Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Tax Day: You Pay Your Taxes -- Why Don't the Rich Pay Their Share?

By Chuck Collins and Sam Pizzigati, AlterNet. Posted April 15, 2009.


Few Americans realize just how incredibly little our nation's wealthy now pay in taxes. Our grandparents seriously taxed the rich. Why can't we?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Our nation needs a plan to pay for long-overdue investments in education, health and retrofitting our energy infrastructure. Nothing could be more obvious. But, just as obviously, we need a plan to pay for those investments.

Short-term borrowing, during an economic downturn, certainly makes sense. Long term, we need to do much more than borrow. We need to totally reverse 30 years worth of federal tax and budget policy.

George W. Bush, over his eight years, took tax and budget policy to the crony-capitalist limit. His White House racked up $5 trillion in national debt by waging reckless wars, shoveling lush contracts and bailouts to corporate and Wall Street insiders, and, perhaps most arrogantly of all, slashing already-low tax rates on the incomes of the super rich.

Few Americans realize just how incredibly little, historically speaking, our nation's wealthy now pay in taxes.

In 1955, the year April 15 became the IRS tax-filing deadline, America's top 400 taxpayers paid three times more of their income in taxes than the top 400 of 2006, the most recent year with IRS data available.

According to a new Tax Day report that we co-authored, if the top 400 of 2006 had paid taxes at 1955 rates, the federal treasury would have collected -- from these 400 taxpayers alone -- an additional $35.9 billion more in revenue in 2006.

The 139,000 U.S. taxpayers who made over $2 million in 2006, our report also notes, averaged $5.9 million in income. They paid 23.2 percent of their total incomes in federal income tax. The comparable rate for equivalent high-income Americans in 1955: 49 percent.

If the over-$2 million set in 2006 had paid taxes at the same rate as their 1955 counterparts, the federal treasury would have collected $202 billion.

We've now lived through 30 years of "shrink, shift and shaft" federal budget and tax policies. Right-wing pols, aided by Democrats who should have known better, have shrunk government and the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 percent. The tax burden, consequently, has shifted off wealth and onto wages, off the federal tax system and onto the regressive tax systems of states and localities.

The direct result: States and localities have gotten the budget shaft -- and that has forced years of chronic underfunding for mass transit, education and myriad public services.

So what can we do, as a nation, to start turning this situation around? Our Institute for Policy Studies report -- "Reversing the Great Tax Shift" advances a set of specific steps that would generate over $450 billion in annual revenue, dollars that would help finance our recovery fairly.

We recommend that lawmakers:

Tax income from capital gains and dividends at the same rates as wage income. Under current law, income from investments gets taxed at 15 percent. Income from work gets taxed at up to 35 percent. No coherent moral justification exists for such an enormous tax preference for income from wealth. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, taxing all forms of income the same would generate $80 billion a year.

Create a new top tax rate for incomes over $2 million. Presently, a person with an income of $300,000 faces the same tax rates as a person with an income of $3 million. Instituting a top tax rate of 50 percent on incomes over $2 million would generate more than $60 billion a year.

Levy a progressive estate tax on large fortunes. The federal estate tax, our nation's only levy on grand accumulations of private wealth, will expire in 2010 and revert to the 2000 status quo. Lawmakers aren't going to let that happen -- if, for no other reason, to take inflation into account -- and that reality creates an opportunity to make the estate tax more progressive.

One reform would be to institute graduated tax rates on large estates, while exempting estates worth less than $2 million, $4 million for a couple. Such an approach would generate over $100 billion a year a decade from now -- while taxing no more than 1 of every 200 estates.

All these steps, we believe, would enjoy widespread public support.

Our grandparents seriously taxed the rich. Why can't we?

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: taxes, estate tax, rich, progressive tax, capital gains, dividends

Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and chairman of the Working Group on Extreme Inequality, an emerging coalition of religious, business, labor and civic groups concerned about the wealth gap. He is co-author, with Bill Gates Sr., of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes.

Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yes, Yes, and .... Yes ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Apr 15, 2009 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article ...

We should ask for 70% for over a million then we would get something like 50%.

And there should be another bracket, 80% for those that make more than $10 million.

Then there are all the loopholes, overseas accounts and foundation donations.

For a real eye opener read:

Perfectly Legal:
The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else ...


by

David Cay Johnston

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How about we ditch the income tax all together? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Instead of thinking about taking more from the rich...
Posted by: tjg1984 on Apr 15, 2009 12:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't you work on reducing the taxes on people who aren't?

"Our grandparents seriously taxed the rich; why can't we?"

Our grandparents did a lot of things, many of which we don't want to do. And a generation or two before them, the rich hardly got taxed at all. Try using some real evidence instead of arguing from the principle that the America of the 1950s was heaven on earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The "rich" have never paid more taxes than now..... Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: The "rich" have never paid more taxes than now..... Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
» RE: The "rich" have never paid more money Posted by: Illuminatus- Enlightend Classic Liberal
Why not check out a real tax bill HR-25
Posted by: grosspointblank1986 on Apr 15, 2009 2:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This bill would not only level the playing field with a 22% inclusive sales tax.

It would help the low income folks with a monthly prepaid rebate of all taxes up to the poverty level as determined by health & human services.

It would increase wage earners paychecks by eliminating federal taxes, social security & medicare charges from working class Americian's paychecks.

The biggest benefit would be the elimination of the 1040 form all together. No more worrying did I have enough taxes withheld?
No more having to violate your 5th amendment rights by having to admit everything on a 1040 form.

Also those that don't file or pay federal income taxes would be liable for them because they have to purchase retail goods & services just like you.

Please check out the Fairtax.org website & learn about this program.

Let's put the IRS out of business!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At this rate of bailing out Wall $treet and increasing war spending to name a few,
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Apr 15, 2009 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the best thing to do is withhold your tax payments until gubbmint actually reduces wasteful war spending by 90%, stops bailing out Wall $treet, closes those excess tax reductions and loopholes for the wealthy/corporate elite, stops oversubsidizing Big Oil/Agri/Media/etc..., useless pork barrel spending, etc ... Besides, the current misrepresentation we the people are stuck with in Washington are telling us to "make them do it". Why should we the people pay our pols to do their work for them? Sadly, half of Main Street is hell bent on playing kissyface with Wall $treet, that is the "Joe the Plumber" division.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Um, it takes unity, not division. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
reducing income inequality (taxes are a way to do that) benefits at least 90% of the population
Posted by: Suzon on Apr 15, 2009 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is commonly believed that greater equality (respecting everyone's right to be treated fairly and without prejudice) would help ethnic minorities and the poorest, but statistical and forensic evidence compiled by epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett shows that greater equality benefits at least 90% of the population. (Wilkinson says that there simply isn't enough information to claim that the very richest would also benefit. But of course it's not ruled out either.) In The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Wilkinson and Pickett say:

The relationships between inequality and the prevalence of health and social problems...suggest that if the United States was to reduce its income equality to something like the average of the four most equal of the rich countries (Japan, Norway, Sweden and Finland), the proportion of the population feeling that they could trust others might rise by 75 per cent--presumably with matching improvements in the quality of community life; rates of mental illness and obesity might similarly each be cut by almost two-thirds, teenage birth rates could be more than halved, prison populations might be reduced by 75 per cent, and people could live longer while working the equivalent of two months less per year.

Epidemiologists primarily use statistical but also other evidence such as those provided by brain scans to show correlations. In this instance between what a society is like in terms of income distribution and factors such as violent crime, mental illness, drug addiction, etc. Wilkinson and Pickett provide compelling evidence that it is status within a society which determines life span, health and general well-being and that almost everyone stands to gain from greater equality.

www.equalitytrust.org.uk

I'd rather live in a society characterized by trust and cooperation than one based on fear and hatred. The provision of free universal health care would be a great way to send the message that everyone is valued.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

capital gains tax should be lower
Posted by: Capitalist Pig on Apr 15, 2009 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moral justifications for taxing capital income are irrelevant. On the other hand, there are a number of economic justifications for lower capital taxes:

- Incentive to save instead of consume
- Capital gains from real estate are primarily from inflation
- High capital taxes distort economy (by causing tax avoidance behavior) and make it less efficient

Martin Feldstein article

Lower capital taxes are not inconsistent with a progressive society. Canada has lower capital taxes because they consult economists when determining their economic policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Canada Posted by: chaoslegs
» Say, JSquercia Posted by: photon's feather
Not Historically Only
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Apr 15, 2009 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Few Americans realize just how incredibly little, historically speaking, our nation's wealthy now pay in taxes.

Marginal tax rates have certainly fallen for the wealthy, but if you look in Who Pays Taxes (Figure 5) you will see that there has been a truly impressive decline in income taxes paid by corporations.

Even in actual dollars though, the very rich get away with paying proportionally less in taxes than the merely rich. In Figure 7, you will see that the percent of income one pays in income taxes reaches a peak at an income of about $600,000 and it steadily declines as incomes grow above that level.

This may be falling into propaganda trap of thinking that only income taxes matter, however. Clearly the very rich only pay a negligible portion of their income in payroll taxes, while this is the major tax on the many making less than $100,000 (according to Figure 6a, that is more than 80% of us).

If you look in Who Pays Taxes II, you will see that in 2006, 10% of the income in the U.S. went to the tiny 0.025% of the population making $5 million or more, but this tiny minority paid only 8.9% of the combined income and payroll taxes, not even the 10% that is the very least that fairness would dictate they pay.

It is worth note that while those with incomes in the $42,000 to $62,000 range paid a greater tax rate than those making over $5 million, they still paid only roughly the same rate as the entire population of the U.S.

If some groups pay less than average, other groups have to pay more than average taxes, and the charts in the second article make it clear that it is the people with incomes in the range from $2 million to $5 million who are making up for those who pay less.

People making over $2 million a year are quite able to pay a bit more in taxes and I do not see them as in need of tax relief. However it is hard to see why those making over $5 million should pay so much less, unless it is these people who have the best political connections and propagandists. In fact, many of them probably are politicians and propagandists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Historically Only Posted by: LameRandomName
35%
Posted by: sureshot45 on Apr 15, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is what the income tax is in the highest bracket, at least last time i checked. those paying less are pouring thousands (if not millions) into non profit organizations and foundations that benefit our communities. whether they do it out of the kindness of their heart or not is irrelevant. those donations pay for much needed services where our government falls short.

the new cap that obama proposed would cost the non profit community billions. that means less domestic violence shelters, reading programs, prison reform, etc.


while i am a liberal, and im pretty tired of reading about taxes and tax law in general. and i can see the point of some conservatives. 'i work hard my whole life to pay more and more and more to support who? welfare recipients? ex cons? government programs that i dont agree with?' 35% is a huge amount of money. imagine you saying bye bye to that much of your salary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 35% Posted by: dragonlady620
» RE: 35% Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: 35% Posted by: Tweck9
» RE: 35% Posted by: rvt
» RE: 35% Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: 35% Posted by: jimbee
» RE: 35% Posted by: jewels
Author finally, partly, gets it.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Apr 15, 2009 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. Bush, over his eight years, took tax and budget policy to the crony-capitalist limit.

But you expect the new administration--which has embraced this model--to do anything but double down on that practice? And you're surprised when--in reality--they decided it would be a swell idea to make the U.S. more of a debtor nation?

At least the author gets--even if only selectively--how foolishly our government can spend the fruits of our labor when we place it in trust.

Champions and cheerleaders of the status quo beware: when self-styled progressives finally get p*ssed off about wasteful, abusive uses of public dollars, the winds might be changing. Or they may have accidentally farted a bit of wisdom. Check with heckuvajob Timmy Geithner in a few years for details to see how much further we let Obama's economic FEMA team continue the long flush initiated by his predecessor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Author finally, partly, gets it. Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
we asked this question of ...
Posted by: nutsack on Apr 15, 2009 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geithner, Daschle, Rangle et al ...

They just forgot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Apr 15, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, government spending should be reduced on military and other wasteful projects of which there are many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dick Posted by: Aquinas
» Amen to that Aquinas! Posted by: bbq
Taxing capital gains...
Posted by: mjabele on Apr 15, 2009 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the main reason why the hyper-rich pay so much less in taxes than we "ordinary" folks do seems to be because the tax rate on long-term capital gains (i.e., income from investments held for longer than one year) is so much less (i.e., currently 15%) than the tax rate on ordinary earned income. Since the hyper-rich make most of their money from investments rather than wages, unlike most of the rest of us, it stands to reason that the percentage they pay in taxes will be much less.

The rationale given by free-marketeers for taxing investment income at a lower rate than wage income is that most of this capital will be re-invested to stimulate the economy, thereby leading to job creation and improved wages. I accept this rationale in theory, but only up to a point. Also, I think there are other, very good "rationales" that argue for taxing different income groups more equitably - i.e., preventing further widening of income inequality in the US, as well as providing sufficient funds for government to provide basic services to the increasingly large fraction of ordinary Americans who have difficulty making ends meet with regard to major expenses such as health care, higher education, retirement, child care, etc.

The idea that simply "growing the economy" will somehow raise wages for the majority of ordinary Americans while at the same time increasing government revenues (i.e., the Laffer curve) to the point where necessary social programs can be adequately funded seems to have bit the dust when we actually look at what's happened over the past 3 decades with regard to the economic status of most ordinary Americans. Most of the latter DON'T actually seem to have benefited financially from this "lower taxes stimulus" to the economy over the past several years, or at least not anywhere close to the degree the already-rich have.

Allowing the tax rate on capital gains to revert to the previous 20% level that existed prior to 2003 would be a start. For comparison, the capital gains tax rate in Germany was recently increased to 25%, with an additional 3% "social tax" added on to fund the reconstruction of the former East German states. France taxes capital gains at 16%, with an additional 11% "social tax". Denmark and Norway tax gains at 28% (this rises to 45% in Denmark at realized gains of DKK 100,000 or more), Hungary at 20%, Ireland at 22%, Spain and the UK at 18%, Sweden at 30%.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Cap Gains Preference = Trickle Down Posted by: FoonTheElder
Foundations
Posted by: ClassAct on Apr 15, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The single thing that could be done that would eliminate the failing that finally took down the New Deal’s tax plan would be to eliminate the foundation loophole. Do not allow the wealthy to place their assets in tax-free charitable foundations, the charity of which is largely self-serving as those who write grant proposals are well aware.
It is these foundations that have directly and indirectly created this right-wing movement that has slashed the tax burden of the wealthy – all the while maintaining their assets tax free under the rubric of doing “educational” charity work. The good that other charitable giving has done could have been far exceeded by government programs directed towards the same ends – better funded by taxation of those currently tax-free assets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Foundations Posted by: jal64
» Foundations are Tax Shelters Posted by: FoonTheElder
Income taxes produce perverse results
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Apr 15, 2009 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the same way that our broken health insurance system has created health care providers who charge insane rates to insurance companies who approve a fraction of the fees and a nation of people who have no idea what services really cost, so has our income tax system created perverse incentives and uninformed citizens.

I don't understand why there should be a tax on wage income at all. A tax on profits (including capital gains as well as business profits) could be set to replace the revenue required by the government and let wages and prices adjust accordingly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you............
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Apr 15, 2009 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While no one wants to pay income taxes, the truth is that the share of income taxes paid by the middle class (those making less than 75K) as a percentage paid has grown increasingly. The divisive tactics that have been used (well) over the years have the average American voting against their own interests when it regards tax policy!

In all the years that the Republicans (and their Democratic collaborators) have "supposedly" been cutting taxes, personally I haven't seen taxes my shrink 1 thin dime - in fact they've increased! And while we're at it, can we make these corporations (AIG, Citibank, et. al.) pay their fair share - you know close those off-shore headquarters loopholes and actually make them pay more because they are off-shore, or I know shipping those jobs overseas - make them pay more when they bring their stuff back into this country!

In the current crisis that we face, we need not leave any of the upper-crust stones left unturned (and untaxed)!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get your numbers straight Posted by: paulmagillsmith
MORE FOOD and MORE TAX CUTS, MORE TAX CUTS !
Posted by: FLYING DOOFUS on Apr 15, 2009 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I were president, instead of playing those silly easter games in the greeny washed lawn, I'd be calling for more military spending cuts, no more bailouts, and MORE TAX CUTS for the lower and middle class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our Present Income Tax System is a Scam!
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Apr 15, 2009 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The IRS is basically a collection agency for the out-of-control, private Federal Reserve!

Moreover, the implosion of the world's economy is being orchestrated by our private Federal Reserve & the other private central banks!!! It's a scheme of the NWO/globalists to destroy U.S. sovereignty & usher in a one-world dictatorship!

Wake-up, sheeple!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RVT
Posted by: rvt on Apr 15, 2009 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though the higher income tax rate wouldn't affect me, I don't see why anyone should have to pay everything earned the first six months of the year in taxes. I also think taxes are due when something good happens, such a getting a bonus. Why tax someone because of death? You penalize people who saved for years to help their children, while rewarding those who spent lavishly on themselves. Where I live, people who bought a house for $200,000 forty years ago, might die with it worth $3,000,000. Why can't they leave that money to their heirs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, you asked the question Posted by: paulmagillsmith
The rich
Posted by: JTMixer5 on Apr 15, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because its the American way. The rich get richer at the poors expense!

RT
Online Privacy when it Counts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The rich Posted by: Ayla87
Grousefeather
Posted by: Grousefeather on Apr 15, 2009 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We'll know when we have the rate of taxation just right by how loud the republicans scream. Personally, I delight in republican screams, the louder the better, so I say bring it on!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, it's not a wonder the conservatives
Posted by: paulmagillsmith on Apr 15, 2009 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
threw in an Orwellian newspeak term like "death tax" when referring to the perfectly explanatory term..."inheritance tax".
How many people understand the uber-wealthy (with estates valued in the hundreds of millions, or even billions) will pass to their silver-spooned heirs $27 TRILLION (and yes, that is a 'T'). Only a dunce would believe feudalism & monarchy are dead relics of the past.

Do a little calculation to realize how much $27 trillion is. Here's some help...it's about twice the GDP of the entire US economy, and the sick part is that's to be kept by only a few hundred family estates. What's wrong with this picture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People below the poverty line get taxed
Posted by: songbird1268 on Apr 15, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
even as the richest of the rich pay a ridiculously small percentage of their income. This is especially egregious in light of the fact that the poverty line in this nation is manipulated in such a way that it is far below what any reasonable human being would consider a bare-minimum standard of living.

In what morality system is it justifiable to tax the working poor at all, while the superwealthy have access to loopholes and tax shelters galore?

Rhetorical question, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» buyin off the Mob Posted by: johnwinthrop
Who da boss?
Posted by: willymack on Apr 15, 2009 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sure as hell ain't US. We, the people are supposed to be in charge, with our elected officials working to protect us from scumbags like the crooks who stole us blind, and ruined the futures of millions of Americans. As bad as this is, they weren't satisfied with this grand theft, so they created another Pearl Harbor, the better to attack and brutalize two essentially helpless and blameless countries for fun and profit. As usual, the warmongers either never served in the armed forces or walked off the job because they COULD, without penalty, due to their wealth and influence. Despite the obvious fact that these moral degenerates were, and are, criminals of the worst sort, they're STILL looked up to by those unused to thinking. They're the REAL bosses, our elected officials, overseen by their neocon puppet masters, and certainly not US. Things will never change for the better unless we put back the authority where it belongs, and our elected officials work for US, and not the other way around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich do pay their taxes
Posted by: robert.noll on Apr 15, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they just get a discount by paying it directly to the politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALL THIS CAN CHANGE IN ONE EASY STEP
Posted by: edentp on Apr 15, 2009 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For this to stop happening, all we have to do is stop electing rich people for our public offices.

Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who gets a 0% marginal Social Security tax rate?
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 15, 2009 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two classes of working people get a 0% marginal Social Security tax rate: those who are self-employed and earn $399 a year or under, and any millionaire earning over $102,000. If Michael Eisner earns $600 million one year, he doesn't have to pay any social security taxes at all on the last $599,898,000 of his earnings.

That's right, if you are self employed (wave patriotic banners for this type of American small business entrepreneur) and earn $401 in one year, but you already spent it all on food, you must pay 14% of it back or else the IRS will come after you and seize your car for not paying up. Fortunately you sold your car for food already and you live under a bridge.

But, if you're a filthy rich bank president, your average social security tax bill covering your government-supplied bonus might be a tiny fraction of 1%. That's more than fair!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not the whole problem
Posted by: leafsong1 on Apr 15, 2009 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if we were to reform our tax structure, the US economy has various huge, intractable problems that spell doom for our future efforts at fiscal responsibility and social justice. Reform is increasingly appearing to be little more than a halfway measure. Wholesale destruction of some or all of the old order is increasingly looking like the only road to sustained better times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Du-uh...
Posted by: Crazy H on Apr 15, 2009 12:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why Don't the Rich Pay Their Share?"

The same reason that they don't get prosecuted, don't get drafted, don't get impeached: BECAUSE THEY'RE RICH!!

I'm glad I was able to clear that up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Du-uh... Posted by: Aquinas
» RE: Du-uh... Posted by: LameRandomName
Chuck and Sam
Posted by: 2thepoint on Apr 15, 2009 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
last time I checked, about 80% of all taxes collected are paid by the top 5% of the earners..

i think the real question is why is the other 95% slacking off in tax payments!


If we didn't have the rich, who would support the poor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Need Your Checker Checked Posted by: FoonTheElder
Small business owners don't make that much!
Posted by: marykane on Apr 15, 2009 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say it ain't so, Joe!

Actually, by the time small business owners takes out all their deductions, losses, etc, etc, VERY FEW OF THEM have $250K left. They don't get taxed on their GROSS, but on their PROFIT.

Even the business Sam the Plumber said he wanted to buy didn't GROSS that much!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns are cheap and sales are going through the roof. An armed populace is the answer !!
Posted by: Sports Warrior Casey Jones on Apr 15, 2009 6:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, that's how we gunned down the tax fuckers in England and won our freedom !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 10th Commandment...
Posted by: Romans1 on Apr 15, 2009 7:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff. Envy and jealousy of someone who has more than you is a sin. Assuming that the person who has more must have done something wrong to acquire wealth is also a sin. You are judging others. Taking what is not yours so that you don't have to work is stealing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 10th Commandment... Posted by: thepuffin
Our government is a ponzi scheme that gives our tax $ to special interests
Posted by: cori on Apr 15, 2009 8:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We elect people, they join committees and then they decide how much money to take from special interests.

They tax social security

They tax unemployment insurence and our 401K's

while the rich have off shore accounts and huge tax deductions and can put millions into an IRA that they do not have to pay taxes on.

The tax laws are based on graft and corruption

and unless we protest, call and get rid of those in congress who support unjust tax laws they will tax us into total poverty. 1 in 50 Americans are now homeless. 1 in 4 are in prison and one in 3 have cancer so how many people are out there who are OK? They are giving billions to Wall St, the military, drug and health insurance companies and they don't care if we die in the gutter - do you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE ELECTED OBAMA AND HE ISN'T RICH
Posted by: cori on Apr 15, 2009 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the rules of the game are take the money from the poor and give it to the rich and special interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WE ELECTED OBAMA AND HE ISN'T RICH Posted by: LameRandomName
Mr. and Mrs. Obama had 2.6 million income in 2007.
Posted by: undead on Apr 15, 2009 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How did a law school professor/Senator running for president make so much money?

Something is rotten in Denmark.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

johnnyboy1
Posted by: johnnyboy1 on Apr 15, 2009 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder how these reccomendations will play out since our president just reported 2.7 million income for 2008!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The simplest solution is
Posted by: Koondog on Apr 16, 2009 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
simply to change the income tax to a consumption tax. Everybody pays that and since the rich consume more than everybody else, they would pay their fair share. Simple. Too simple, however, to ever be accepted or implemented, since the very concept of money owes its continued existence by the fact it is made so goddam complicated that most people cannot understand it. And that's when the rich (read evilly inclined) get busy. But even drug dealers, pimps and the Mafia pay sales tax. That's the one net that gathers up ALL the tax revenues. If people cheat on that one, the company who made the sale still pays.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The simplest solution is Posted by: robert.noll
Alan Davidson
Posted by: Alan Davidson on Apr 16, 2009 7:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A national sales tax with some sort of rebate would also do away with the make believe 1099's many business owners take advantage of which basically pushes everyone's effective tax rate to at least 25%. As for minimizing charitable donations, most people who are truly dedicated to a particular cause will give regardless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Higher Income Taxes Don't Tax the Wealthy Much-The Dems Are Fooling You
Posted by: rvt on Apr 17, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most very wealthy people have most of their wealth in municipal bonds and fixed assets. Higher income taxes have the greatest impact on those trying to become wealthy. The only way to tax the wealthy is a tax on overall net worth. Why don't the Democrats propose this? It's because the wealthy entertainers and northeast elite are Democrats and wouldn't stand for it. I'm neither, but would be against it because it is basically Communism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

madihwa
Posted by: madihwa on Apr 21, 2009 8:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always found amazing the comment by some writers that taxing the rich wouldn't really put much money into the government coffers. Who do they think they're fooling with this kind of comment? The reason many people have for not wanting to tax the rich more is that they have this foolish hope that one day they'll be that rich & they wouldn't want to be taxed much. Such dreams die hard but I believe we're seeing more & more people giving up the dream as reality crashes in on them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LameRandomName
Posted by: LameRandomName on May 4, 2009 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a mythology that "The Rich" don't pay their fair share in taxes, and it's perpetuated by selective use of statistics.

Personally, I like SIMPLE statistics, preferably from Source Material. It's harder to twist the meaning of that kind of statistic.

Taxes for instance... Let's look at who pays what:

For 2006, as far as I know the most recent year for which the IRS has published statistics, we see the following:

The Top 1% of Taxpayers, which begins at $388,806.00 AGI, paid almost 40% of all Federal Personal Income Tax.

You didn’t think the top 1% were all millionaires, didn’t you?

The Top 5%, the group that Obama says have to pay more because they don’t pay their fair share…? That group begins at $153,542.00 and pays over 60% of Federal Personal Income Tax.

The figures for the top 10%? $108,904.00 and over 70% of Federal Personal Income Tax.

The next group is the one I’m in, the top 25% of earners. You know how much your AGI has to be to make it into the exalted level of the 1/4 of Wealthy Americans? $64,702.00. And for that privilege we get to pay over 86% of ALL Federal Personal Income Tax.

There are two more categories; The Top 50% and the Bottom 50%. The cutoff line is $31,987.00 and while the Top Half is paying over 97% of the American Federal Personal Income Tax burden, the Bottom Half is paying LESS THAT 3%.


But even those numbers can be misleading. The real question is; “What do people actually pay?”

Well, according to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), these are the figures for 2006. They broke these out into Quintiles, so they are the Effective Tax Rates for the Lowest 20%, the 20-40 group, 40-60, 60-80 and the 80-100 group.

The 1st Quintile’s ETR is 4.3% and their Share of the Total Federal Tax Liability is 0.8%

The 2nd Quintile’s ETR is 10.2% and their Share of the Total Federal Tax Liability is 4.1%

The 3rd Quintile’s ETR is 14.2% and their Share of the Total Federal Tax Liability is 9.1%

The 4th Quintile’s ETR is 17.6% and their Share of the Total Federal Tax Liability is 16.5%

The 5th Quintile’s ETR is 25.8% and their Share of the Total Federal Tax Liability is 69.3%

The MOST interesting part is that the FIRST FOUR QUINTILES share of Before Tax Income is HIGHER than their share of the tax burden. But the highest 20%...? THEY are ALREADY shouldering a larger percentage of the Federal Tax Liabilities than their share of Before Tax Income.

So as you can see, the tax system is ALREADY progressive, effective tax rates DO go up with income, and the top 20% of income earners are ALREADY shouldering an unfair burden.


Two more things:
This data is available to ANYONE who has an internet connected computer and knows how to Google, and it's NOT partisan. It has nothing to do with Bush or Obama or Republicrat or Demican. It's nothing but simple numbers from the IRS and the CBO. So you want to disagree with what I've posted, don't do it by slinging mud or calling names, because really... Throwing insults in that situation is nothing more than ad admission that you dont really have anything to say.

2) Stealing is Stealing, and just because you hire the IRS to mug people doesn't mean that it's right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement