quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Actually, according to the IRS.  The top 1% paid 39.43% of all taxes based on personal income. The top 5% accounted for 59.82%, if you include the top 10% it is 70.45%, and stretching and including the top 25% it is 86.08% of total income tax share.  http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html 

Yes, this is personal income tax.  This does not include corporate taxes.  So where is the proportionality again?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Even if I'm wrong and my ex was adamant that those she dealt with paid virtually no personal tax and the BBC documentary had some leading American businessmen admitting they paid none, the top 5% of Americans own 50% of all national wealth, the top 20% own 80% of all wealth, the bottom 80% share 20% which means most people virtually have no savings and the bank (finance company) owns their home and car. Of course, there is no one who can really pay tax but the rich. Who else will pay for the military adventures on behalf of corporate America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

However that does bring up an interesting question.  If we assume the claims that the rich don't pay income taxes to be true, what good is it going to do to raise the rate at which they pay?  In other words, how is going to 39.6% going to generate revenues, if the people aren't paying the tax anyways?  Do you see where the fallacy is in that argument?  Or are we suggesting that only the lower tier "wealthy" are going to pay this increase?  It seems to miss the target, no?

Right now the US has the second highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world, how is increasing that rate and the rates on wealthy going to encourage economic growth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

However that does bring up an interesting question.  If we assume the claims that the rich don't pay income taxes to be true, what good is it going to do to raise the rate at which they pay?  In other words, how is going to 39.6% going to generate revenues, if the people aren't paying the tax anyways?  Do you see where the fallacy is in that argument?  Or are we suggesting that only the lower tier "wealthy" are going to pay this increase?  It seems to miss the target, no?

Right now the US has the second highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world, how is increasing that rate and the rates on wealthy going to encourage economic growth?

The income of the rich isn't as straight forward as Joe Bloggs the grease monkey where the government takes it right out of his pay packet. However, even 0.5% lowering of tax for the rich is significant, whether they receive it for trust funds, stocks or whatever. They don't have to be given a direct income tax reduction to be given tax back, in the same way they can move money around claiming it isn't theirs when it is and all legitimately.

The fact that the US pays the second highest corporate tax in the industrial world could be something to do with how little the rich personally contribute to American society. The rich's 39% of income tax might not add up to very much at all. If that is the case they could be virtually paying no ttax at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Even if I'm wrong and my ex was adamant that those she dealt with paid virtually no personal tax and the BBC documentary had some leading American businessmen admitting they paid none, the top 5% of Americans own 50% of all national wealth, the top 20% own 80% of all wealth, the bottom 80% share 20% which means most people virtually have no savings and the bank (finance company) owns their home and car. Of course, there is no one who can really pay tax but the rich. Who else will pay for the military adventures on behalf of corporate America.

So you are stating that the wealthy pay no taxes, but only the wealthy can pay taxes.

Where does the tax revenue originate? If your thesis is accurate, no taxes should be being collected at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

However that does bring up an interesting question.  If we assume the claims that the rich don't pay income taxes to be true, what good is it going to do to raise the rate at which they pay?  In other words, how is going to 39.6% going to generate revenues, if the people aren't paying the tax anyways?  Do you see where the fallacy is in that argument?  Or are we suggesting that only the lower tier "wealthy" are going to pay this increase?  It seems to miss the target, no?

Right now the US has the second highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world, how is increasing that rate and the rates on wealthy going to encourage economic growth?

The income of the rich isn't as straight forward as Joe Bloggs the grease monkey where the government takes it right out of his pay packet. However, even 0.5% lowering of tax for the rich is significant, whether they receive it for trust funds, stocks or whatever. They don't have to be given a direct income tax reduction to be given tax back, in the same way they can move money around claiming it isn't theirs when it is and all legitimately.

The fact that the US pays the second highest corporate tax in the industrial world could be something to do with how little the rich personally contribute to American society. The rich's 39% of income tax might not add up to very much at all. If that is the case they could be virtually paying no ttax at all.

You are arguing in circles here.  I showed you the stat on how much the top 1% are paying of the tax burden which is 39.43% of the total revenues from personal income tax, that is straight from the IRS.  That is after all of the tax loopholes, adjustments, and shelters.  They still account for almost 40% of all taxes paid on personal income.  Claiming that they pay virtually nothing, is simply false.

The reason I brought up the corporate taxes, is to show a possible cause of businesses moving overseas.  I suggest that raising the corporate tax and personal income tax on the wealthy will add to that trend, and actually be a bad thing for the economy.  I didn't even mention the other tax increases being proposed by Sen. Obama, which I believe will only compound the problem.

For a fair comparison let me put it in other terms.  The top 5% of income earners pay 60% of all tax revenue collected on personal income, whereas the lower 50% of all income earners pay 3% of all tax revenues collected on personal income.  Many of which in that lower 50% not only don't pay income tax (get complete refunds), but they also get refundable tax credits (money back that they didn't pay into the system).  So I am trying to understand where this proportionality is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


I pay 42% income tax, with what I claim back, I really only pay 15%, thanks to my accountant. According to official figures, I have still paid 42%. You don't think the rich are doing something similar? Of course they are. They might initially pay income tax but you have to ofset it by what they claim back through creative practices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
I'm sure you know how it works, you pay income tax and then claim it back for this that and the other. You have still paid income tax, even though you get most of it back. You're supposed to have your own business, you must be doing it yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

People do avoid paying tax legally. My brother who lives in California says he virtually pays no tax through legal creative tax avoidance. It seems the trick is, is to avoid before you pay.

There are an endless number of sites explaining how it is done, my ex used to earn her living through it, still does but not for a big company. I might have worded my post wrong through ignorance but the fact is, the richer you are the more ways there are of avoiding paying taxes.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/437570/charitable_foundations_how_the_rich.html

The news media, most of who are rich, attempt to withhold the knowledge of how the rich avoid paying their fair share. The average American is ignorant of how the rich avoid paying their fair share despite the fact that they know it is happening


http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/5/29/3719254.html
 
The IRS has reported that the number of those earning $200,000 or more who paid no taxes rose sharply in 2005.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
The point is, we need services, and they cost money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I felt sorry for McCain. He appears to be physically very weak and he was surrounded by sharks. Like I said, he seems alright on a personal level, and he doesn't deserve his own party. He stole a few Democratic lines (something about 'CHANGE' and the need to 'help our fellow Americans who aren't doing so well' - how socialistic is that? The puppet strings were showing).  President though? It's a frightening prospect, not least because of his choice of VP. Cindy McCain was alright as well, but was she on drugs? Her eyes looked weird.

I agree with your observations!