Iriemon

So what. Just as you did not agree to pay my SS benefits, I did not agree to pay NP's health care or pension.

So if you shouldn't have to pay mine, why should I have to pay NP's?

dixon76710

Well, I give just the tiniest flek of shiite if you are going to make baseless claims about me supplying false information. Enough to do a google seach on

federal taxes top 5%

and copy and paste from just the first search result that comes up. Revealing that you can make proclamations of information being false, about a topic you know nothing about, based solely on the fact that it doesnt fit with your preconcieved perception of the world around you.


The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Top 5% Group's Share of Income Taxes 57.13%

Leeguana

Even if we had a flat tax, the top 5% of wage earners would still make up the largest block of tax income revenue for the government.

__________________
Science is evidence without proof. Creationism is proof without evidence.

RightinNYC

It actually is true, through at least 2011:

And if you'd prefer to examine the data yourself, here's the source:

Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014

The table's about halfway down, titled "Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities"

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Iriemon

Thank you for providing a source.

Your source proves your statement was false. You said:

Originally Posted by dixon76710
The top 5% income earners making ove quarter million $s pay "most" of the taxes in the US.

In 2006, income taxes represented 43% of the taxes in the US. Therefore, your data which shows that the top 5% paid 57% of the income tax translates to them paying 24.5% of the taxes in the US.

The rest of the taxes came from tax corporations pay (15%) which are not the wealthiest 5%, and the SS tax (35%) which the 5% richest only pay a small part of, since SS taxes stop after about $95k of income.

You can see the amounts of tax revenues from these various sources at CBO.org historical tables.

Thus, your statement that "The top 5% income earners making ove quarter million $s pay "most" of the taxes in the US" is proved wrong. They pay about 25% of the taxes in the U.S.

Which I knew, and is why I called you on your assertion.

Iriemon

Thanks. But I stand by my position that Dixon's statment is not true, for reasons explained here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/648328-post65.html (Should the tax payer have to pay for ins for a child whose parents make $83K a year?)

RightinNYC

I wouldn't consider SS a "tax" in the same way as an income tax is, because it's not designed to be a means-tested system and is at least in theory, supposed to be completely separate from other budgetary measures.

When I think of taxes and expenditures, I think of individual income tax and corporate tax. You're right that when including corporate tax, the individual figure drops slightly, but I don't think thats really the salient point.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

americanwoman

Gosh on one hand you have to say this is ridiculous and blah blah blah yet on another hand even if the parents make over 83,000- what if they are too selfish or just don't care to get their kid some insurance.

This is a tough issue because on one hand it's really not up to the government but on another I'd hate to see a child not get medical attention because their parent would rather have the extra money in their pocket.

Making that much money does not ensure the parent will still enroll for health insurance.


I'd like to point out to it's not really all the tax payers that would fund this, it was proposed to be funded by raising the national cigarrette tax, so it would be the smokers who help fund it.

__________________
Somehow our devils are never quite what we expect when we meet them face to face
_____________________________________________

Iriemon

According to the tax foundation, in 2004, the top 5% earners earned 33.45% of the total AGI (adjusted gross income) --- up from 21% in 1980! Wow. That means the top 5% are making about 1/3 of all income up from a fifth.
Of course, that means that the bottom 95%, which were making 80% of all income in 1980, are now making only about 66% now.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data Table 5.

That is an eye opener. The rich have definitely gotten richer.

But I digress. In a pure flat tax, the income groups would pay in proportion to the income they make. Thus the top 5% would pay 33% of all taxes. Ironically, that is more than they are paying now (about 25%), indictating that our current tax system is regressive overall. The poorer are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the richer.

Iriemon

It certainly is a tax. It is a forced payment to the government which goes into government coffers, and not your own. The SS taxes in theory may supposed to be segregated for SS benefits (which would still make it a tax) but in practice the Govt takes these SS tax revenues and uses them for general expenditures.

Conservatives like to pretend the SS tax -- a regressive tax of an effective rate of 12.8% (employer pays half) that stops at about $95k -- is not a tax, because then they can bring out phony statistics which purport to show that the top 5% pay more than half "the taxes", and other figures which for example show the bottom have only pay 3.6% of "the taxes".

The purpose of this intentional deception is, of course, to make it look like the rich are paying far more taxes than they should have too to support tax cuts on them.

How much did Bush cut the SS taxes the working poorer pay?

When was the last time you heard a conservative arguing to cut the SS tax?

The reason why is obvious isn't it?