Catawba;1059299528]Correct.
Bald face lie, I have shown, in no uncertain terms where they pay and equal (actually slightly above) tax in relationship to their income.
.
Incorrect. You did not address the decreased tax rate for the top income earners, the payroll tax, the tax loopholes or the business deductions for corporations that have been provided.
Apparently you have a huge comprehension problem, the site given, gave total
TAXES PAID
do you understand what taxes paid to the IRS are ??? Seeing apparently you don't because taxes paid, come after all deductions, after all the loop holes, after everything, it “is” what the government receives .
"Over the last 60 years, the U.S. tax code has dramatically shifted away from corporate taxes and toward taxes on individuals, especially through the payroll tax, the financing backbone of Social Security and Medicare.
In the 1950s, the corporate income tax brought in, on average, one of every four dollars in federal tax revenues. By the 2000s, however, it raised just one of every 10 tax dollars.
The shrinking share of corporate taxes was made up by an increase in payroll taxes to fund social insurance and retirement programs. Excise and other taxes—such as fuel taxes, phone taxes, etc.—shrank as well over the last 60 years, while the individual federal income tax rose slightly, from an average of 43% of total federal revenue in the 1950s to 46% in the 2000s.
This shift is important because of who pays these different taxes. The corporate income tax is significantly more progressive than other taxes. Those with incomes in the top 20% of the income distribution (those making more than about $86,000 a year in 2007) pay four times the average tax rate on corporate income than the middle 20% (those making between $27,000 and $48,000); while, for the payroll tax, those in the top 20% actually pay less than those in the middle as a share of their income.1
This shift has been one of the factors leading to the drop in average federal tax rates for the very highest earners. Between 1960 and 2004, the average tax rate has fallen by about 14 percentage points (from 44.4% to 30.4%) for the top 1% of earners (those making more than $435,000 in 2007), while it has increased slightly (from 15.9% to 16.1%) for those in the middle 20%. 2
Without offsets, further erosion of corporate tax revenues—either through lower statutory tax rates or through special preferences—would expand the already wide and growing income inequality in the United States.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20080409/"
I"m not even sure what all that is suppose to mean, sounds like you are saying that we aren't getting enough income from corporate income taxes, if that be the case, you might want to explain why the US now has the "highest" corporate income tax rate in the world. This only goes to show, that "higher" taxes don't alway equate to more income for the government does it? Now seeing as you seem to be saying that we have lost much of our corporate income tax, while at the same time having the highest corporate tax rates in the world, a good question would be how can that be ??
What I posted before was their conclusions from the study as a whole. What you are doing above is cherry picking. Again, from their conclusions:
Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)."
"And now we have arrived at the point I want to make. If the top 1% of households have 30-35% of the wealth, that's 30 to 35 times what we would expect by chance, and so we infer they must be powerful. And then we set out to see if the same set of households scores high on other power indicators (it does). Next we study how that power operates, which is what most articles on this site are about. Furthermore, if the top 20% have 84% of the wealth (and recall that 10% have 85% to 90% of the stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity), that means that the United States is a power pyramid. It's tough for the bottom 80% -- maybe even the bottom 90% -- to get organized and exercise much power."
"And the rate of increase is even higher for the very richest of the rich: the top 400 income earners in the United States. According to another analysis by Johnston (2010a), the average income of the top 400 tripled during the Clinton Administration and doubled during the first seven years of the Bush Administration. So by 2007, the top 400 averaged $344.8 million per person, up 31% from an average of $263.3 million just one year earlier. (For another recent revealing study by Johnston, read "Is Our Tax System Helping Us Create Wealth?").
How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It's also worth noting that only the first $106,800 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security purposes (as of 2010), so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone -- not just those making less than $106,800 -- paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes."
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
-laughing- see I told everyone you would come up with yet another "yeah but"
First your issue of tax equality was debunked, by showing where the wealthy pay an equal percent of tax to wealth ratio.
Then I show were the overall wealth of the wealthy hasn't grown over the last 24 years,
So now we are down to power, the wealthy has more power, well welcome to the real world, this isn't some new concept devisied since Reagon, it has always been that way, and unless we go to a communistic state, it will always be.
We have gone from the wealthest 1% to the wealthest .1% now to the wealthest 400 people. sooner or later I suppose you can make your argument stick. But you will never, in your lifetime ever get me to agree that a 70 to 80 percent tax rate on anyone even the top 400 people is fair. If that is fair, then so should this be .... anyone that is capable of working, that has been on welfare for more then 5 years should be booted from the welfare rolls.
As for tax revenues, and tax cuts, and whatever else you want to include, just remember this one thing, 50% of the people in this country pay 3% of all taxes paid. yet despite this, with all the tax cuts that started with Reagan, tax revenue have steadily increased.
Receipts and Outlays of the Federal Government, 1789 What we have is not a tax revenue problem, what we have is out of control government spending.
This is where the thinking between liberals and conservatives clash, and always will. As the chart from the link above shows, that it doesn't matter what our government takes in, it will spend at best all of it, and at worse billions more. What has to change is not punishing our wealthy, but forcing government to be more mindful of our money. making it smaller and more efficient. Just as dereguation has never hurt our country, what has hurt it, is over regulation, we need to make our regulations effective, and enforce those regulations.
