| |
BGonline.org Forums
the question is
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: the question is (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Saturday, 4 October 2008, at 4:22 p.m.
I care not to be lectured by a socialist.
Should you wish to educate yourself -- which I consider highly unlikely as you would not appreciate what you find -- you may go to irs.gov, then go to 'tax stats', and then knock yourself out studying any stats you'd wish.
In 2005, latest year reported, the following percentiles paid the following total amounts of federal taxes:
top 1% paid 39.38%
top 5% paid 59.67%
top 10% paid 70.30%
top 25% paid 85.99%
top 50% paid 96.93%
thus bottom 50% paid 3.07%
Now, I don't immediately find the stat whereby it is stated that 47% pay no taxes, but with the bottom 50% paying only 3.07% I doubt that I'm far off, if at all.
Further, for all you bleeding hearts always crying about the increasing tax burden on the middle class and all the tax breaks for the rich, you might try comparing the 1986 numbers to the 2005 numbers:
top 1% paid 39.38% in 2005, up from 25.75% in 1986
top 5% paid 59.67% in 2005, up from 42.57% in 1986
top 10% paid 70.30% in 2005, up from 54.69% in 1986
top 25% paid 85.99% in 2005, up from 76.02% in 1986
top 50% paid 96.93% in 2005, up from 93.54% in 1986
bottom 50% paid 3.07% in 2005, down from 6.44% in 1986
Sorry, to bust your bubble of ignorance; however, those are the facts. There have been minor variations in the twenty years; however, the general trend has been increasingly higher proportionate tax burdens as you go up the income scale and decreasingly lower proportionate tax burdens as you go down the income scale.
In response to Item 3 in your post. You are absolutely correct. I can go with either solution, or both. In my opinion we can/should disenfranchise those on the dole by tying voting rights accordingly -- those receiving 'income redistribution' from the government would not be able to vote. Obviously, this is a complicated and controversial subject and you would not want every detail defined in moments over a computer; however, exemptions would apply, as an example, to social security recipients who had worked and paid taxes until the age of drawing social security. Further, we can provide all a vested interest in the country by ensuring that ALL pay something toward the national interest.
In my opinion, the bounties of our country, both financial and liberties, are not an entitlement to anyone drawing breath. There are responsibilities of citizenship as well.
As a related aside, I find it both sad and amusing, and quite disingenuous when BarryO gets up and blatantly lies that 95% of Americans are going to get tax cuts under his administration if he is elected -- God forbid. It's interesting to note that only 53% pay any taxes, yet 95% are going to have their taxes reduced. What he doesn't say, and what we all know (though many won't admit), is the 'tax cuts' of those not paying taxes will be in the form of payments to them. Yes, income redistribution. Socialism.
If he, and any dem/lib/socialist, campaigned on their true beliefs and objectives, none would ever be elected. They lie, count on the ignorance of the masses, and promise enough to all (buy votes) to stay competitive and, at times, win.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.