The Tax Cut

[nomosendero]

The Tax Cut
by Anonymous
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing

The fifth would pay $1

The sixth would pay $3

The seventh $7

The eighth $12

The ninth $18

The tenth man - the richest - would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being 'paid' to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

The Tax Cut
by Anonymous
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing

The fifth would pay $1

The sixth would pay $3

The seventh $7

The eighth $12

The ninth $18

The tenth man - the richest - would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being 'paid' to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

[nomosendero]

They already do!!! Do you want to take every penny, yes, let's get them.      Sorry, I forgot that people making 2.5 million per year are not wealthy, come on, you know who pays the most.

Your last sentence is basis for the "Social" thinking. Let's take away from the producer & give to the non-producer, wouldn't that be nice!!!

[nomosendero]

They paid more for the tickets, this is true. How else should anyone get the better tickets, or for that matter a better Car, House, etc. Please tell me more about that.

But under the Social Eng. progressive plan that you like, some are not paying for the tickets at all at this point & they are getting better seats than some of the "working man seats".

I realize the story is more free enterprise in nature & not European at
all. Some will relate & some won't.

[nomosendero]

No, I am not questioning you personal view, which I think you are expressing in a spirit of fairness & honesty. But the system of a progressive tax is Social Engineering when it is implemented, regardless
of the original intent.
Your examples just don't get it, when compared to a progressive tax.
In your first example, the food that was ordered were 2 different products.
So, no they should not be the same price & the rich guy CHOOSE to buy
the more expensive food, this does not compare at all. If we could buy one of the bigger BMW's for the same price as the cheapest Nissan, I know
what most people would buy. Remember, the buyer is using HIS money, &
remember that when a rich man buys a lot of "stuff" someone has to make the stuff.
Your second example misses the mark again. Yes, he should pay more Sales Tax, but remember he can sell it for more also, meaning that he
bought Value Added if he bought wisely, which again, is up to him or her.
So, he should pay more, but he BOUGHT the product, which is his choice.
If you bust the butt of a rich man with too many taxes on the front end,
he will not be able to buy as much product, which someone builds, he will
not be able to buy AS MUCH property, which has to be maintained, he
cannot hire as many people which really hurts overall, & the economy suffers. Poor people don't do much hiring I have noticed.
This is one of the main reasons that our economy grows so much faster than the stagnant Euro boys. We still have at least a little incentive for
productivity that the "progressive" tax has not been able to rob us of . At
least, not yet.

[jimster]

My take on progressive tax...

All people who make money, with the exception of the very poor, pay taxes. It would not be fair to have label someone and say..."you pay 65 percent of the dollar for taxes"...and take somone else and tell them "you pay 30 percent of your dollar"...
I take it the very idea of progressive taxes is for the government to get more money from the people they would call..."privileged"...
And that idea comes because the government does not generate money, nor does it have it's own money, but it needs to spend money that it does not have.
If next week the government all of the suden says...OK, we no longer are going to spend billions of your dollars on strange things, like the mating habbits of an earth worm, or sending billions of dollars accross the world to other countries without your permission (ya, we even send to Iran)...
and we all of the sudden paid off the entire debt...do you think you would see massive tax cuts...like rates being cut to 5 percent?
No...you would not...
The Govenment gets used to receiving it, the same as you got used to missing it in your paycheck...

Fair is fair...progressive tax is actually a penalty for some people doing well...not a good thing.  The government would already receive more money from someone who makes a million a year with the same tax rate as someone who makes 30,000. Without a progressive tax.
Because someone has more, is not a reason to just take it.
My 2 cents

[dukkillr]

Because someone has more, is not a reason to just take it.

Agreed.  Just because someone went to school, worked hard, and made a good living doesn't mean they should subsidize the life of those who didn't go to school or work hard.

[nomosendero]

TM7, funny how you feel the rich have a leg up on taxes when they pay the bulk of it.  
Saying the settlers came over here to get away from this kind of system
is a joke. I know several people who are doing very well that came from humble beginnings, I saying poor man, poor. These people were not born
in a ROYAL family, they experienced the American dream. You could not do that in ENGLAND, you were of privilege or you were not in thje vast
majority of cases. Even though religous freedom was the first reason that
the settlers came here the second was economic freedom, which is why we had no taxes for a long time & no I am not saying we need no taxes.
 
Another thing that you conveniently forgot & I need to remind you of. When the wealthy buy these gosh awful material things they pay sales taxes on those things, but that is not enough I guess, let's tax them again
for being productive.

Dukkillr hit it on the head big time! Those who have paid their dues should
NOT subsidize those who don't, but we sure as heck do!!!

TM7 says that I am happy I guess if the rich are subsidized. WELL folks,
there it is & no doubt why such a simple story has created such a huge stur here. How do you subsidize yourself. If the rich are being subsidized
because the gov. did not take more, then TM7 must believe that all money belongs to the Gov. & we need to wait for them to divide as to
how they see fit. Otherwise, we need a new definition for the word subsidize. You can't subsidize yourself. This is the big difference. I view the money as being ours & not the governments.

Oh, & I know for sure why some businesses but of course not all have move abroad in addition to cheap labor. Not only does each owner/partner pay the big income taxes but the Corp. tax/insurance & regs. made profit impossible. If the taxes & regs. (some of course good) had backed off a little, they could stay here & pay more wages. Yes, tax the wealthy until they leave, that will help for sure. Let's go ahead as the story goes & wind up $52.00 short.

[Graybeard]

This should bring it back to view for you guys.

[Haywire Haywood]

I like the idea of a flat tax.  Everyone pays the same "share" as a percentage of their gross.  No tax deductions at all.  They yank out xx% and it's gone.  No filling out a tax return, no keeping up with bank statements, no writing down your miles. Got three kids?  It's not the gov't's fault.  No need for them to give you breaks just because you can father (or give birth to) children.  Can't afford kids?  Keep your zipper up. Buy a house?  Paying interest is a necessary evil.  Not the gov't's place to offset it for you.  

It'll never go over tho because it would cripple the tax prep industry and  the IRS.  No more need for piles of tax forms or agents to audit them. Charities would see their contributions disappear too.  Why give if you can't take the deduction? (at least that is how the majority would view it I think)

Ian

[jimster]

Guess a couple of important points here come to mind.
One, it is not the governments money, it's ours.
Two, TMF brings this point up "The tax rate is the same so You mean doing well and reaping rewards, success, material things, position, etc. is not enough reward? "

As if to say the government or someone gets to choose what is enough reward???

Also, for some reason I can't quite figure out,  people look at someone who goes to school full time, and works full time, finally pouring 75-100 hours per week into a business, pretty much dedicating a huge portion of their lifes working their tails off.....as "privileged"...if things work out and they get wealthy.
That I don't get. Then, when they want to pass it down to their family, it seems certain people/government want a chunk of that too. Seems everybody wants a chunk huh?

We already know the wealthy pay more, so I'm not getting where this is a problem in the first place, unless...someone wants to decide what they "reap"...which in my book, is going back to sqaure one. Wjoch would be, people wanting to take what someone has, just because they have it.

Flat tac sounds good to me to Haywire...and yes, it would put a lot of people out of work...but not in the private sector. It would scale back government. Which is what I'm looking for also. Like killing two birds with one stone.

[nomosendero]

Yes, we will keep paying our fair share & as soon as one of these "working
man politicians" gets elected which will probably be soon, we will pay even more of our fair share, it has happened that way all of my adult life.
Who told us that the wealthy pay the most taxes, ugh IRS figures did.
I know the percentages very close in my head, but if it continues to be questioned, I will run down the #'s & post them, but it sure will help prove my point, I am a little busy during the week, you know so I can have a little money for my family, but I can do this if needed.
The statement you made about the rich being subsidized with their own income shows why we can't agree. The money belongs to We The People
& not to the Government! WOW, I could not believe that!!!

Haywire Haywood
I also like the flat tax, but like you I don't see it ever coming to pass. If they did the do gooders would point out that the rich still have alot of
THEIR money left over & we can't have that!

A Nat. Sales Tax could also be good IF the rate was not too high & a very
big IF IF IF they could not add another tax later. With this tax, the more
that you can afford to buy, the more tax you pay. Those who make small
incomes could buy used products from individuals, etc. to not pay much
taxes, shoot I had to do these things in the earlier part of my life to get
by & none are too good for that. Or, if you are haveing a bad year, hold off on your bigger ticket items till later like you should anyway.This tax is a little trickier to start though, only pointing out other possibilities. Overall, though, I like the flat tax better.

[dukkillr]

TM7:

I do taxes... I'm an attorney with knowledge of both corporate and individual taxes... You're simply wrong.  The rich pay a lot of taxes... The super rich pay even more... The myth that the rich can get out of paying taxes is propagated by those who don't understand what they are talking about and are generally jealous...

[DakotaElkSlayer]

I love the idea of a flat tax with no deductions!  Man, I would also like to see corporations pay their fair share, too.  Back in the heyday of the '50's, the corps. paid something like 50% of the income tax of this country.  What do they percentage do they pay today?
  Some of you guys actually believe the rich pay too much in taxes?  :-D   Why do you think they have tax lawyers and personal accountants....so they get out of paying much of their taxes!  They are the ones that wouldn't allow a flat tax....they'd end up paying much more than they currently do, I'd bet.

Jim

[jimster]

Interesting IRS article a while back, written BY the IRA...
They said they receive MUCH more money into the government when taxes are lower...as opposed to when taxes are higher.

We of course all knew this, and also knew that when taxes are lower, more people WITH the money will pull it out of their NON TAXABLE accounts (all legal, and available to all) and spread it around and circulate it.
This my friends is human nature, which does not fit into some people's math programs, but it's there, and the IRS knows it is there.

The wealthy do indeed pay most of the taxes in the country, regardless of anything else...The National Budget also shows what years brought in more money to the government, and what years were slow, so besides the IRS just telling us...we also have the national budget pointing it our for years.

Bottom line really is....someone WANTS someone elses money...might as well just say it right out. Things are much simpler when you get away from politics and just say it.

If someone thinks it's fair to take something that does not belong to them, can't do much about that line of thinking.

Just because the money is there, still is not good reason to take it, or decide "how much they need or deserve, or can afford to give up"

We kicked out the British many monns ago because they thought like that...they wanted someone elses stuff too.


Sent em back where they came from.

[IntrepidWizard]

Read the "No Tax Book" by Linden and whats his name on radio,I lent mine out,we can do it all on USE TAX.

[magooch]

I challenge anyone to find anything in the tax codes that is specifically designed to give an advantage to only the wealthy.  I will concede that some of the wealthy have a lower tax rate than others, but that is due to how they dervie their income.  The alternate minimum tax is an example of a rule that works against the rich, or what is perceived as the rich.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

I challenge anyone to find anything in the tax codes that is specifically designed to give an advantage to only the wealthy.

The Inherent Unfairness of Income Taxes

Investors pay lower income taxes than workers. Roughly 85% of stock market wealth is owned by 10% of American households and there is no logical reason why income from those investments (called “capital gains” by the tax code) should be taxed less than income from work. But the top tax rate on wages is 35% while the top tax rate on capital gains is only 15%. This rate structure gives the richest households enormous advantages without producing any obvious social benefit. If we reversed the favor – and let workers pay lower tax rates than investors – then working families might have greater opportunity to accumulate wealth.

Good enough for ya?

Jim

[dukkillr]

hmmm... well you're only sorta right... those dollars are taxed at a different rate because they were taxed once already... see they were taxed as income BEFORE they were put into the market...  In a way it's similar to the death tax in that it's the second time around that money is being taxed... thus the perspective "fairness" is debatable...

they are also a reason to encourage americans to save money (a real problem in light of Social Security's impending doom)...

[DakotaElkSlayer]

How is the estate tax not fair?  My dead great aunt dies and leaves me $3,000,000 and lets say you work 60 hrs. a week to make $50,000 in a year.  In this case, should I really pay less income tax than you?  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't whine if the government wanted to tax me on BIG BUCKS I received for doing nothing. :grin:

Jim

[dukkillr]

that certainly depands on how you look at it... if  you look at as your great uncle worked all his life to make that money and saved it because he wanted his heir to have it, then why should the government take it?  If he wanted it all to go to them he should have just given it to his favorite charity...

there is no right or wrong, just personal opinions on that... but that money has already been taxed once, that's why my post was saying

[Leverdude]

hmmm... well you're only sorta right... those dollars are taxed at a different rate because they were taxed once already... see they were taxed as income BEFORE they were put into the market...  In a way it's similar to the death tax in that it's the second time around that money is being taxed... thus the perspective "fairness" is debatable...

they are also a reason to encourage americans to save money (a real problem in light of Social Security's impending doom)...

Not really as they are taxed only on income from investment. Its just income in my eyes. Now in your illistration about the great uncle that worked hard, saved his money & paid taxes, he ought to be able to give his kin 3 million tax free just like he coulda gave his nephew a $20 bill. That money was certainly taxed already.

Theres a difference between someone giving you money or you giving it to them than a fellow investing wisely & getting rich. To my way of thinking anyhow.

[dukkillr]

it also should be noted the C Corps pay taxes on the money they make before it becomes a dividend... that is also part of the reason for the different tax

[nomosendero]

mortgage tax deductables, hmm wonder if they are paying alot of property taxes.

Dukkillr has pointed out several cases where the wealthy are being taxed
over and over again, but no it is not enough, let's pull them down to
more common levels.

Sure they figure out breaks, but they still pay the bulk of the income taxes.

[DakotaElkSlayer]

hmmm... well you're only sorta right... those dollars are taxed at a different rate because they were taxed once already... see they were taxed as income BEFORE they were put into the market...  In a way it's similar to the death tax in that it's the second time around that money is being taxed... thus the perspective "fairness" is debatable...

they are also a reason to encourage americans to save money (a real problem in light of Social Security's impending doom)...

Ok, I see where you are coming from so let me take this to "left field".  Lets say I have my own lawn care business where the homeowners pay me to take care of their lawns, shovel snow, etc.  Since the money they are paying me is from their income, it is already taxed...correct?  So therefore, since the money has already been taxed, I shouldn't have to pay any income tax....right?! :grin:

Jim


Not really as they are taxed only on income from investment. Its just income in my eyes. Now in your illistration about the great uncle that worked hard, saved his money & paid taxes, he ought to be able to give his kin 3 million tax free just like he coulda gave his nephew a $20 bill. That money was certainly taxed already.

Theres a difference between someone giving you money or you giving it to them than a fellow investing wisely & getting rich. To my way of thinking anyhow.

[nomosendero]

Well, I guess it is time for the real #'s, you know who pays & how much.
I know some with the other view will puke at the source, bu this is the
most condensed format that I have looked at. The top 2 brackets are paying even more than I thought & the top 50% is paying over 96% of the
income taxes. The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
 
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
 
 

October 4, 2005

 This is the latest 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.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
 
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
 
October 10, 2003  
 

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.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.  
 
Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from CY 2003...
 
(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1985 - 2003)
{Requires EXCEL to View}

• Rush's Coverage of the Previous IRS Data: here
 
Read the Article...
 
(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
     
 
 The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
 
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
 
 

October 4, 2005

 This is the latest 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.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
 
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
 
October 10, 2003  
 

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.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.  
 
Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from CY 2003...
 
(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1985 - 2003)
{Requires EXCEL to View}

• Rush's Coverage of the Previous IRS Data: here
 
Read the Article...
 
(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
     
 
 The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
 
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
 
 

October 4, 2005

 This is the latest 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.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
 
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
 
October 10, 2003  
 

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.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.  
 
Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from CY 2003...
 
(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1985 - 2003)
{Requires EXCEL to View}

• Rush's Coverage of the Previous IRS Data: here
 
Read the Article...
 
(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
     
 
 The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
 
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
 
 

October 4, 2005

 This is the latest 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.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
 
The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
 
October 10, 2003  
 

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.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.  
 
Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from CY 2003...
 
(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1985 - 2003)
{Requires EXCEL to View}

• Rush's Coverage of the Previous IRS Data: here
 
Read the Article...
 
(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)

[nomosendero]

If you look at the top of the article in Rush's site, you can click right into
the IRS numbers, which are the GOV. numbers.

VERY IMPORTANT: For the faint of heart of the Liberal persuasion, you can
go straight to your trusted Gov. site:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

All of the dancing has been great fun, but these are the numbers straight
from the government, sorry.

[nomosendero]

I am sorry that the charts from Rush's site did not show up, they do not change the numbers of course, but they sure are impressive.

[Leverdude]

Personally I feel the country could be run just fine for a whole lot less money.
That said it makes sense in my mind that the more you benefit from our society the more you ought to put back into it. Time was when only the wealthy paid taxes & they were proud to do so. It might not seem fair but a guy that makes say 10 million who gets taxed at 50% gets hurt less than a fellow taking in $25,000 that pays 15%.  The fellow making 25,000 also costs the Gov less to have around & uses less of what the country has to offer.
I like the federal sales tax better than income tax anyway. Just makes more sense. Why penalize folks for making money? Then theres millions of folks who get checks every month that pay zero & live in municipal housing subsidized by tax dollars. I get taxed on savings intrest but welfare folks dont pay on their checks. Theres nothing fair about federal income tax at all.

Best thing is we make the Gov more fiscally responsible but that doesn't seem likely. Another sad thing is that the wealthy folks have more political pull than working class folks simply because theyre wealthy & can contribute to candidates in ways that they are afforded special consideration if the guy gets elected.

If we're ever to have actual, honest, fair equal representation the first step should be NO campaign contributions & candidates shouldn't be allowed to use their own fortunes either for election campaigns. As long as wealth is a prerequisite for being elected to a national office we will never have fair Gov't, representation or taxation.

[IntrepidWizard]

Thanks for printing Rush's Tax Chart for those unlearned,but please read the Fair Tax Book and see how we can get rid of all taxes.

[jimster]

I like the idea some of our forefathers would have if they were alive today.
I think some of them would be talking about another revolution, which is a dirty word in some circles, but you can see what feeding the "beast" (our government) has done over a period of time. It has pitted people against each other, cause a lot of finger pointing, all to keep feeding the beast.
I doubt if the billions of dollars taken out of our checks were meant to send over to other countries without our permisson while in debt would be a good idea to our forefathers. I also doubt if stuying the mating habbits of earth worms and like things would sound good to them either.
Spending money we don't have for no reason is something nobody does in the household that has good sense, so government needs to slow down also.
They spend it because it's there, and it comes in by the billions, and there
is a staggering amount of government employees just to handle all this money, and they lose it by the millions also.  It's just there to spend.
It all adds up to pitting the wealthy against the poor, cause hard feelings, makes people vote for "stuff" instead of what's best for the country...and all to feed the "beast".  Maybe a revolution is the only way to get back to square one and start over.  
OK, I'm dreaming about this revolution thing...but maybe our forefathers dreamed at one time also.  Would like to hear what they have to say.
Maybe we already know what they had to say...?




My opinon...they vary for sure.