Liberals and Romney's taxes

[Mr. Sandman]

Found this laying round my hard drive...


The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)


This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%



*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.



The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.



As far as Romney sheltering any income, that is his right. He didn't lie about it. You can do it too, and you WOULD do it if you earned that kind of money. For example, the US government has triple tax free bonds you can buy, you can even by them in a fund so even regular people can play the game.


The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. Frankly I think Romney is far more fiscally responsible that obama, but don't expect free hand outs and checks just sent to people to stimulate the economy. Who in turn run to Walmart and buy something made in china. What an idiot he was with that program.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. .

Very true, and somethiing that in a fair world, would result in Obama getting clobbered in November. No one has ever spent that kind of dough with nothing to show for it. And he's probably going to get re-elected. I don't get it. He spent a ton of money, has very little to show for it, and he's a lying, vindictive, race-baiting jerk on top of all that.

Matt Damon recently said he was disappointed in Obama's performance. Every other president lets that go. Not Obama. Obama had to say somethiing like "hey Matt, I saw your new movie, and I was disappointed in your performance too". That's presidential?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.


.

Tax increases for the rich to pay down our debt is bunk.

It's estimated the increased taxes would bring in $80-$90 Billion, chump change when it comes to a $16 Trilion debt.
If it were put to the debt, like they claim it would , how would that create jobs and improve the economy?
Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy, creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

Cutting all Govt programs by 10% ,prolly all waste anyway, is the way to go.
I can hear it now, "we can't cut entitlement programs, what will people do?"
Tighten their belt just like families do when less money is coming in.
We are broke. Libs have great intentions but lead with their emotions instead of their heads.
Again, we are broke. Our Gross national product is 1 Trillion less than our debt.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

That's certainly the conventional wisdom isn't it?

If it were true you'd think we'd see it more consistently. In the real world though there are a lot more factors that influence the economic cycles than just capital.

Wealth continues to concentrate and companies are sitting on trillions in cash. Put simply, if access to wealth was sure to drive revenue you'd think the economy should be cranking right now.

-spence

[justplugit]

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

There's a good argument for some restraint, I'll give you that.

But lowering taxes isn't going to fix the economy. The wealthy have plenty of money and they're not investing in job growth...because crushing household debt is still leaving consumers without any power to purchase.

Romney's solution for this appears to be to make the problem worse. Give the wealthy more money and raise taxes on everyone else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html

Seems sort of backwards doesn't it?

I'd wager that the effective tax rate will have little to do with the economic recovery which will follow it's own cycle.

-spence

[justplugit]

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence