxes on Bush.

[Guest]

they did not raise taxes income taxes. To the letter of the law, maybe they are right.
To those of us on this side of it....they are just sticking it to we the people AGAIN.....that is why Obama WILL NOT win a second term.
That is why many more will not get re elected this November.

What happened to stopping the spending? How about something novel.....do not spend "one dime" more than comes in revenue!!!:1rotfl::1rotfl:

btk:rant-rave:

[Guest]

Geez...so far it is just a panel thing that Washington does all the time. Bush cut taxes and Obama cut taxes, in the stimulus bill but neither of them have cut spending. Bush had off the books funding for the wars, the popular socialist Medicare Prescription drug plan for seniors and TARP. Obama is still funding the wars and had the stimulus package.

They all spend like drunken sailors.

And I would say under the circumstances the Changey Hopey thing is going about as well as the old guy and the hockey mom would be doing.

[Guest]

Obama didn't cut taxes.

A tax cut is a reduction of tax rates. Bush cut tax rates. What BO gave was a very tiny tax credit which by the way gets credited back to your income this year so you have to pay taxes on your tax credit. Tricky isn’t it.

Yep, Bush spend like a drunken sailor. To keep it in perspective, BO is spending like 500 drunken sailors.

[Guest]

Obama didn't cut taxes.

A tax cut is a reduction of tax rates. Bush cut tax rates. What BO gave was a very tiny tax credit which by the way gets credited back to your income this year so you have to pay taxes on your tax credit. Tricky isn’t it.

Yep, Bush spend like a drunken sailor. To keep it in perspective, BO is spending like 500 drunken sailors.

Well Bush didn't cut my taxes because I don't make enough money for his crowd. Credit or cut you get something off your taxes.

[Guest]

What do you mean "his crowd"?

Credit or cut you get something off your taxes.

Incorrect. Read again. With a cut your income tax rate goes down period.

Obama gave a very small (and I mean very small) tax credit that you basically have to pay back the next year. Big difference.

[Guest]

More food for thought. This was the Bush tax CUT

27% rate goes to 25%
30% rate goes to 28%
35% rate goes to 33%
38.6% rate goes to 35%
The existing 10% and 15% rates remain unchanged.

Sunset Rule: Without further action by Congress, rates will revert to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% after 2010. The 10% rate would disappear altogether.

That's what Obama is going to do, let the Bush tax CUTS expire. That means any low income folks such as yourself (self described) who may be in the 10% rate will go back up to 15%. That's a lot of low income families. Add on a VAT tax which is exactly what he aims to do, a lot of people are going to get the shaft. Not rich people... poor people.

[Guest]

More food for thought. This was the Bush tax CUT

27% rate goes to 25%
30% rate goes to 28%
35% rate goes to 33%
38.6% rate goes to 35%
The existing 10% and 15% rates remain unchanged.

Sunset Rule: Without further action by Congress, rates will revert to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% after 2010. The 10% rate would disappear altogether.

That's what Obama is going to do, let the Bush tax CUTS expire. That means any low income folks such as yourself (self described) who may be in the 10% rate will go back up to 15%. That's a lot of low income families. Add on a VAT tax which is exactly what he aims to do, a lot of people are going to get the shaft. Not rich people... poor people.

You are absolutely right. Thank you for posting the figures. You will not hear it from the Lame Stream Media. ( except for Fox, of course)

[Guest]

Yep.

That will cost me about $200 a month out of my family budget.

Here's a revelation for you.

I'M THE MIDDLE CLASS NOT THE RICH!!!

[Guest]

Well Bush didn't cut my taxes because I don't make enough money for his crowd. Credit or cut you get something off your taxes.


PLEASE EXPLAIN....."his crowd"

Thanks

[Guest]

PLEASE EXPLAIN....."his crowd"

Thanks

Pretty simple....there is no way anyone could describe that the Bush policies were directed at the middle class. I am middle class. The biggest tax cuts were on the highest earners. So that would be his crowd.

Just check out the credit card reform...it reformed more profit.

[Guest]

Well Bush didn't cut my taxes because I don't make enough money for his crowd

I don't get it. You saw the tax cut break down. Are you saying you weren't part of any of those tax brackets?

[Guest]

Well Bush didn't cut my taxes because I don't make enough money for his crowd. Credit or cut you get something off your taxes.


As I recall, these tax cuts mainly assisted married couples with children first...then investors, small business and high income....seems to me since investors and small business are VITAL to our economy that is fair....married couples can use all the breaks they can get......hey, we can discuss what it meant to high income....but the rates have been posted on this thread, and EVERYONE to some degree got a break !!!

WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE THEM ?????

[Guest]

As I recall, these tax cuts mainly assisted married couples with children first...then investors, small business and high income....seems to me since investors and small business are VITAL to our economy that is fair....married couples can use all the breaks they can get......hey, we can discuss what it meant to high income....but the rates have been posted on this thread, and EVERYONE to some degree got a break !!!

WHY DONT YOU BELIEVE THEM ?????

Party line people. Don't believe nothing that does not come from the ONE'S mouth, I suppose.

[Guest]

Can someone point out where, in any speech or proposal, Obama has proposed a VAT?

I know there are a lot of 'think tanks' out there that would propose one - but I don't think the administration is on board.

I still think a flat tax is the better option.

[Guest]

According to a report just released by www.tax.com the answer is simple. The rich got it all.
Some thoughts and numbers from the report:
The top 400:Income way up taxes way,way,down.A new report on the richest 400 show their income rose an average of 81 million...in 1 year.
Last fall a census bureau study found that real median income fell from $52'500 to $50,303 between 2000-2008. Millions of these same people lost their health insurance and their jobs also.
So,most of the middle class Americans who flock to the tea party movement were the big losers between 2000-2008. So who were the winners? Newly released data show the top 400 made enormous gains(81 million in 1 year) and paid less taxes.
The bottom 90% saw their incomes rise 13% in 2009 dollars.The top 400 saw their incomes rise 399%
In a single year 2006-2007 the income for those 400 rose 31%. Their tax rate fell to 16.6%
During the Reagan years the tax rate for the wealthiest was 50% and just as importantly so was the capitol gains tax at 50%
The wealthy have been given every tax break imaginable.
To put it simply:They are not paying their share.

Our Tax system and our defense budgets are the 2 major reasons for our debt. Until we address both it does not matter who is in charge.

[Guest]

Rofl

[Guest]

According to a report just released by www.tax.com the answer is simple. The rich got it all.
Some thoughts and numbers from the report:
The top 400:Income way up taxes way,way,down.A new report on the richest 400 show their income rose an average of 81 million...in 1 year.
Last fall a census bureau study found that real median income fell from $52'500 to $50,303 between 2000-2008. Millions of these same people lost their health insurance and their jobs also.
So,most of the middle class Americans who flock to the tea party movement were the big losers between 2000-2008. So who were the winners? Newly released data show the top 400 made enormous gains(81 million in 1 year) and paid less taxes.
The bottom 90% saw their incomes rise 13% in 2009 dollars.The top 400 saw their incomes rise 399%
In a single year 2006-2007 the income for those 400 rose 31%. Their tax rate fell to 16.6%
During the Reagan years the tax rate for the wealthiest was 50% and just as importantly so was the capitol gains tax at 50%
The wealthy have been given every tax break imaginable.
To put it simply:They are not paying their share.

Our Tax system and our defense budgets are the 2 major reasons for our debt. Until we address both it does not matter who is in charge.

Is this a satire? My gosh I wouldn't know where to begin to correct all those wrong statements.

[Guest]

No satire...just facts straight from the IRS study.

[Guest]

In the IRS we trust...

[Guest]

IRS tax study 2007...The top 1% of taxpayers averaged about $138,000,000.They paid a tax rate of 16.6%. Their secretaries paid a higher rate.
By 2010 the very rich will see their taxes fall by 5.7%Over the ten yeay period(2000-2010) the top 1% will recieve tax cuts totalling a half trillion dollars. Each tax break will average $340,000.
By 2010 52% of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1% whose average income is 1.5 million.
Its no wonder that some reps are fighting to lower the estate tax. The estates are getting a lot bigger.

[Guest]

IRS tax study 2007...The top 1% of taxpayers averaged about $138,000,000.They paid a tax rate of 16.6%. Their secretaries paid a higher rate.
By 2010 the very rich will see their taxes fall by 5.7%Over the ten yeay period(2000-2010) the top 1% will recieve tax cuts totalling a half trillion dollars. Each tax break will average $340,000.
By 2010 52% of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1% whose average income is 1.5 million.
Its no wonder that some reps are fighting to lower the estate tax. The estates are getting a lot bigger.


I certainly cannot argue anything when it comes to taxes, HOWEVER,if your above statements are true.......what happened to the extra tax that this administration is applying to those who make more than 250000 ?

How can the taxes be falling, as you say, but the President is saying the opposite ?

[Guest]

The audacity some people have to proclaim this person or that person isn't paying enough.

I don't believe YOU were the one that earned that money now were you? Liberals love to spend money as long as it comes from someone else's pocket.

That's one button people really push for me. What makes them think they are entitled to other people's earnings or to even advocate what or how much should be taken from them when they didn't earn it. Man-o-man, that's the height of arrogance and elitism to me.

The only thing more arrogant than a rich person who doesn't pay their fair share is another person who thinks they are truly entitled to some of it.

Of all the jobs I've had, I think every singe one was provided by the "evil rich." But don't listen to me, make sure those rich people pay and pay dearly. I'm sure the person down the street collecting welfare will hire me, provide health benefits, 401K and two weeks a year vacation.

Or maybe none of us will even have to worry about it any more. The government will take care of us all. Or maybe the rich will just sit on their money and not hire any new employees. Oh wait, aren't they doing that now? Well there's the solution, put it to them REALLY HARD and maybe they will start hiring again.

[Guest]

The top 1% earned 19 % of total income but paid 37% of total federal taxes.

The top 5% of total income in USA paid 57% of the federal taxes.


The bottom 50% of wage earners in USA paid 3% of the federal taxes.


So, tell me who is getting the shaft?

[Guest]

You asked where our wealth went and I told you. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. The wealthy in the USA up until 1984 had a tax rate of 50% and more importantly a capitol gains tax rate of 50%. Those rates are now 16.5% and 15%. That's alot of money the gov't does not have.
The other problem is our defense budget. It is totally out of control but no one seems to have the courage to challenge their budget. We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined.

[Guest]

You asked where our wealth went and I told you. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. The wealthy in the USA up until 1984 had a tax rate of 50% and more importantly a capitol gains tax rate of 50%. Those rates are now 16.5% and 15%. That's alot of money the gov't does not have.
The other problem is our defense budget. It is totally out of control but no one seems to have the courage to challenge their budget. We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined.

You are so wrong: The decrease in the tax rate increasd the revenue.

This is from Stephen Moore from the Wall Street Journal:



"The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income."

"This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between 2003 and 2005. Capital gains tax receipts also far outpaced the revenues that the government’s static models predicted. Between 2003 and 2007, actual tax receipts exceeded expectations by $207 billion."


So, when you lower the rates, people invest their money and tax receipts go up, not down. Capital gains is actually voluntary as investors can keep their money tied up in land or whatever.

I say it again, You are wrong!!!

[Guest]

You asked where our wealth went and I told you. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. The wealthy in the USA up until 1984 had a tax rate of 50% and more importantly a capitol gains tax rate of 50%. Those rates are now 16.5% and 15%. That's alot of money the gov't does not have.
The other problem is our defense budget. It is totally out of control but no one seems to have the courage to challenge their budget. We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined.

Again, here are a few facts you can chew on:

2008 Budget: The three top expenditures

Defense- 635 Billion= 21%

Social Security- 617 Billion around 21%

Medicare, Medicaid and Chip- 599 Billion=20%


So, if you add up all the entitlements , it is around twice as much as the military. But don't worry, Obama is looking at ways to cut the entitlements. Do you think your retirement money is safe? Think again.

[Guest]

High Five's to dklassen and Donna2. You both nailed it.

[Guest]

and some facts for you to chew on..from the Congressional Research Service Report of Congress Jan.2003..."Past capital gains tax rate cuts have increased revenue for the first 2 calander yearsafter the cuts yet lose revenue thereafter. In addition the amount of tax revenue decreases as the capital gains are taxed at a lower rate. Finally a capital gains tax cut induces stock sales which causes downward pressure on stock prices.
We can both find studies that support our side,but if everyone got a tax cut,the estate tax was lowered and there was a cut in the capital gains tax the federal gov't has less money.In itself that's O.K. However if we are fighting 2 wars and have the 3 large entitlement programs with less money to pay for them that's where the money is going.Should we cut all 3 of the largest programs? What do you think would happen? Should we cancel the next set of tax cuts until we get out of this mess or at least until we leave Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Guest]

Donna2: If you hadn't quoted those numbers from the IRS about who's paying how much of the tax burden, I would have. It's the one place where I was thankful to Rush Limbaugh as he kept a link to those numbers - right to the IRS website - on his web site.

This is something that people don't seem to realize. ANY time ANY tax cut is proposed, it's going to 'go to the rich' because they are THE ONLY PEOPLE PAYING TAXES. It's hard to give a tax cut to someone not paying taxes.

As far as the capital gains tax rate goes, do people not remember the reason WHY it was cut? The reason was that we needed to encourage investment and savings. Saving a dollar and having it's earning taxed 50% cents was pathetic. Imagine putting $100 aside. A few years later, you have $120. First you'd have to pay $10 taxes on the $20, and the remaining $110 is now, due to inflation in the Carter years, worth less than $80. So putting aside your money COST you as opposed to spending it when you got it.

This is A Bad Thing.

[Guest]

It is still true that the government always ends up with less revenue when it raises taxes. Always has always will.

This being true why do Liberals always want to raise taxes?

Could it be that Liberals want to penalize Businesses and successful individuals for some reason.

Could it be that Liberals really don't believe that it is the businesses and the successful people who create jobs.

[Guest]

Donna2: If you hadn't quoted those numbers from the IRS about who's paying how much of the tax burden, I would have. It's the one place where I was thankful to Rush Limbaugh as he kept a link to those numbers - right to the IRS website - on his web site.

This is something that people don't seem to realize. ANY time ANY tax cut is proposed, it's going to 'go to the rich' because they are THE ONLY PEOPLE PAYING TAXES. It's hard to give a tax cut to someone not paying taxes.

As far as the capital gains tax rate goes, do people not remember the reason WHY it was cut? The reason was that we needed to encourage investment and savings. Saving a dollar and having it's earning taxed 50% cents was pathetic. Imagine putting $100 aside. A few years later, you have $120. First you'd have to pay $10 taxes on the $20, and the remaining $110 is now, due to inflation in the Carter years, worth less than $80. So putting aside your money COST you as opposed to spending it when you got it.

This is A Bad Thing.

With THAT we can agree Djplong. I seem to remember when there was some kind of "luxury tax" and people stopped buying "yachts."
It put many people out of work.

[Guest]

Locally (meaning here in New England), it killed boatbuilders in Maine and Connecticut.

[Guest]

"The poor complain about the money they can't get, and the rich complain about the money they can't keep"

The fact of the matter is that the so-called "rich" are will probably stay rich through good times and bad. If the government creates an environment that is hostile to business, they will not invest.

Being envious of people who have money is just foolishness.
Ambitious people who have the means to get richer, are the ones that create good jobs.

Anyways, that is my thought for the day. Must go and rest now.

[Guest]

With THAT we can agree Djplong. I seem to remember when there was some kind of "luxury tax" and people stopped buying "yachts."
It put many people out of work.

You just decribed "fiscal conservatism101"

[Guest]

The top 1% earned 19 % of total income but paid 37% of total federal taxes.

The top 5% of total income in USA paid 57% of the federal taxes.


The bottom 50% of wage earners in USA paid 3% of the federal taxes.


So, tell me who is getting the shaft?

You might want to check your sources.....


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik24-2010feb24,0,5865964.column

These guys made $108 million dollars between 2004 - 2009 and paid $0 dollars in taxes.

[Guest]

You might want to check your sources.....


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik24-2010feb24,0,5865964.column

These guys made $108 million dollars between 2004 - 2009 and paid $0 dollars in taxes.


I knew somebody might post this story. As a sports fan, I heard a lot on this the last few days, and I would be glad, if time permitted to find stories of folks ripping off the system and everytime we hear it we get upset and rightfully so.

HOWEVER.....

In taking your advice to find sources...

"The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.

Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.

The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/index.htm

"Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$410,096
40.42

Top 5%
$160,041
60.63

Top 10%
$113,018
71.22

Top 25%
$66,532
86.59

Top 50%
$32,879
97.11

Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income

Source: Internal Revenue Service"http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The 2007 numbers show that the top 1 percent’s income and tax shares reached all-time highs for the third year in a row. That is likely to reverse direction when data from recessionary 2008 is published a year from now.

For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates. (Note that in the case of capital gains and dividends, in most cases the income has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here.)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html


There are more sources, and lest you want to say how the Bush tax cuts or any tax cuts "favor" those who make more money....DUH.....of course it does when you cut taxes across the board. They are still paying the same percentage of what is paid.

Then you add the following...

"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

[Guest]

You might want to check your sources.....


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik24-2010feb24,0,5865964.column

These guys made $108 million dollars between 2004 - 2009 and paid $0 dollars in taxes.

There is nothing wrong with my sources. There are tax cheats on both sides of the aisles. Obama has surrounded himself with tax cheats. Rich families like the Kennedy's hide their money, too.

[Guest]

There is nothing wrong with my sources. There are tax cheats on both sides of the aisles. Obama has surrounded himself with tax cheats. Rich families like the Kennedy's hide their money, too.

I would ask what tax cheats but you are mostly likely referring to some appointees who didn't pay some taxes owed but then did. But obviously you didn't read the link....I never said they were cheats and the link clearly indicates all of this was legal.

And this would be the second time you used the Kennedy example....sounds like a fixation to me.

[Guest]

I knew somebody might post this story. As a sports fan, I heard a lot on this the last few days, and I would be glad, if time permitted to find stories of folks ripping off the system and every time we hear it we get upset and rightfully so.

HOWEVER.....

In taking your advice to find sources...

"The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.

Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.

The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/index.htm

"Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$410,096
40.42

Top 5%
$160,041
60.63

Top 10%
$113,018
71.22

Top 25%
$66,532
86.59

Top 50%
$32,879
97.11

Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income

Source: Internal Revenue Service"http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—are significantly higher than they were in 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The 2007 numbers show that the top 1 percent’s income and tax shares reached all-time highs for the third year in a row. That is likely to reverse direction when data from recessionary 2008 is published a year from now.

For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes. The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates. (Note that in the case of capital gains and dividends, in most cases the income has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here.)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html


There are more sources, and lest you want to say how the Bush tax cuts or any tax cuts "favor" those who make more money....DUH.....of course it does when you cut taxes across the board. They are still paying the same percentage of what is paid.

Then you add the following...

"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

Something my father told me very early in life is still true. He said in order to pay taxes you have to make money.... So I am ok that I pay more taxes than my sisters because I make 3 times the amount of money they make that is just rational. They got the stimulus check I did not...no big deal.

Some posts quote tax rates but that is just the tip of the iceburg...to rip off a phrase "Its the deductions stupid". (No personal reference intended"

[Guest]

Something my father told me very early in life is still true. He said in order to pay taxes you have to make money.... So I am ok that I pay more taxes than my sisters because I make 3 times the amount of money they make that is just rational. They got the stimulus check I did not...no big deal.

Some posts quote tax rates but that is just the tip of the iceburg...to rip off a phrase "Its the deductions stupid". (No personal reference intended"

Another reason there is no jobs is because Obama said that he would increase taxes for people making over $250,000. Nothing like a little encouragement for people to strive to better themselves, huh?
There is an expression that has been making the rounds for a couple of years and it is called "Going Gault". That means business people and professionals like doctors and lawyers, have decided to stop making money once they reach the $250,000 plateau. They are cutting back and spending more time on personal pursuits like hobbys and family relations. Their incentives are on hold until the business climate changes. When the president of the United States sets a tone to penalize the people who make this country work, we are all in trouble.

[Guest]

cologal: The Kennedys are just a prime example of political hypocrisy - that's why people mention them.

The most egregious offense was when matriarch Rose Kennedy died. She'd spent her last couple of years in Massachusetts yet, upon her death, the family claimed FLORIDA residence to avoid paying MA estate taxes.

Evidently Ted Kennedy did the same thing, selling the compound in Hyannisport for $1.00 (estimated value between $5M and $8M depending on who you listen to) so that he qualified for Florida residency. I believe Florida tightened their laws since the Rose Kennedy 'stunt', hence the reason Ted might have had to sell.

[Guest]

The rich do not in any sense of the word make this country work.They do everything in their power to make sure they hold onto as much of their wealth and power as possible.Thats what they are supposed to do. Tax laws,investment laws,estate taxes all fovor the rich and punish the middle class. The rich by spreading the false notion that they are the jobs creators and by using their money to influence politicians have somehow talked some of you into feeling sorry for them. Well they don't feel sorry for you.
Djplong unwittingly made this arguement for me. The Kennedy reference is not important. What is important is the rich finding another loophole so they do not pay taxes.
Tax tables can be quoted until we are dead. Here is the only stat that matters......1984 the wealthy paid 50% tax rate and were doing quite well. 2010 the wealthy paid 16.6%tax rate and are laughing all the way to the bank with the money. I'm sorry not the bank ,no tax loopholes there.

[Guest]

The rich do not in any sense of the word make this country work.They do everything in their power to make sure they hold onto as much of their wealth and power as possible.Thats what they are supposed to do. Tax laws,investment laws,estate taxes all fovor the rich and punish the middle class. The rich by spreading the false notion that they are the jobs creators and by using their money to influence politicians have somehow talked some of you into feeling sorry for them. Well they don't feel sorry for you.
Djplong unwittingly made this arguement for me. The Kennedy reference is not important. What is important is the rich finding another loophole so they do not pay taxes.
Tax tables can be quoted until we are dead. Here is the only stat that matters......1984 the wealthy paid 50% tax rate and were doing quite well. 2010 the wealthy paid 16.6%tax rate and are laughing all the way to the bank with the money. I'm sorry not the bank ,no tax loopholes there.

WAYNE.....with all due respect, you just say stuff !! You quote things totallly out of context.

You make very little sense !

[Guest]

WAYNE.....with all due respect, you just say stuff !! You quote things totallly out of context.

You make very little sense !

:agree: Apparently he did not read the real figures.

[Guest]

As a retired teacher I am very familar with the leftest rant. Wayne, the next time you go to a concert or other public event, in your home town, look at the program. The sponsors are corporations and wealthy individuals. I got so tired of listening to the teachers, in the teacher's lounge, moaning and groaning about how teacher were so mistreated and so under paid.

[Guest]

Another reason there is no jobs is because Obama said that he would increase taxes for people making over $250,000. Nothing like a little encouragement for people to strive to better themselves, huh?
There is an expression that has been making the rounds for a couple of years and it is called "Going Gault". That means business people and professionals like doctors and lawyers, have decided to stop making money once they reach the $250,000 plateau. They are cutting back and spending more time on personal pursuits like hobbys and family relations. Their incentives are on hold until the business climate changes. When the president of the United States sets a tone to penalize the people who make this country work, we are all in trouble.

Let me understand here.... No tax increases have occurred but just because Obama said he would increase taxes on people over $250,000 that is why this is a job less recovery? So what caused all the job losses in the last year of the Bush presidency?

I believe that the middle class is the engine of the economy...these are the people who have cut back and in many cases are down. Doctors and lawyers are still ok....

All we have to look at is the Wall Street bonuses which quote "Had to be paid due to contractual agreements" while the Union contract were thrown out to "save" the auto industry. Double standard....

[Guest]

As a retired teacher I am very familar with the leftest rant. Wayne, the next time you go to a concert or other public event, in your home town, look at the program. The sponsors are corporations and wealthy individuals. I got so tired of listening to the teachers, in the teacher's lounge, moaning and groaning about how teacher were so mistreated and so under paid.

Leftest....LOL another one going back to the 50's.

[Guest]

cologal: The Kennedys are just a prime example of political hypocrisy - that's why people mention them.

The most egregious offense was when matriarch Rose Kennedy died. She'd spent her last couple of years in Massachusetts yet, upon her death, the family claimed FLORIDA residence to avoid paying MA estate taxes.

Evidently Ted Kennedy did the same thing, selling the compound in Hyannisport for $1.00 (estimated value between $5M and $8M depending on who you listen to) so that he qualified for Florida residency. I believe Florida tightened their laws since the Rose Kennedy 'stunt', hence the reason Ted might have had to sell.

Just why is it ok to respond that the Kennedy's did it to? That is the stock standard answer for both sides....Obama bashing is ok because Bush was bashed. Democrats using the filibuster brought out howls of "Up or Down vote" now a single senator held up all the outstanding nominations for a earmark. The Republicans used reconciliation what 21 times but it is wrong to use it for the Healthcare Bill? Is this kind of partisanship what the founding fathers envisioned? Does anyone win? Nope we all lose.

[Guest]

Just why is it ok to respond that the Kennedy's did it to? That is the stock standard answer for both sides....Obama bashing is ok because Bush was bashed. Democrats using the filibuster brought out howls of "Up or Down vote" now a single senator held up all the outstanding nominations for a earmark. The Republicans used reconciliation what 21 times but it is wrong to use it for the Healthcare Bill? Is this kind of partisanship what the founding fathers envisioned? Does anyone win? Nope we all lose.

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a socialist in the white house either.

[Guest]

I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a socialist in the white house either.

He is NOT a socialist.....he is a US citizen. Deal with it.

[Guest]

He is NOT a socialist.....he is a US citizen. Deal with it.

That doesn't make any sense. One has nothing to do with the other. Even if he is a citizen, he can still be a Socialist.

[Guest]

Cologal: You asked why people always mention the Kennedys, I was responding to that. I thought that providing an example of Kennedy tax hypocrisy would demonstrate the point. In other words, it's ok for Ted Kennedy to hike your taxes, but he does his damndest to avoid them (including selling the estate for $1 in 2008!).

When he is one of 'the liberal leaders', he should be held up to a standard that doesn't fail the "do as I say, not as I do" test.

It's the same thing that brings down other politicians, evangelists - anyone who preaches what other people should do.

[Guest]

the ethics committee and our dear old liar/cheater Rangel. Let's see if the Dems demand the same for him that they raised cane about with Tom Delay....

anybody wanna take bets?

btk

[Guest]

Cologal: You asked why people always mention the Kennedys, I was responding to that. I thought that providing an example of Kennedy tax hypocrisy would demonstrate the point. In other words, it's ok for Ted Kennedy to hike your taxes, but he does his damndest to avoid them (including selling the estate for $1 in 2008!).

When he is one of 'the liberal leaders', he should be held up to a standard that doesn't fail the "do as I say, not as I do" test.

It's the same thing that brings down other politicians, evangelists - anyone who preaches what other people should do.

No actually I didn't ask why people always mention the Kennedys. In another string I called Sen. McCarthy a mean drunk and the retort was Ted Kennedy was a drunk. I posted a link about the owners of the LA Dodgers legally paying absolutely zero taxes although they took in millions. The retort, from the same person was, there are tax cheats on both sides the Kennedy's do it. So I said this person seemed to be fixated on the Kennedy's.

My point in this thread is more tax options are available to the rich than to the middle class...I would be in favor of a flat tax for both people and business. Quite often business comes in gets tax breaks from local and state government based on promises but somehow things just don't work out. I have sure seen it in Colorado Springs a city completely under conservative control, the TABOR law and so totally out of money.

[Guest]

the ethics committee and our dear old liar/cheater Rangel. Let's see if the Dems demand the same for him that they raised cane about with Tom Delay....

anybody wanna take bets?

btk

What do you want to bet? A beer at the square? I'm in.

[Guest]

That doesn't make any sense. One has nothing to do with the other. Even if he is a citizen, he can still be a Socialist.

Just you saying, or maybe it was Glen Beck, he is a socialist or racist or not a American citizen doesn't make it so. This is a free country and you can be a member of the Socialist party...nothing wrong with that. My nephew is fighting in Afghanistan right now right in the middle of that battle we have all been hearing about. Many brave men and women have died just so we can have free speech and be members of the socialist party.

If you abhor all things socialist have you turned in your Social Security and Medicare cards yet? I know you have to be against all those socialist entitlement programs.

[Guest]

Just you saying, or maybe it was Glen Beck, he is a socialist or racist or not a American citizen doesn't make it so. This is a free country and you can be a member of the Socialist party...nothing wrong with that. My nephew is fighting in Afghanistan right now right in the middle of that battle we have all been hearing about. Many brave men and women have died just so we can have free speech and be members of the socialist party.

If you abhor all things socialist have you turned in your Social Security and Medicare cards yet? I know you have to be against all those socialist entitlement programs.

First you say B. Hussien Obama is not a socialist, then you say it doesn't matter. These socialist entitlement programs are bankrupting the USA and now he he trying to get yet another one. (health care)
He has tripled out national debt in one year. This man is dangerous and a threat to our future.

[Guest]

the ethics committee and our dear old liar/cheater Rangel. Let's see if the Dems demand the same for him that they raised cane about with Tom Delay....

anybody wanna take bets?

btk

Yes after Pelosi and the Dems wanted Delaney out of there I do wonder how they will react. Rangel chairing the Ethics committee. Is this a joke ot what?:highfive::highfive:

[Guest]

Cologal, I can't answer for Donna2, but I will answer for me. No I will not turn in my social security or medicare cards. I wasn't given a choice. I was forced to particiapate. I would much rather have been able to invest MY money as I saw fit. When Bush tried to allow young people to put part of their money aside, as they wanted to, he was demonized.

[Guest]

Cologal, I can't answer for Donna2, but I will answer for me. No I will not turn in my social security or medicare cards. I wasn't given a choice. I was forced to particiapate. I would much rather have been able to invest MY money as I saw fit. When Bush tried to allow young people to put part of their money aside, as they wanted to, he was demonized.

Sally Jo, your answer is exactly my answer. And now they want to add another boondoggle entitlement to further our descent into a Banana Republic.

[Guest]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3090&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cbpp%2FfYJq+%28Center+on+Budg et+and+Policy+Priorities%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

[Guest]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3090&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cbpp%2FfYJq+%28Center+on+Budg et+and+Policy+Priorities%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo


Please explain what point you are making, in relation to how many folks DO NOT PAY AT ALL and include your opinion of the percentage of the TOTAL tax revenues paid by income !

Thank you

[Guest]

The name of the thread is Where Did the Wealth Go? I am just trying to show that the wealth some of us middle class people had went to the wealthy,where else would it go?

[Guest]

The name of the thread is Where Did the Wealth Go? I am just trying to show that the wealth some of us middle class people had went to the wealthy,where else would it go?

Well, keep track of your taxes as we roll out Govt insurance, cap and trade etc.....cause somebody has to pay for it !!! And if you believe your are exempt because you make less than 250,000 you are not paying very close attention to what is actually happening and more attention to the words.

And will check backlater on that CT retirement fund !

[Guest]

I do not want to pay more taxes,no one does,maybe we could just level the field a little more.
Sorry to not respond to CT.teachers. The post you sent me is for the Ct. state employers Retirement system a system teachers are not part of. I don't know when teachers decided to not join and have their own retirement system but they did.(First sentence under Tier 1) our system is entirely independant of that retirement system.
I do understand that pensions are having a bad effect on state govt's but they also spend money like drunken sailors. I do know that our state employees have either given back or delayed some of their benefits and the state is asking for more. To blame all the problems on state pensions no matter who they are for and how they are funded is just much too simplistic. Again I can only speak for CT. but the size of state gov't and all the bureaucracy that goes with it is a major factor in CT's debt. Layer upon layer of supervisors,spokesmen and nobody really knows what they do or where the money goes.Example Just last month it came to light that the drinking water bill for state legislators was $300,000.Poland Springs laughed all the way to the bank. I don't know where you are from but I'll put up our state buildings against any others. We are the Taj Mahal of state buildings.
This will be my last post for awhile and I know you and I have differences and I don't agree with some of your views but I did enjoy the sparring.

[Guest]

The name of the thread is Where Did the Wealth Go? I am just trying to show that the wealth some of us middle class people had went to the wealthy,where else would it go?

Our economy is NOT a zero sum gain as many liberals like to believe. What one side gains the other loses is simply not the truth.

[Guest]

I do not want to pay more taxes,no one does,maybe we could just level the field a little more.


You better hope they don't level the playing field. The top earners pay most of the taxes. If they level the field, you will have to pay more then half your income to taxes.
I just had my taxes done yesterday. Years ago I would be unhappy today. We celebrated last night when we got back from the taxman. Half the people in the USA are on a free ride. Now they want "free" health care?

[Guest]

First you say B. Hussien Obama is not a socialist, then you say it doesn't matter. These socialist entitlement programs are bankrupting the USA and now he he trying to get yet another one. (health care)
He has tripled out national debt in one year. This man is dangerous and a threat to our future.

He is not a Socialist and this is a free country which means that any one is free to be a socialist if they choose to be.

Where was the Tea Party when Bush was running up the debt? I didn't see anyone screaming about the out of control spending then....where was the outrage?

[Guest]

Cologal, I can't answer for Donna2, but I will answer for me. No I will not turn in my social security or medicare cards. I wasn't given a choice. I was forced to particiapate. I would much rather have been able to invest MY money as I saw fit. When Bush tried to allow young people to put part of their money aside, as they wanted to, he was demonized.

So totally bogus....the companies are taking away standard pensions and forcing us into 401K's. Wall Street takes the money and invests it, I would use that term loosely these days, pays themselves big bonuses and when the whole thing blows up then they demand a taxpayer bailout. And you want Social Security to be subject to that?

The intent of Social Security privatization was for the Wall Street fat cats to make even more money. Count me out I sold all of my stocks and my families stocks....

[Guest]

He is not a Socialist and this is a free country which means that any one is free to be a socialist if they choose to be.

Where was the Tea Party when Bush was running up the debt? I didn't see anyone screaming about the out of control spending then....where was the outrage?

So you agree that you and your bunch elected a socialist?

[Guest]

Obama wants and has said "I want to level the playing field".
He also said we need "to share the wealth".

When you take from the doers and give it to the non-doers in time you will have mostly non-doers. When you have all takers and not enough givers you have chaos. You have California And Greece and now Europe is well on its way to chaos.

Call it Socialism or "leveling the field" or anthing you want it is still chaos.
Confiscation of wealth will destroy any society.

Liberals have difficulty understanding this concept. I feel sorry for them.
If we do not stop them they will all be sorry along with us.

let's stop them this November. We need change for the good in November.

[Guest]

That's the fundamental flaw in liberal thinking.

For one to gain, another has to loose. Therefore they believe the government's job is to make things fair by taking from one and giving to another.