Comments about ‘Jay Evensen: Some tax facts for Independence Day’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, July 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Jay, Jay here you go again. The top one percent pay nearly 40% of the taxes because they control 43% of the wealth. The bottom 50% may only pay 3 to 4 percent of the taxes because the bottom 80% only control 7% of the wealth. Try as you may..once again to cast the poor rich guy as a victim it's just not true.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Sorry Jay, I'm having trouble shedding tears over the plight of the miserable rich. They have benefited far beyond others from the great American system. I'm quite comfortable myself, and I do not feel victimized. On the contrary, I do not begrudge one penny I pay in taxes to build up this great nation and extend a helping hand to those who are struggling.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes and get a free ride. Its not fair but it sure wins elections!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

The poor overburdened rich. Just look at how much suffering they've endured recently. Look at how much more wealth they have now than 20 years ago. Look at how how CEO salaries have skyrocketed in the last 20 years.

They sure do have it tough! The economy would just surge if the poors paid more in taxes and the rich paid less...

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Mr. Evensen
"In 1980, the top 1 percent paid 19.05 percent of all federal income taxes collected. In 2010 they paid 37.38 percent."

So then, we should return to the 1980's of wealth distribution and tax rates.

Even if today's tax code was patterned after tithing--a flat 10%--the wealthy would be paying a greater percentage of tithing collected, because they have A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE WEALTH. Would you then argue tithing puts a heavier burden on the wealthy.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
I have no idea how many times I have to repeat that Mississippi is the state with the highest percentage of 47%ers and that Romney won 8 out of 10 states (New Mexico and Florida were the two Obama won and the latter just barely) with the highest percentage of 47%ers.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

There is tremendous disincentive in America to achieve success and such an incentive not to.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

atl134. The top 10 states for percent of population who are welfare recipients and therefore non-federal income tax payers are:
#1: California
#2: Maine
#3: Massachusetts
#4: Vermont
#5: Washington DC
#6: New York
#7: Minnesota
#8: Washington
#9: New Mexico
#10:Indiana

All blue states and Mississippi was not even in the top 20! In fact California spends more on welfare and has more non-federal income tax payers than the next 5 combined. Its no coincidence that those states who have the highest welfare recipients also have the highest deficits. How can you argue with facts?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:Mountanman
Source? What constitutes "welfare receipients"? Are we talking percent per capita receiving food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare? What?

The states with the highest percentage of people below poverty level according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2008) are:

Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, So.Carolina, and Alabama

Census Bureau, 2007 (latest data) State Rankings, "Federal Aid to State and Local Govts. Per Capita:"

Wyoming, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Vermont, New York, New Mexico, N. Dakota, Rhode Island, West Virginia

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

Well done, Jay. I think you have given a good summary of the income tax in our history free of any partisan conclusions; though some have assumed a Republican stance none was unequivocally expressed.

You also pointed out the important fact that the poor are disproportionately affected by property and sales taxes, a fact that many fail to address. Many congressmen have talked as though the income tax was the only tax levied upon the populace.

One question about the Boston Tea Party. Wasn't their concern that anything at all was being taxed when there was still no American representation in the national bodies that governed them. You know the "no taxation without representation" thing. The British had reduced taxes by this time to one single tax, that on tea, and that was still unacceptable to a people unrepresented in their ruling bodies.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Alt134

Retelling the same lie over and over will never make it true.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

If we are to have an income tax in this country, everyone should have to pay something, even if it is just 1%, not negative 5% as in the case of the earned income tax credit. Why? Because we should see this tax for what it is, a tax. When people are the recipient of the taxes, they have no comprehension or compassion for those who pay the taxes.

Voting for someone else to have to give you money is just plain sick and wrong, but with the current system, we place people in a position to do just that.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments