Threshold of earnings $343,927
So who is really not paying their fair share? Looks to me like the bottom 50%
Submitted by Howard Owens on August 1, 2012 - 6:47pm
Today, Representative Kathy Hochul (NY-26) voted to preserve and extend middle-class tax cuts to all Americans on the first $250,000 of earned income. This bill would provide tax relief and prevent a tax increase of about $2,200 on working families and small businesses in Western New York.
“At a time when our national debt is approaching $16 trillion, the House leadership has insisted on passing an irresponsible plan to add $1 trillion to the debt to pay for additional tax cuts for millionaires. This extra trillion puts us in even greater debt to the Chinese. Instead, I supported an alternative that would provide tax relief to middle-class families and small businesses, while requiring the wealthiest top 2 percent to pay the same tax rates they paid during the economic boom of the 1990s,” Rep. Hochul said.
“If we are going to effectively address our nation's fiscal challenges, we need a balanced approach that requires meaningful cuts to government spending and the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. That is why I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support a balanced budget amendment and to cut $2.4 trillion in deficit spending. It’s also why I supported cuts to wasteful spending, such as aid to Pakistan. There is still work to be done to protect middle-class families and reduce the deficit, and I will continue to work with both Democrats and Republicans to find ways to accomplish that goal.”
Threshold of earnings $343,927
So who is really not paying their fair share? Looks to me like the bottom 50%
Everyone with an income should have to pay some federal income tax, to be "fair". Even at a 5% tax rate for the lower incomes, at least everyone would have a stake in the game.
Thank you, Peter. I'm so tired of the class envy perpetuated by the left and by BO. The monetarily wealthy pay far more in taxes than those not earning as much. They own property with a much higher assessment which means they pay more property taxes, which in effect keeps ours LOWER. The wealthy hire people to do work for them that the average earner does not, which means the people they employ have jobs and those people PAY TAXES.
I earn as much as someone who is married, has children and has a larger mortgage. I get SLAMMED for taxes because I'm single and the only thing that improves my AGI is maximizing contributions to my 401K. I'm so sick of hearing about how successful people should pay more. It's total BS.
One more thing, lets not forget who the largest contributors are to charity. I'm pretty sure that Tom Golisano donated millions of dollars to build pediatric wings onto hospitals in Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse.
Yeah, lets tax those rat bastard because we know they're all just hoarding their jellybeans for their own enjoyment.
Yes, lets make the poorest of Americans pay more than the richest. That makes so much sense guys. There is a reason that bottom 50% pay less in taxes. You have to consider that many of those people that fall into that category, make minimum wage, which equals out to about 15,000 a year at full time. Taxes any higher would destroy the livelihood of lower income families. In fact, the highest percentage of families live in households that make less than 20,000 a year. Which the cost of groceries, gas, HEALTH CARE, utilities, etc, people in that category are struggling enough.
Also, this country has seen the deficit shrink dramatically, (even surplus) when taxes where at the rates they were during the Clinton years, and big business still did just fine. Americans were working and things were prosperous. That's what we need to get back to. When did hating our government become the American way? Oh yeah, since the Tea Party came to town.
Who said more? But they should pay at least some?
Besides, are we really arguing that the poor don't pay enough? Really? Is it fair that Mitt Romney should pay no taxes?
Everyone should pay.
And under Clinton, the lower incomes did pay more than now.
Mitt Romney pays no taxes? Since when? He pays a lower tax rate on a return in investments, the same tax rate as anyone else. How can people be so easily misled by lies and deception? Are people really so ignorant that they can't see the actual facts?
I found this site to be quite humorous in its deceptive ploy to get people to hate Mitt Romney. He pays a lower tax rate because the money he's getting is not income, it's capital gains. He plays by the exact same investment rules as everyone else. This kind of deceptive hogwash should be outlawed or at least countered with the real facts. The fact is, he pays a buttload more taxes than you or I do.
I just thought of another, actual problem with what is being called "income." What you get in your paycheck should not actually be called income. It should be called compensation because there was no actual GAIN. You gave up a certain amount of your time and performed some type of service and were compensated in the form of cash, the universal trade medium. It shouldn't be taxed at all.
Capital gains are actually income. You GAINED something in value. Tax law in this country sucks. Lets finally go to a spend tax and end this class envy once and for all.
Truth -- the economy was decimated, plundered and eviscerated not by the poor and middle class but by those in the upper income levels. Not from our Mom and Pop's and not from our farmers and small business owners. it was the investment banker, multinational CEO class. People who have 40 accountants looking for every tax loophole they can take to avoid paying their fair share.
History shows us middle class incomes grew and people prospered when the upper class paid a little higher rate -- not a huge rate. Why on earth don't we go back to it? And for goodness sake poll after poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans want to go back to the Clinton era tax code.
The poor and middle class didn't come up with the great idea of credit default swaps and derivative trading. The poor and middle class didn't come up with the great idea to have their jobs shipped overseas. Yet for some strange reason it is much easier to blame the single mother working at minimum wage than the real robber barons.
The middle class buys the goods and services needed to move this economy. Taking that $2200 tax break away simply takes $2200 out of our local economies.
Lorie what percentage of income is fair enough? Should people be paying 30%, 40% or 50% of what they make? At what point are you punishing people for going to school working hard and being successful. If you want to look at capital gains you have to remember that it’s the 2nd time that money is getting taxed and there is a risk you will lose it all. It was taxed when you earned it the first time and then again at around 15% when you cash it out. If you want to talk about corporate tax rates we have the highest in the world at 39%. Sure they have a ton of loop holes which need to be closed, but the people that profit on the mega corps aren’t just the rich. Most of them have heavy investment from Pension's and 401k plans.
Also the poor and the middle class do support the idea of outsourcing, if they didn’t they wouldn’t buy all the products made in these countries. I personally think that is a major contributing factor to our downfall, but Try asking someone to pay a $1 more for something made in the US and it won’t happen. Companies have to outsource to compete the American consumer made that decision. If more consumers supported a buy local first initiative (and not from Big box retailers) we would be in much better shape as a country. The truth is though that we as consumers don’t care where it was made as long as it’s cheap.
2011 tax rates
Single Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
•10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
•15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
•25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
•28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
•33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
•35% on taxable income over $379,150.
First, the Clinton era was supported by an economic bubble, remember the Internet boom?
Second, after the initial Clinton rate changes, the economy actually dipped slightly, but when the Clinton admin at the urging of and together with a newly elected GOP congress lowered the Capital Gains tax the economy took off.
The Mom & Pop business problem, really has nothing to do with tax policy, it has more to do with the big box stores and economies of scale, much the same way farmers were forced to grow in size to survive. In fact Lorie, most Mom & Pops are sub chapter S corporations and in that would show incomes exceeding $250,000 even though their actual income would be much less, therefore your Tax the Rich policy would hit them right in the pocket book. A typical farm for example as a sub chapter S, grosses well over $500K even though the farmer himself may take home $30K if lucky, but the farm is paying taxes on the $500K not the $30K
The decimated economy was in no way a result of taxation whether more or less, it was totally a result of two key issues, Skyrocketing Federal spending and Government intervention in the housing market by over 30 years attempting to provide home ownership for those who otherwise could not afford homes.
Our gradual move to place the Federal Government over State and local government since the early 1900’s has had a proportionate effect on both the poverty level and taxation, neither of which has been reduced since.
The growth of the GDP and the percentage of Government expenditure are the two underlying factors that predominantly affect middle class spending power, NOT a progressive tax structure.
Currently, and for many years the US has been at the top of the list as far as progressive tax structures go, it has not ever had a positive effect on poverty levels in all those decades.
Yes, there were charlatans that plundered much of the economy during our housing crisis, but it was government intervention that created the loopholes that enabled them.
Reduce the overall tax rate, and eliminate the loopholes, and everyone rich and poor wins, the 80’s when we came close to doing that, it worked, at least until politicians found more ways to spend money.
No it was eviscerated by the idiots who can't budget money and bought houses they couldn't afford. And the government who rated banks based on how many houses they sold to people who shouldn't buy houses.
I guarantee you Mitt Romney pays in taxes at the least 100 times what you earn in gross salary.
Very nice piece, Mark. I hope you don't mind but I'm copying your thread reply and archiving it for plagiarizing whenever possible, giving you credit, of course.
The Clinton era benefited from the tech boom and I'm glad you pointed that out. People love to bless him with something he had nothing to do with, something that was happening long before he took office.
Ah shucks Doug, I'm touched
I guess someone doesn't like facts..just my observation from the negative votes.
Just another Democrat Doug, don't let it get you down
Taxing the rich at higher rates under the "fair share" argument is a false narrative that plays on one of our most basic of human natures, envy. Progressively taxing success, doesn't work, hasn't worked, and will not work. What we will end up with is a temporary sense of satisfaction that we've finally made the rich guys pay that will soon be offset by the realization that more small businesses are closing, more people are being laid off, and the economy is slipping further into recession with continued rising debt. But hey, we can rest in the notion that "fairness" was achieved.