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
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.
47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes and get a free ride. Its not fair
but it sure wins elections!
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...
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.
@MountanmanI 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.
There is tremendous disincentive in America to achieve success and such an
incentive not to.
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:IndianaAll 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?
re:MountanmanSource? 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
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.
Alt134Retelling the same lie over and over will never make it true.
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.