Who pays what in taxes, and how it’s changed
This site has been host to a lot of discussion in recent months about the changing distribution of wealth in America, the relative tax burden we all bear and how that burden ought to be allocated among income groups. But a lot of that debate has gotten bogged down by citations of slanted or incomplete statistics, or statistics that make it hard to compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges.
So I thought I’d try to set some parameters for the debate by laying out the fairest, most definitive statistics I could find on those topics and offering them as a common ground for discussion. Think of this as an effort to establish a common factual basis for debate, something that has become more and more rare.
As a starting point, let’s look at how much household income is paid in total federal taxes. Again, that’s total taxes paid to the federal government — income taxes, payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, excise taxes, capital gains and corporate taxes, estate taxes, etc. That seems the fairest way to measure things.
And to further keep things straight, we’ll use numbers compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, available at the link above. (Those numbers, the most up-to-date I could find, begin in 1979 and run through 2006, so that’s the time frame we’ll analyze.)
According to the CBO, the poorest 20 percent of households in 1979 paid 8 percent of their income in federal taxes. By 2006, that same group — defined as those making $18,900 or less — were paying 4.3 percent of their income to the federal government. So as a percentage of income their tax burden has fallen.
However, that experience wasn’t unusual. In fact, ALL income categories paid considerably less of their income in federal taxes in 2006 than they did in 1979. The most affluent 1 percent, for example, paid 37 percent of its income in federal taxes in 1979, but only 31.2 percent in 2006. (The top 1 percent of households in ‘06 were defined as those making a minimum of $332,300).
So, the takeaway so far is that the federal government takes significantly less of each dollar now than it did in 1979, a statement that is true across income levels.
Now let’s look at the share of federal taxes actually paid by each income group, again as reported by the CBO.
In 1979, the poorest 20 percent of households accounted for 2.1 percent of total federal taxes paid. By 2006, they paid just 0.8 percent of total taxes. In stark contrast, the richest 1 percent of households paid 15.3 percent of all federal taxes in 1979; by 2006, they were paying 28.3 percent of all federal taxes, almost doubling their share of the burden.
In fact, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 20 percent (2006 household income of at least $71,200) rose from 56.4 percent in 1979 to 69.3 percent in 2006. For every other income group. it fell.
So the takeway here? The highest-income Americans are paying a heavier part of the tax load than they did in 1979. That has generated a lot of complaints that the “producers” are being penalized, a claim that I personally find repulsive because it suggests that the teachers, police officers, auto mechanics and small business people who make up the American middle class aren’t themselves “producers.”
Now for the final question: The richest of Americans — like all Americans — pay significantly less of each dollar of income than they did in 1979, yet somehow their share of the total tax burden has grown significantly. How could that happen? Is government unfairly targeting upper earners?
Hardly. The explanation has nothing to do with government policy. In blunt terms, the rich pay more of the tax burden today because they collect a lot more of the money than they have in most of American history. Over the past 30 years, the income of the lower and middle classes has stayed relatively flat, while it has soared for more affluent Americans.
One way to illustrate that is to look at what it takes to qualify at the various income levels. (The following discussion uses Census Bureau numbers, which differ slightly from those of the CBO).
For example, in 1979 it took a household income of $19,348 to stand at the 20 percent threshhold: At that point, you were making more than 20 percent of total U.S. households, but less than the remaining 80 percent. By 2006, a household that reached the 20 percent threshhold was earning $21,395. (All income is in 2006 dollars.) So households at that 20 percent economic level saw their real income rise by 10.5 percent in that 27-year period.
The income level needed to reach the 40 percent level — what you might call the entry point to the middle class — rose by 12.3 percent over that time frame. To reach the 60 percent level, the necessary income level rose from $55,282 in 1979 to $64,073 in 2006, an increase of 16 percent.
From there, though, things really took off. By 2006, a household making more than 80 percent of its peers was making 29.3 percent more than its counterpart did in 1979. And to qualify among the top 5 percent, your household had to be making 43.5 percent more than a top-5-percent household in 1979.
In other words, upper-income households haven’t been “penalized” for their success by higher tax rates, as some rhetoric claims; they’re paying more taxes because they’re reaping a much greater share of the income. The economy changed, and they benefited.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
318 comments Add your comment
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 23rd, 2010
9:27 am
Cut government spending, duuuuhhhhhhhh, just sayin…..
Jenifer
February 23rd, 2010
9:27 am
I don’t mind paying taxes. I get a lot in return.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
February 23rd, 2010
9:27 am
What, no nuklar power straw man?
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
9:28 am
“SENATOR CALLS FOR ‘CRIMINAL’ GLOBAL WARMING INVESTIGATION; WANTS GORE RECALLED TO EXPLAIN PRIOR TESTIMONY…”
I would pay to see Big Al on the stand.
Finn McCool
February 23rd, 2010
9:29 am
Here comes Swami Dave….
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
9:30 am
And in 1979 mortgage rates were nearing 20%.
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
9:34 am
So, Jay, is your “rhetoric” that the upper-income households, who yoy say are already paying a higher percent in taxes, be penalized by paying even higher taxes?
Finn McCool
February 23rd, 2010
9:35 am
“Numbers, shnumbers, just cut my taxes, pronto!”
~Any Republican
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
9:37 am
jimmy – “And in 1979 mortgage rates were nearing 20%.”
you do realize that there’s a difference between monetary policy and fiscal policy – not only in what they are, but who implements each.
Soothsayer
February 23rd, 2010
9:37 am
Over the past decade, “$5 billion in political contributions bought Wall Street freedom from regulation, (and) restraint.” From 1998 – 2008, “Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates (the FIRE sector)” spent over $1.7 billion in political contributions and another $3.4 billion on lobbyists, in return for which:
– they were freed from regulation;
– could speculate on financial derivatives and an alphabet soup of securitized garbage, including asset-backed securities (ABSs), mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), collateralized bond obligations (CBOs), credit default swaps (CDSs), and collateralized fund obligations (CFOs) – combined, sliced, diced, packaged, repackaged, and sold in tranches to sophisticated and ordinary investors, many unwittingly through mutual funds, 401(k)s, pensions, and the like;
– could merge commercial and investment banking and insurance operations;
– bilk investors and the public through fraudulent schemes; and
– get trillions of bailout dollars when the economy crashed.
For decades, Wall Street and successive governments colluded to defraud the public, using various schemes to transfer wealth from them to the privileged. Carter spearheaded deregulation Nixon and Ford began by hiring Alfred Kahn to head the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act followed. It dissolved the CAB, removed industry restraints, eased consolidation, and subsequent bills deregulated trucking and railroads – the 1980 Motor Carrier Act and 1980 Staggers Rail Act, following the 1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
This is probably the most comprehensive article I’ve ever read about the events leading up the “Finanical Crisis.” There’s enough blame for all–Republicans and Democrats. Read it now or save it to your “Favorites.” It’s well worth the read.
Scout
February 23rd, 2010
9:38 am
Bottom line: Come up with any charts, statistics, averages you want to but it’s OUT OF CONTROL!
Finn McCool
February 23rd, 2010
9:39 am
I’ll pay more in taxes if we can get some of these pot holes fixed. Driving in downtown Atlanta is like driving the Oregon trail in a Conestoga wagon.
Scout
February 23rd, 2010
9:39 am
P.S.
However, I don’t mind paying my part for Jay to embed with that platoon of Marines in Afghanistan. Heard from management yet Jay?
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
9:40 am
Interestingly, Jay’s statistics show that the rich are paying their fair share. Hmmm…there goes that talking point. Oh well…
Taxes are a necessary component of a functional government. What we need to do, from local to federal level, is make sure that money is used most wisely. So far we aren’t doing very good at that, way too much waste. Why not try to trim the waste before asking for more tax money to waste? This is not a partisan issue, it should not be, both sides are equal abusers.
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
9:41 am
yay, Scout – I was hoping you’d be here today …
I did a little more reading on the coventry blitz after our discussion yesterday – while I knew it was the Germans who coined the phrase “Coventrate”, I didn’t realize it was Goebbels, himself, that did it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz
thought you’d find it interesting
Jay
February 23rd, 2010
9:41 am
Jimmy, as the numbers make clear, the rich are paying considerably LESS of their income in taxes than they did a generation ago.
ty webb
February 23rd, 2010
9:42 am
Finn Mccool
“I’ll pay more in taxes if we can get some of these pot holes fixed. Driving in downtown Atlanta is like driving the Oregon trail in a Conestoga wagon.” You are aware that you can pay/donate more money than the gov’t says you owe?
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
9:44 am
For all the Bible thumpers I thought this was an pertinent quote:
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” ~ Luke 12:48
Jay
February 23rd, 2010
9:44 am
Scout, we haven’t had anybody embedded anywhere for years — only the NY Times, Wash Post and maybe LA Times can even afford it anymore, and they have very few. I did inquire about the possibility years ago, but was reminded that it was not among my duties as a deputy editorial page editor.
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
9:45 am
jewcowboy – more proof that Christ was a pinko commie hippy
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
9:45 am
But Jay. What about the top 400 income earners that filed a tax return over the years. Don’t they deserve a little attention too.
getaife
February 23rd, 2010
9:46 am
I have been posting for years our government is broken and America has finally woke up to this fact. Most thought Obama was the one that could fix it but they got punked. CNN is admitting it is broken so that is a start. Now, the hard part part. How to fix a broken government.
Voting the bums out is not a solution. Fixing a corrupt system is the solution but politicians will not do it. Who will fix a broken government?
Vinny
February 23rd, 2010
9:47 am
“…..they’re paying more taxes because they’re reaping a much greater share of the income.”
“Reaping”, Jay? Their not reaping it, their earning it. It’s not a “share” of income- It’s just income. Why do you libs always have to put wealth in the context that people aren’t earning it and that some get more of a “share” than others?
Jay
February 23rd, 2010
9:47 am
And Whacks, until the Great Recession drove GDP into the ground, the federal government had been spending a little less of our national output than it did back in the late ’70s. (See Table 3 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/)
Scooter
February 23rd, 2010
9:47 am
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
9:40 am
Well said,I couldn’t agree more.
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
9:47 am
There must be some unspoken rule amongst Republicans barring them from presenting facts.
ty webb
February 23rd, 2010
9:47 am
so their income is simply “given” to them?
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
February 23rd, 2010
9:48 am
Well, back in my army days all the DIs use to call a break and say “If you got ‘em, smoke ‘em.” Nowadays the saying is “If you got the money, make more.” That’s the way it needs to be in a Free Innerprize system. The big hogs get most of the slop. The little ones get what’s left over.
Now I know Swampy Dave’s going to get on here and rave about how we’re slapping the producers silly and giving everything to the welfare bums. And he’s got a point. We got to be real careful not to get in the big hog’s way. But I reckon we can live with what we got for now. I still see some of the 2 million buck houses going up and that means work for my fellow rednecks. And with that work those rednecks can buy a trailer on time.
Only, things are about to change, and not for the better neither. I see the people down at the statehouse are talking about slapping a buck a pack tax on smokes, and they’ll tax my Skoal and Redman more too. That ain’t the kind of change I need. That’s slapping me silly. This is what they call a revolting development. I want to see Swampy Dave rant about that for awhile, to stand up for me and not just the big hogs.
Anyhow, that’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
9:49 am
jewcowboy,
That is why many churches highly encourage their members to tithe. That’s 10%. Across the board. Those who have more pay more – well, give it back to God. And the Scripture that you mentioned is to encourage us to give beyond even the tithe, sacrificially. People who take the Christian faith seriously take this verse seriously, or they should. Note that it does not say that we should have to entrust it to Caesar, thankfully. We are responsible for our own giving.
Paul
February 23rd, 2010
9:49 am
Nicely done. A lot of research and thought went into that. Thanks, Jay.
I love data like this. Some people will reevaluate their past positions, while others will hold onto their ideology. Some things will never change.
The gap widens, the taxes paid don’t quite reflect that. Everybody’s a victim.
BTW – something I find ‘repulsive’ – Democrats’ changing the definition of “middle class” to encompass 98 percent of households. That’s the $250,000 a year of household income line – the “if you make less than $250,000 a year your taxes will not go up – you are middle class.” It was a vote-getting strategy – crass, calculated and possibly effective. What I cannot understand is how many Democratic rank and file and party activists bought this – let alone keep expounding upon it. “If you’re in the top three to five percent of household income you’re just average.”
Amazing.
Normal
February 23rd, 2010
9:49 am
USinUK,
more proof that Christ was a pinko commie hippy…
THAT’s why I like Him!
PinkoNeoConLibertarian
February 23rd, 2010
9:50 am
One chart I’ve never been able to find is the one that shows the percentage of total taxes paid by everyone vs. the percentage of total income of everyone. In other words, if the top 1% actually make 20% of the total income of all taxpayers then they should be paying 20% of all taxes collected. Likewise, if the bottom 1% make 1% of the total income then they should be paying 1% of all taxes.
All the charts are about how much of a percentage of income everyone pays. I don’t feel like that tells the whole story. Whatever percentage of the income is yours, that percentage of the tax burden should be yours as well.
Jay
February 23rd, 2010
9:51 am
So Vinny, is it your belief that the working class and middle class are working less hard than they used to, that they’ve become slackers? Is that why they get less of the national income than they have for most of American history?
Or are the more affluent merely reaping more of the benefits because they are the lucky beneficiaries of underlying changes in the economy?
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
9:52 am
USinUK,
“more proof that Christ was a pinko commie hippy”
And, Jesus was a super intelligent gay man
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/02/elton-john-jesus-was-a-superintelligent-gay-man.html
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
9:53 am
“so their income is simply “given” to them?”
since much is from investment income, one could make that argument …
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
9:54 am
You ask, Who pays federal taxes? Apparently, others ask the same question. Does the question and answer both fall on deaf Republican ears. Ehhh!
By the way, has anyone brought up that socialist concept called FairTax™ yet today.
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
9:54 am
jewcowboy – well, he did hang out with a bunch of guys AND he was super-handy in the kitchen …
Matilda
February 23rd, 2010
9:55 am
Whacks, at 9:40 “What we need to do, from local to federal level, is make sure that money is used most wisely.”
Such a simple, logical concept!! I can only believe people would rather shake their fingers and fists in a public partisan battle. Protesting and squawking outrage is FUN. Working with numbers and workflows to streamline processes, improve efficiency, and audit responsibly requires THOUGHT and effort. Borrrrrrr-iiiiing.
When we hire people to run the government who stand on their hatred for government, and claim that “government is the problem,” then they go out of their way to PROVE IT. Why not hire people who want to make it work more efficiently, cut waste, and improve results w/o raising taxes? Oh yeah, in addition to requiring work, that would be the dreadeed “S” word. Heh… How sad that brains are hard work really AREN’T appreciated in this country.
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
9:55 am
Normal,
So you like Jesus because you think he was a “pinko commie hippie”?
What about Him dying for you?
ty webb
February 23rd, 2010
9:55 am
“since much is from investment income, one could make that argument …”
and why can’t anyone else make these investments?
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
9:56 am
Jay
February 23rd, 2010
9:41 am
As are the poor.
kayaker 71
February 23rd, 2010
9:57 am
These figures were compiled long before Bozo became President and spent us into the poor house. You cannot expect me to believe that a 31% tax burden for those earning over 332K will persist when all of these Bozo programs become law and the upper and middle classes are faced with paying for them. What do you think these numbers will look like when Bush’s tax cuts are done away with by this energetic Congress? You also do not mention Earned Income Tax Credit which affords many households making below the magic number of 30K to recoup all of what is paid to the government in federal income taxes. That number of Americans has risen to about 40M by last count. Those of us who pay federal income taxes work well into the month of May to meet this requirement. Also the price of gas in 1979 was less than a dollar and a new car could be purchased for under 4K. Try doing that today. Apples and apples? I think not.
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
9:57 am
ty webb – “and why can’t anyone else make these investments”
hrmmm … groceries … investments … rent … investments … tough decision for folks on $14K/year
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
9:58 am
Matilda,
“Protesting and squawking outrage is FUN. Working with numbers and workflows to streamline processes, improve efficiency, and audit responsibly requires THOUGHT and effort. Borrrrrrr-iiiiing.”
You have hit something here. The whole of society is too focused on entertainment and immediate gratification, why should we not expect this to extend to the political arena as well?
“Oh, s&$t. There goes the planet.”
Vinny
February 23rd, 2010
9:58 am
Jay,
Answer my question first, then I might answer yours.
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
9:59 am
USinUK,
“well, he did hang out with a bunch of guys AND he was super-handy in the kitchen …”
And let me just tell…the whole water in to wine thing…he would be a brilliant dinner party guest.
ty webb
February 23rd, 2010
10:02 am
usinuk,
“hrmmm … groceries … investments … rent … investments … tough decision for folks on $14K/year”
ahh, let’s go a little further back. Why are they only making $14k/year? I’m no mind reader, but I’m guessing your answer will probably include the word “unfortunate”.
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:04 am
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
9:37 am
Yes I do understand the difference, however, various factors come in to play when a person is feeling the pinch from whatever direction. Pres Carter noticed the impact of taxes/unemployment/rising mortgage rates, etc, was so great that he created his “misery index”. If nothing else, this misery index illustrated what a first term Pres should NOT do if he wishes to become a 2nd term Pres.
If Jay is espousing a tax hike for the upper class, then they will surely howl, but if other factors in our economy (jobs, value of homes, etc) were going great, then the howling would be much less noticeable.
pat
February 23rd, 2010
10:04 am
Ok, so the richer you are the more you pay? We already knew that. The solution? Hit them even harder. Good idea. Taking money out of circualtion is always the logical choice when getting an economy moving agian.
Jenifer
February 23rd, 2010
10:04 am
Rep. King Justifies Suicide Attack On IRS: Sympathizes With Hatred Of IRS, Hopes For Its Destruction
It amazes me that this sort of vile comment isn’t automatically a career-ending move for a politician.
Contact him here:
http://steveking.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactForm
Washington D.C.
1131 Longworth Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202.225.4426
Fax: 202.225.3193
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/22/king-justifies-irs-terrorism/
Paul
February 23rd, 2010
10:05 am
Something else to think about – pick whatever level you consider ‘too rich’ or ‘obscenely wealthy’ to be and take all the income. It still would not be enough to cover the deficits and unfunded liabilities.
We’ve got some serious imbalances. Tax shares need to change – as do the kinds of spending we’re doing. But as Glenn Beck said at CPAC: “Democrats love to tax and spend. Republicans love to spend and not tax.”
First party to break the code gets the prize.
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
10:06 am
Does anyone honestly believe that everyone can have a job that pays some high wage, say $200,000 per year, if they just work hard enough. Even the Republican’s hero, John Wayne McCain, understands that some folks will just have to settle for less, say $50 per hour. There’s only room for so many chiefs. The rest have to be the little indians and that’s the way it is.
Jenifer
February 23rd, 2010
10:06 am
Did the Baptists ever get out of jail?
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
10:07 am
ty – 10:02 – your original question was whether or not the top 1% is “earned” – my point was that you could argue that, as it is investment income, it isn’t.
no judgements either way – just a statement – so, trying to pick a fight about whether people earning $14K/year are “unfortunate” or “aren’t trying” isn’t really relevent.
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:08 am
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
9:54 am
You asked if someone mentioned fair tax. Maybe not, but I did mention this:
“SENATOR CALLS FOR ‘CRIMINAL’ GLOBAL WARMING INVESTIGATION; WANTS GORE RECALLED TO EXPLAIN PRIOR TESTIMONY… ”
You gotta admit, it would make for great TV.
Or even this:
“Obama’s New Climate Agency Head Accused of Trying to Suppress Contrary Data… “
Jenifer
February 23rd, 2010
10:09 am
“Does anyone honestly believe that everyone can have a job that pays some high wage, say $200,000 per year, if they just work hard enough. Even the Republican’s hero, John Wayne McCain, understands that some folks will just have to settle for less, say $50 per hour. There’s only room for so many chiefs. The rest have to be the little indians and that’s the way it is.”
BINGO!
Matilda
February 23rd, 2010
10:10 am
HAHAHAHA! Good one, Paul! For a minute there, I thought you were actually citing that Beck fellow (the TV clown, not the awesome guitar genius) as a source to make your point. Then I saw that you intentinally omitted “borrow from others to spend in order to cut their own taxes” from the Repub comment, and I realized you were kidding. Good one! You really had me going there. Hahaha!
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:10 am
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
10:06 am
Before long you’ll probably be saying it’s a person’s “right” to be in the upper income bracket.
Paul
February 23rd, 2010
10:10 am
Jenifer
First you cited outrage over Senator Brown’s lack of PC-correct remorse. Now it’s Rep King.
Don’t you or the Faux Basement Boys you cite ever expand their outrage?
“Snipes Asks ‘What’s New?’ About IRS Plane Crash”
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=9891609
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
10:11 am
not jimmeh – “If nothing else, this misery index illustrated what a first term Pres should NOT do if he wishes to become a 2nd term Pres.”
well, considering the President has nothing whatsoever to do with the Fed Rate and/or 10-year yields (which set the 30-year mortgage rate), that particular part of the “cautionary tale” doesn’t really apply
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:11 am
Jenifer
February 23rd, 2010
10:09 am
bingo? No, no, I called “B7″ not “G7″. Try again.
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
10:11 am
Georgia Republicans have broken one of the unspoken rules — they are considering tax increases. The least they could do is maintain that time-honored tradition of calling them fees. The nerve of some Republicans! By the way, whatever happened to those Republican plans to cut spending to balance the budget. Were those cuts getting a little too deep. Blood starting to flow too freely. Was Cagle starting to worry that he might lose one or more of his 12-person staff. Then, how would he ever find the time to do his fundraising. The horror. I shudder at the thought of a politician working on something not related to fundraising.
Normal
February 23rd, 2010
10:11 am
Whacks, if you believe that version, good for you. But, it’s not my cup of tea.
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
10:11 am
The 1950’s seemed quite productive as far as American society advancing fiscally…maybe we should go back to those tax rates…or maybe we should have tax rates similar to what pulled us out of the Depression, or what we had during World War II…
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf
Scout
February 23rd, 2010
10:12 am
Jay: Too bad. I was hoping you would get to see how those “rules of engagement” drawn up by politicians and generals work at the platoon/squad/fireteam level. It would have been a great experience for you ……… unless you came home in a box because of those rules.
USinUK : Thanks for the info.
ty webb
February 23rd, 2010
10:12 am
usinuk,
my original question was directed at jewcowboy and his use of a bible verse. Not trying to pick a fight.
Normal
February 23rd, 2010
10:13 am
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
9:59 am
Guest? Shoot, He’d be a number One caterer…
md
February 23rd, 2010
10:13 am
Should a student that studies 24/7, sacrifices and does no partying and makes straight A’s have to share those A’s with a student that partys 24/7, does very little studying and makes D’s and F’s????
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
10:14 am
Scout – de nachos!
Dave R.
February 23rd, 2010
10:14 am
Jenifer, you might wish to READ the articles you link to from that whacko site ThinkProgress.
Rep. King never said that he hoped for the IRS’ “destruction”, but rather for it to be abolished. The former is an inflammatory statement not based in fact; the latter is accurate and certainly not inflammatory.
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:15 am
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
10:11 am
I guess I failed to make my point. Let me try again. The American public will hang high interest rates, unemployment, devalued homes, etc on a sitting Prez, although this Prez tries to hang it around his predecessor’s neck. I truly believe most Americans would not reject any thoughts of a tax increase if they have jobs, if their homes were not valued at 25% less than they were 3 years ago, and if they thought the money would be used wisely. Sadly, neither apply in this case.
While we may disagree, I still believe the “misery index” was one of the dumbest moves I’ve ever seen a Prez make.
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
10:15 am
Before long you’ll probably be saying it’s a person’s “right” to be in the upper income bracket
Were you trying to make a claim or a point with that line. What is this talk about one’s right to be in a particular income bracket that you now espouse.
Kamchak
February 23rd, 2010
10:16 am
Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
10:16 am
Normal,
“Guest? Shoot, He’d be a number One caterer…”
Yeah…but while fish is healthy, that much bread is just empty carbs
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
10:17 am
TaxPayer @ 9:54,
Are you a FairTax supporter? I have never understood why more liberals don’t back it – if for no other reason than the essential removal of all tax liability on the poor through the rebate program. Democrats – I understand why they don’t like it – it pulls too much power from the government. But true liberals, whose hearts are for the people and not the government, should recognize how valuable this could be!
Matilda
February 23rd, 2010
10:18 am
md, should a student who inherits a mess of straight A’s and sticks them in the bank where they, with no further studying from the student, mulitply and make more little A’s while the student is enjoying concerts and keggers, get to claim that all the A’s were earned through studying, hard work, and the sacrifice of fun?
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
10:18 am
jewcowby – “Yeah…but while fish is healthy, that much bread is just empty carbs”
feeding the 5K on salad wouldn’t pack the same punch, though …
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
10:20 am
Normal,
“Whacks, if you believe that version, good for you. But, it’s not my cup of tea.”
If Jesus was not who He said He was, then He was either insane or a pathological liar…but I am not for forcing anyone to believe anything. If it’s not done with an honest heart, it’s meaningless, and I think that applies for all religions…
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
10:21 am
Whacks – as someone who lives in a country with the VAT (which is all the “fair tax” is) – let me tell you, it causes more problems than it solves – particularly because consumer spending is MUCH more volatile than income
Kamchak
February 23rd, 2010
10:22 am
I have never understood why more liberals don’t back it…
Because if it is ever enacted, it will in no way resemble the two books you have so carefully memorized.
md
February 23rd, 2010
10:23 am
matilda – no.
But folks here seem to think we are comparing apples to apples.
Paul
February 23rd, 2010
10:23 am
Jenifer 10:09
‘Does anyone honestly believe that everyone can have a job that pays some high wage, say $200,000 per year, if they just work hard enough. Even the Republican’s hero, John Wayne McCain, understands that some folks will just have to settle for less, say $50 per hour”
- Democrats consider $250,000 a year to be middle class
- $50 an hour is over $100,000 a year.
- Median household income in the US is about $50,000 a year, or half what you cite as ‘the little Indians.’
Democrats morph into the New Republicans.
uga_b
February 23rd, 2010
10:24 am
I thought it was clever to redefine investors as “producers” (from the economic term meaning supplier of good or services) and then denigrate them. So to simplify, everyone can and should be a producer (although there are some that are not) simply by working. However, JOB producers are people who either have the capital or can borrow the capital to hire people. The more affluent tend to have greater access to capital due to savings or lower credit risk. Realizing that most police officers are not hiring people to do parts of their police work in no way belittes their contribution. I think people who play games with the meanings of words do far more damage to all workers.
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:24 am
“Consumer Confidence Falls to 10-Month Low…”
And this is change we can believe in?
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
10:26 am
Whacks Eloquent,
“Are you a FairTax supporter? I have never understood why more liberals don’t back it – if for no other reason than the essential removal of all tax liability on the poor through the rebate program.
Ask MARTA how reliable consumer spending is for planning a budget.
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:26 am
uga_b
February 23rd, 2010
10:24 am
Harumph, harumph!!
Paul
February 23rd, 2010
10:26 am
TaxPayer
I see you posted the quote before Jenifer at 10:09, didn’t mean to slight you –
Matilda
Big picture. Focus -
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
10:26 am
USinUK,
Sorry but the FairTax is not a VAT. The entire tax system would be scrapped on the federal level, and replaced with essentially a consumption tax. The VAT tax (at least the one Congress has mentioned) is just an additional tax thrown in at all steps along the way for a product, and does nothing to address the current tax structure.
As for consumer spending, it would go up – with that much money coming back into the hands of the consumers, it is inevitable. The thought is the people hit hardest by it are the ones who like to live life large…
Jimmy Carter
February 23rd, 2010
10:27 am
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
10:26 am
I cannot believe someone would bring up MARTA when discussing fiscal policy. That has to be one of the most mismanaged programs in the country.
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
10:28 am
jewcowboy,
“Ask MARTA how reliable consumer spending is for planning a budget.”
Only if you’ll ask them how to reasonably deal with ridiculous oversight legislation on how they spend their revenue.
Sam
February 23rd, 2010
10:29 am
Night Putting, he was night putting, just putting at night… with the fifteen-year-old daughter of the Dean… You know who that guy was Danny?
No.
Take one good guess.
Bob Hope?
Ha ha… No, that guy was Mitch Comstein, my roommate. He was a good guy.
Jay
February 23rd, 2010
10:29 am
That police officer certainly does produce jobs.
With his or her labor and willingness to risk life and limb, the officer makes it safe for other people to go about their business of working and spending and living.
Go to a country without an effective police force and see how many jobs there are.
And that’s true across the board. Everybody produces jobs. When I buy a car, I produce jobs. When you buy a newspaper ad, you produce jobs. The notion that only rich investors produce jobs is economic nonsense. They play A role, other people play other roles, and TOGETHER the economy grows.
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
10:29 am
Jimmy Carter,
“That has to be one of the most mismanaged programs in the country.”
Just because you say it, does not make it true.
TaxPayer
February 23rd, 2010
10:29 am
Whacks,
FairTax™ is nothing but socialism for all but the wealthiest and I do not support it. It would do nothing more than get all the poor on the hook waiting for their prebate check to arrive each month so they could afford to pay out 23%+ in taxes. What we need the Republicans and conservatives to concentrate on are things like sustainable jobs and healthcare and to get off the notion that extreme boom-bust swings in our economy are a good thing, for example. Ayn Rand is worse than fiction. It was the basis for never-ending movie series such as “A Nightmare on Wall Street.” Horror. Plain and simple.
Whacks Eloquent
February 23rd, 2010
10:29 am
“Ask MARTA how reliable consumer spending is for planning a budget.”
Only if you’ll ask them how to reasonably deal with oppressive legislation on how they spend their revenue.
USinUK
February 23rd, 2010
10:32 am
Whacks – “Sorry but the FairTax is not a VAT. The entire tax system would be scrapped on the federal level, and replaced with essentially a consumption tax”
what do you think VAT is? it’s the consumption tax on all goods and services.
HDB
February 23rd, 2010
10:32 am
Good morning, Whacks!!
The reason why many don’t support the Fair Tax idea is that it’s another tax shift making the structure MORE regressive!! I’ve read it…and what it does is shift the tax burden to those who can least afford the tax increase. As someone illustrated last time: a 50K tax increase on someone making 50M isn’t felt as much as a $1500 increase on someone making 50K!
Sam
February 23rd, 2010
10:32 am
Remember Danny, Two wrongs don’t make a right but three rights make a left.
,
jewcowboy
February 23rd, 2010
10:33 am
Whacks Eloquent,
Only if you’ll ask them how to reasonably deal with oppressive legislation on how they spend their revenue.
Sure, here you go:
Legislation:
http://itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/News_And_Events/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/MARTA%202010%20Legislative%20Agenda.pdf
Revenue: http://itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/News_And_Events/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/Final%20Financial%20Highlights%20II.pdf
http://itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/News_And_Events/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/the-case-for-investment(1).pdf
Sam
February 23rd, 2010
10:33 am
just think how wonderful it all wouold be if we had the Fair Tax right now! oh wait a minute, we be in much worse shape…forget it..