Who really pays taxes in the US.

[DKW 86 7,441]

http://libertyissues.com/quacks.htm

See the graph at the bottom of the page.

It wont reproduce and be clear enough to suit me.

Basically if your AGI today is >$200K

you paid 41% of total taxes

you were in the Top 2% of income makers in the US in 2001.

Basically if your AGI today is between $100-199K

you paid 21% of total taxes

you were in the Top 8.5% of income makers in the US in 2001.

Basically if your AGI today is between $75-99K

you paid 11% of total taxes

you were in the Top 15% of income makers in the US in 2001.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Heck, I paid 21% on $96,000 in 2000, and that's with write-offs.

[LegalEagle 22]

Let's see, if you made over $200k, how much money did you take home to play with?

Mmm, If you made over $100k, how much did you have to play with after taxes?

If you made less than $40k, how much did you have to play with after taxes?

Geez, what if you subtracted necessary expenses?

Dang, poor ol' rich folks are having it rough! If they can just get the poor to pay more and take less, just think what kind of foreign car they could buy. I'm thinking Italian. . .

[Tigermike 3,054]

Let's see, if you made over $200k, how much money did you take home to play with?

Mmm, If you made over $100k, how much did you have to play with after taxes?

If you made less than $40k, how much did you have to play with after taxes?

Geez, what if you subtracted necessary expenses?

Dang, poor ol' rich folks are having it rough! If they can just get the poor to pay more and take less, just think what kind of foreign car they could buy. I'm thinking Italian. . .

It would be a good start if all you lawyers and dems were to give away everything over $40,000 away.

PM me and I will give you the address to send the check.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Let's see, if you made over $200k, how much money did you take home to play with?

Mmm, If you made over $100k, how much did you have to play with after taxes?

If you made less than $40k, how much did you have to play with after taxes?

Geez, what if you subtracted necessary expenses?

Dang, poor ol' rich folks are having it rough! If they can just get the poor to pay more and take less, just think what kind of foreign car they could buy. I'm thinking Italian. . .

Said the lawyer...

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I can't add to this.

Excerpt from:

Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?

by Ron Paul

You don’t cost the government money, the government costs you money!

Of course it’s reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That’s the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That’s why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.

I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.

Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. “Tax Freedom Day,” representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul348.html

[LegalEagle 22]

Check out this site. It's too complex to paste here. I have not formulated an opinion of it, but merely scanned it and found it most interesting.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

We pay over $400 Billion of interest payments each year on the national debt. If Dave Ramsey were president, we'd be debt free and could reduce our taxes by $400B a year with no reduction in services.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Check out this site. It's too complex to paste here. I have not formulated an opinion of it, but merely scanned it and found it most interesting.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

We pay over $400 Billion of interest payments each year on the national debt. If Dave Ramsey were president, we'd be debt free and could reduce our taxes by $400B a year with no reduction in services.

Dave Ramsey could run for office in my Third Party.

[otterinbham 0]

Check out this site. It's too complex to paste here. I have not formulated an opinion of it, but merely scanned it and found it most interesting.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

We pay over $400 Billion of interest payments each year on the national debt. If Dave Ramsey were president, we'd be debt free and could reduce our taxes by $400B a year with no reduction in services.

Actually if George Bush had actually been a conservative president, we would have had a balanced budget by now. The reduced tax rates actually produced increased tax collections. Had he toed the line on increased spending, rather than dream up brand new boondoggles such as the Medicare Prescription Act, we would be looking at lower taxes and a balanced budget--something that our liberal counterparts have told us was impossible for yours.

Bush has been a total disaster as a president.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Check out this site. It's too complex to paste here. I have not formulated an opinion of it, but merely scanned it and found it most interesting.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

We pay over $400 Billion of interest payments each year on the national debt. If Dave Ramsey were president, we'd be debt free and could reduce our taxes by $400B a year with no reduction in services.

Actually if George Bush had actually been a conservative president, we would have had a balanced budget by now. The reduced tax rates actually produced increased tax collections. Had he toed the line on increased spending, rather than dream up brand new boondoggles such as the Medicare Prescription Act, we would be looking at lower taxes and a balanced budget--something that our liberal counterparts have told us was impossible for yours.

Bush has been a total disaster as a president.

Fiscally, he could not have been worse. He did realize that cutting taxes would get us out of the Clinton-Gore Recession. So not a total disaster. Give him a 20/100. He did do something right, not much, but it was something. His refusal to add troops in Iraq has likely cost us the War in the long run. But then again, I could make a long point that Saddam was overseeing just a long protracted Civil War himself. He had already massacred the Shi'ites. He had already gassed the Kurds. When we leave, it will likely be a total Civil War versus a protracted one. Iraq was a country made from a bunch of Brits drawing on a map, nothing more.