CBO: The rich pay an outsized share of taxes

Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the past few years.

CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 — the latest years data are available, but enough to include the early effects of the last recession — and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total federal tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.

Rest of article

So much for those idiot politicians and their [SNIP] who constantly whine about the wealthy not paying their "fair share".

They actually pay more than their share, but as usual I'm sure they won't let facts get in the way of their pathetic arguments.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

What a cute little chart.

Unfortunately for you, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


Could it be because those rich people earn more money in a day than those poor people earn in a year? SHOCK, HORROR.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd

 

Could it be because those rich people earn more money in a day than those poor people earn in a year? SHOCK, HORROR.

Again, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Did you even bother to read the article?

Simply because one earns more is not a reason to penalize them by taxing them more.

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


Ummm, everything?!?! Are you sure you know what your talking about?

If you're little delusional theory were correct, then please explain how, back when the rich paid 90% of their income, that America had a burgeoning middle class and you actually had industry? Where is all this now in your little fantasy world?

reply to post by Kryties


"Industry" became too expensive to maintain in the U.S. thanks in large part to labor unions.

Why pay a degenerate monkey $30 an hour to do something when you can offshore that same job and have it done for $10 an hour or less?

Corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders first and foremost. Finding the lowest cost of doing business is the responsible thing to do.

How much blame do you personally lay on the shoulders of the unions as a reason for a disappearing middle class?

I guess this makes the exploitative nature of capitalism and the complete rape of our planet by mega-corporations okay now?

Nah... us jackass leftists will continue. Oh most definitely will we continue. Forever and always until the Elite have their due and the oppressed are liberated from the confines of these economic chains.

reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd


Not as much as I blame governments for introducing a "trickle down" scam and lowering the taxes on the wealthy that were being used to pay for infrastructure.

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd
reply to post by Kryties

 

"Industry" became too expensive to maintain in the U.S. thanks in large part to labor unions.

Not really.

Although, unions did play a minor part, the largest single contributor is modern technology.

We have never been able to operate at a global level, efficiently, until very recently.

That has opened doors that would have been better left closed, but c'est la vie!

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd

 

Not as much as I blame governments for introducing a "trickle down" scam and lowering the taxes on the wealthy that we're being used to pay for infrastructure.

Even this is not overly accurate.

If the governments had not started to lower taxes on the wealthy, the wealthy would have moved. It's just as easy to move my business operations as it is to move my products today...not much incentive to stay in a high tax area, when their is many low tax options available.

Everybody needs to stop thinking that everything that occurs in the US, occurs in a bubble. There is more external factors at play than many realise.

reply to post by peck420


If the wealthy moved, then there would be less people to provide services for and therefore less taxes would have to be paid by the rest.

Let the whinging wealthy bugger off somewhere else.

give me a million dollar a year salary and i'll happily pay 70% income tax; that'll give me roughly $30,000 a month in disposable income to enjoy.

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd
reply to post by Kryties

 

"Industry" became too expensive to maintain in the U.S. thanks in large part to labor unions.

Why pay a degenerate monkey $30 an hour to do something when you can offshore that same job and have it done for $10 an hour or less?

First, define who is the "degenerate monkey" that you seem to be addressing here? Is this a shoemaker, a call center operator, an autoworker or a web designer?

Basically, you project a strong sense of disdain to people who for various reasons didn't make it to the higher tiers of the food chain, and I find this attitude disgusting.

Now, to the issue of "too expensive to maintain the in US". How do you defined "too expensive"? Capitalism used to be a social contract where corporations were invented to shield investors from too much risk, and then protected by the laws of this society because people understood the value of enterprise to the well being of the nation. Now, the corporations show the middle finger to the nation that nurtured them, including workers and yes, janitors.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by peck420

 

If the wealthy moved, then there would be less people to provide services for and therefore less taxes would have to be paid by the rest.

Let the whinging wealthy bugger off somewhere else.

MAYBE I'm just misunderstanding something here, but I have a few questions:

1) Exactly how many wealthy people do you think they are? They tend to be one of the smallest population segments as far as I'm aware of, so their impact on service usage would likely be minimal.

2) Isn't it the wealthy who are primarily providing these services you mention in the first place? Or are you referring to government services in european nations, etc.?

3) If the wealthy "bugger off" - who pays their share of the taxes? Remember, according to the CBO, the top 20% of earners pay almost 70% of the US' taxes - who will shoulder that responsibility once they're gone?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by peck420

 

If the wealthy moved, then there would be less people to provide services for and therefore less taxes would have to be paid by the rest.

Let the whinging wealthy bugger off somewhere else.

If only it was that simple.

The problem with this is as follows:
If the people paying the bills leave, who will pay the bill? And, who will work without pay?

Maybe in times with a much tighter wealth disparity, you could tell them to get bent...today, they would take the bulk of your services with them when they left. Well, they would take the funding for those services.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


[color=gold]Basically, you project a strong sense of disdain to people who for various reasons didn't make it to the higher tiers of the food chain, and I find this attitude disgusting.

I don't usually do this, but for such an exceptional comment I'll make an exception....

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!!

....and coloured and bolded!

reply to post by Praetorius


reply to post by peck420


I am merely providing food for thought, as opposed to the attitude-ridden delusion that is the OP. How do you suppose these 'dirty socialist' countries keep beating the rest of the world in economic reports and statistics?

Here is a great example of the Nordic 'dirty socialist' countries with high tax rates on the rich outperforming the rest of the world:

The Nordic countries have the least deprivation among children, all with rates below 3%.

www.unicef.org...

Note for those about to make the mistake of thinking this is a one-off example. It is not, The socialist countries are kicking our asses economically.