Let's talk about Taxes. About "fair shares" and such

[Tigermike 3,063]

As the "tax the rich" and "the rich aren't paying their 'fair share'" mantra heats up among the class-warfare Democrats (Are there any who don't recite that mantra?), a simple graphic tells the real tale.

The obvious point, obvious to all those who get beyond the "fairness" rhetoric, is the "rich" pay much more than their fair share. In fact, the rich pay the bulk of the income taxes collected.

And, in fact, according to the last numbers I heard, the bottom 50% of income earners pay 3% of the income taxes collected.

So, unless you have a completely warped sense of fairness, it seems that those we consider rich pay more than their fair share when it comes to the total of income taxes collected.

Some would argue they only pay a small share of their income in taxes and thus it doesn't hurt them as badly to pay taxes.

Well, I'm not sure how the zero income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of income earners hurts them more, are you?

The other argument is that payroll taxes hurt the poor much worse than the rich. There's a very simple solution to that problem which, of course, politicians are going to ignore.

But there is something else to think about here. Who are these rich? 80% of all businesses in the US are small businesses, many of them sub-chapter S corporations which means that their business income is reported through their personal income tax.

They are also the job generators out there. As they grow so do job opportunities. But as with most businesses, when things get tight, when costs increase with no offsetting revenue, the easiest way to weather such increases is by reducing headcount. That is a direct, bottom-line cost.

So if your small business is facing increased taxation because your S-corp. is in that upper 5% of income earners, yet business income isn't increasing (and won't increase) enough to offset the promised taxes, what are you going to do?

If the Democratic plan to make taxation "fairer" by increasing the already burdensome taxes on 'the rich' comes to fruition, 7% unemployment may be considered by some as "the good old days". Such a plan may be good politics in an election year, but especially when facing recessionary pressures, it is dumb economics. And trust me, the laws of economics will indeed play out over the smoke and mirrors of politics when all is said and done.

Thanks McQ

[HuntsvilleTiger 0]

As the "tax the rich" and "the rich aren't paying their 'fair share'" mantra heats up among the class-warfare Democrats (Are there any who don't recite that mantra?), a simple graphic tells the real tale.

The obvious point, obvious to all those who get beyond the "fairness" rhetoric, is the "rich" pay much more than their fair share. In fact, the rich pay the bulk of the income taxes collected.

And, in fact, according to the last numbers I heard, the bottom 50% of income earners pay 3% of the income taxes collected.

So, unless you have a completely warped sense of fairness, it seems that those we consider rich pay more than their fair share when it comes to the total of income taxes collected.

Some would argue they only pay a small share of their income in taxes and thus it doesn't hurt them as badly to pay taxes.

Well, I'm not sure how the zero income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of income earners hurts them more, are you?

The other argument is that payroll taxes hurt the poor much worse than the rich. There's a very simple solution to that problem which, of course, politicians are going to ignore.

But there is something else to think about here. Who are these rich? 80% of all businesses in the US are small businesses, many of them sub-chapter S corporations which means that their business income is reported through their personal income tax.

They are also the job generators out there. As they grow so do job opportunities. But as with most businesses, when things get tight, when costs increase with no offsetting revenue, the easiest way to weather such increases is by reducing headcount. That is a direct, bottom-line cost.

So if your small business is facing increased taxation because your S-corp. is in that upper 5% of income earners, yet business income isn't increasing (and won't increase) enough to offset the promised taxes, what are you going to do?

If the Democratic plan to make taxation "fairer" by increasing the already burdensome taxes on 'the rich' comes to fruition, 7% unemployment may be considered by some as "the good old days". Such a plan may be good politics in an election year, but especially when facing recessionary pressures, it is dumb economics. And trust me, the laws of economics will indeed play out over the smoke and mirrors of politics when all is said and done.

Thanks McQ

I guess I should point out that the share of total income for the rich has risen 7% (for the top 1%) and 9% (for the top 5%) in the last 15 years before someone else does and goes off on that. Is it a sign of the "increasingly wide gap between the rich and the poor"? As far as the share of taxes goes, I do think these stats make your point (i.e. The "rich" are paying their fair share"). It is a bit worrisome to me that the total share of income has increased that much for the "rich". Although it could easily mean that the uber rich are making less yet still in the top % while some middle class are making more and joining in that top %. It'd be interesting to see the full set of statistics to see what incomes are included in the top 5% of earners to see what the total share of income numbers really mean. It's obvious what the total share of taxes statistics means. The top 5% of income earners are paying for our overblown government spending!

[GoAU 1,603]

I wouldn't classify myself as "rich' - but I sure know I'm paying my fair share, and then some...

[AFTiger 282]

I guess I should point out that the share of total income for the rich has risen 7% (for the top 1%) and 9% (for the top 5%) in the last 15 years before someone else does and goes off on that. Is it a sign of the "increasingly wide gap between the rich and the poor"? As far as the share of taxes goes, I do think these stats make your point (i.e. The "rich" are paying their fair share"). It is a bit worrisome to me that the total share of income has increased that much for the "rich". Although it could easily mean that the uber rich are making less yet still in the top % while some middle class are making more and joining in that top %. It'd be interesting to see the full set of statistics to see what incomes are included in the top 5% of earners to see what the total share of income numbers really mean. It's obvious what the total share of taxes statistics means. The top 5% of income earners are paying for our overblown government spending!

But under the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the share if total income for the top 1% and 5% stayed nearly the same. The seven percent you are talking about came under Clinton, who after working so hard, couldn't keep his promise and lower taxes for the middle class.

[HuntsvilleTiger 0]

I guess I should point out that the share of total income for the rich has risen 7% (for the top 1%) and 9% (for the top 5%) in the last 15 years before someone else does and goes off on that. Is it a sign of the "increasingly wide gap between the rich and the poor"? As far as the share of taxes goes, I do think these stats make your point (i.e. The "rich" are paying their fair share"). It is a bit worrisome to me that the total share of income has increased that much for the "rich". Although it could easily mean that the uber rich are making less yet still in the top % while some middle class are making more and joining in that top %. It'd be interesting to see the full set of statistics to see what incomes are included in the top 5% of earners to see what the total share of income numbers really mean. It's obvious what the total share of taxes statistics means. The top 5% of income earners are paying for our overblown government spending!

But under the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the share if total income for the top 1% and 5% stayed nearly the same. The seven percent you are talking about came under Clinton, who after working so hard, couldn't keep his promise and lower taxes for the middle class.

I guess I was looking at the statistics as a whole and didn't even think of what administrations were in when, when I made my post. I was just stating the growth over the last 15 years. It does look like under the Bush administration it has flatlined, so Yeah Bush Tax Cuts! But still, it would be interesting to have all the numbers to crunch around myself.

And I'm with GoAU, I think I'm probably paying my fair share too!

[BamaGrad03 0]

But if your "fair share" is 50% less (in terms of percentage of income)...is that fair?

[autigeremt 6,719]

Overall.....the % we pay now it too high to begin with. We shouldn't have to pay more than 25% of our income.

A flat 25% tax would be a fair ammount.