Reply With Quote
We're all different than you...hopefully.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...400/print.html
The top 400: Income way up and taxes way, way down
A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year
By Joe Conason
Feb. 17, 2010 |
Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).
So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.
In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year. Meanwhile, Johnston writes, "Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007." He also notes that the IRS data probably understates the income of the top 400, because of deferral rules enjoyed by hedge fund managers (at least three of whom earned $3 billion or more in 2007).
Johnston's data comes from the latest edition of an annual IRS study of the top 400 taxpayers, which was first made public during the Clinton presidency. When Bush became president, unsurprisingly, he curtailed public access to the top 400 report for eight years. The Obama administration has made the report available this year, but such embarrassing statistics will no doubt be buried again as soon as the Republicans return to power.
-- By Joe Conason
=====
So where are the facts from (mostly non-rich) people who say the rich should get bigger tax cuts because they pay so much more than the non-rich?
Wonderfully self-serving how wealthy dubya and head REFUSED TO DISCLOSE the IRS data on rich people for 8 years. That's one tactic how you get poor dumb- red-staters to vote against their best interests and for the super-wealthy.
We're all different than you...hopefully.
Yes.
Let's make policy based on 400 people in a country of 300 million. Let's get all worked up over THEM. BTW; Any of them in Congress? Any of them friends of Congressmen? Only Republicans in your World, eh B?
I ain't rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I sure as pay more than 16.7% of my income in taxes. And you know what? I got a nice tax break in '01 - and am prepared to lose it next year. I know you want to stick it to the man, B - but you DO realize that those 400 are going to do just ing fine now matter WHO is in office, right? It's not about them: EVER - they OWN the ing Congress! It's about you and me - and I am about to get ed (as is every small business owner, or anyone else, in this country who has managed to eek out a low 6 figure income).
Class envy.
So the top 400 people are paying 17% and the bottom 47% are paying 0% or less.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/t...axes/index.htm
So you right wingers are just fine "getting screwed by taxes" while the super-wealthy get a pass?
Billionaire fund managers are taxed at capital gains 15% for their _FEE_ income for managing other people's investment money. No problem for you guys.
And what about the 50,000 US richies who hide their incomes in Switzerland? I guess all y'all think "Whatever screws the govt is fine with us right-wingers".
What, exactly, is being proposed to make sure those (400 or 50,000) are going to pay their fair share, that doesn't also lump a bunch of not "richies" in with them?
Also, it's easy to get pissed about what's happening with a (very small) number of elite taxpayers; when it really doesn't matter; take all of their money, and it doesn't begin to make a dent is covering what our dear leaders are spending. Dems at the national level get it; they HAVE to raise taxes on everybody to cover Congresses glutonous appe e for largesse; they just make sure dupes like you feel good thinking their REAL goal is to stick it to the super wealthy (also known as their friends, neighbors and benefactors).
You are the classic useful idiot, B.
Oh, and....Straw-man much?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...400/print.html
The top 400: Income way up and taxes way, way down
A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year
By Joe Conason
Feb. 17, 2010 |
Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).
So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.
In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year. Meanwhile, Johnston writes, "Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007." He also notes that the IRS data probably understates the income of the top 400, because of deferral rules enjoyed by hedge fund managers (at least three of whom earned $3 billion or more in 2007).
Johnston's data comes from the latest edition of an annual IRS study of the top 400 taxpayers, which was first made public during the Clinton presidency. When Bush became president, unsurprisingly, he curtailed public access to the top 400 report for eight years. The Obama administration has made the report available this year, but such embarrassing statistics will no doubt be buried again as soon as the Republicans return to power.
-- By Joe Conason
=====
So where are the facts from (mostly non-rich) people who say the rich should get bigger tax cuts because they pay so much more than the non-rich?
Wonderfully self-serving how wealthy dubya and head REFUSED TO DISCLOSE the IRS data on rich people for 8 years. That's one tactic how you get poor dumb- red-staters to vote against their best interests and for the super-wealthy.
400 people is nothing! Goddamn you class envy suckers are so ing stupid. Those top 400 people are the business owners who employ thousands and thousands of people. Take your blindfolds off and stop whining about the have and have nots.
Between the federal income tax, as well as the federal payroll taxes (not to mention state income taxes) the little people are soaked regularly. Or, when your income is primarily in the form of wages, you're fighting uphill to ac ulate savings. And even what you manage to save is subject to mediocre returns, thanks in part to a Federal Reserve which is artificially keeping interest rates low.
Perhaps someday the little people will receive a larger allowance from the politicians. But as long as the various nuts with their grand schemes continue to ascend to the thrones of power in this country, that's unlikely.
That's a good one.
"Those top 400 people are the business owners who employ thousands and thousands of people"
proof? My bet is that they are mostly capitalists playing investment games, and playing with inherited wealth, employing essentially nobody, not corporate barons (who anyway pocket huge bonuses every time they cut another 10K jobs).
"Those top 400 people are the business owners who employ thousands and thousands of people"
proof? My bet is that they are mostly capitalists playing investment games, and playing with inherited wealth, employing essentially nobody, not corporate barons (who anyway pocket huge bonuses every time they cut another 10K jobs).
Go yourself with your antagonistic class warfare.
You obviously don't believe in the American Dream, and might have a different at ude if you paid any decent amount of taxes.
I think 17% of their income is plenty. Consider this. They have their retirement planned. They will likely never dip into Social Security as they likely don't pay any or qualify for it. Their earnings are likely only capitol gains and dividend earnings, which means the money they earned are from stocks. They already paid 35% as part of their ownership, and now you think another 17% isn't enough more?
Go yourself you Marxist pig.
Would you be in favor of raising the tax rate on those 400 if it were possible, to the same level that you pay?
As ever, you have him in the crushing grip of reason.
Well played sir, well played.
They gotta feed they families
And other people's families.
That shouldn't be a problem.
Why employ people and deal with risk, unions and all that crap?
Just invest in the too big to fail companies. No risk, and you end up making money by leeching on their success, or even their failure!
Land of opportunity, indeed.
"Why employ people and deal with risk, unions and all that crap"
Exactly. US mfrs would rather "buy" (in Asia) than "make" in USA. Mfrs have become importers, distributors, wholesalers to the greatest extent they can manage.
Those 8M jobs lost in the Banksters' Great Depression aren't ever gonna come back any where near completely.
It IS the same; the same code for all of us; Are they doing anything illegal, or just taking advantage of loopholes that are there for all of us - and doing it well? , I just got a $1500 credit on a new door and furnace I had installed; that "lowered" my effective rate, didn't it? Did I do anything wrong?
Those 400 aren't the problem; the screwed up tax code is the problem.
I would be in favor of a flat tax to end this crap.
You in?
How does that work?
It's really not that hard to turn Earned income into portfolio income.
Quit crying and learn to play the game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
