Hannity falsely claimed "50 percent of American households no longer pay taxes"
Fox News' Sean Hannity falsely claimed that "50 percent of American households no longer pay taxes." In fact, while 47 percent of American households pay no federal income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, the "vast majority" of these households reportedly pay other taxes.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the April 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: You know, we saw stories this week where people were saying, all right, health care, where do I sign up for my free Obama health care? We saw stories this week, 50 percent of American households no longer pay taxes. What does that mean for America if you have a voting electorate that's not paying any taxes?
Nearly half of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes, but most reportedly pay other taxes
Tax Policy Center: 47 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax this year. In a June 29, 2009, report, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) stated that "[e]arlier this year, [President] Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. TPC estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of tax units will owe no income tax in 2009." The Associated Press cited that statistic in an April 7 article, noting that "their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability."
AP: "[V]ast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes." The AP further wrote that "[t]he vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property."
Hannity made similar false claim on previous show
Hannity, April 8: "50 percent of Americans no longer pay taxes. They don't pay income taxes." On the April 8 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity said: "But there was a big report today. It came up on the AP. It was the Drudge headline last night before I went to bed. And I got here in Grand Rapids, and I'm reading the Internet, and 50 percent of Americans no longer pay taxes. They don't pay income taxes. So we -- and it seems like, at this point, what incentive is there going to be for the people that are paying taxes?"
I wonder what percentage of those people not paying fed income tax use federal subsidized services? I bet, not a lot.
Second, you need to go back to math class. If he is talking about the "top 1%" how can that be equal to 50% not paying taxes?
As said above, you can't have it both ways. Which is it?
For every tax dollar paid to the U.S. government the bottom 20 percent receive $8.21 in government spending. The highest earner receive only $.41 in government spending.
So according to this study in 2007, you are dead wrong. Those not paying federal income tax receive the the most in returned government spending.
"Are we taxed too much, or not taxed enough?"
Well, I can only answer for myself. I know I spend my money better than the government does, so I'm taxed to much. MAybe if you think the government spends it more wisely than you would, you could consider paying more taxes. We could have a voluntary tax policy. :)
And if you think you can fund the common good better than government, I propose you buy your own libraries, roads, hospitals, fire and police departments, waterworks, public parks, court system and banks or just stop using it all. I also propose you send back your social security checks when you start receiving them.
Also, baloney. The wealthy benefit disproportionately from our infrastructure. They receive an educated work force, roads to conduct their commerce, courts to protect their contracts, banks to secure their wealth; and all the tax breaks they get for zoning, write offs for subsidies and flat out tax cuts amount to tax hikes on the poor because those revenue shortfalls choke funding for public needs. Tuitions, for example, go up as federal spending on universities decrease. That tuition hike is a tax on the people who cannot afford higher education.
The real problem is a shortage of living wages. The real problem is that more and more Americans earn below the poverty line because America's economic royalty feel entitled to take more and more for themselves regardless of their merit.
Wake up. It's absolutely disgusting that you would condescend to a working Joe who works a full time job, maybe two, and still qualifies for federal aid because his employer looks at him as an expense to be cut, instead of a vital member of the company to be nurtured.
Looking at one year's worth of taxes is bogus, for one thing. The wealthiest people are most likely to be older, working adults. That means they don't need Social Security or Medicare nor do they have kids in school.
And then they didn't look at ALL Government spending.
You distorted what we know to be true. But considering your posting history here, it's exactly what we expected.
magnolialover, you should really try to learn how to read! I bet there's a federally subsidized program out there just for you! (GED programs are often funded by federal grant.)
Oh snap! Mags is gonna need some ice for that burn! It would have been perfect if you had capped it off by saying "idiot" and sticking your tounge out.
It is not my job to pay for someone else's freebies. Nobody should get benefits from the government. All I want from the government is a military, a police force, and jails. Other than that I neither need nor want ANYTHING from government.
Above, he states that all he wants is "a military, a police force, and jails."
Then below in a subsequent post, he tosses in "F-16s, waterboards, and aid to Israel."
I can't wait to see what's next on his shopping list.
When Sarah Palin is president in two years, the waterboarding will commence anew.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/05/socialism-vs-tea-parties/
You don't. You have the freedom to move to Somalia. It is a libertarian paradise.
All I want from the government is a military, a police force, and jails. - BJ
Oh, so you are not against all socialism. You just want the government to only give the entire country the socialism that BJ chooses. Get over yourself. You are not that important. You are also appalling ignorant of all that government does. No more meat inspectors? You are a buffoon.
You fogot the 'ly' on appalling. You think lawlessness is the same as libertarian, and you think having a military, police, and jails, is selective socialism.
You shouldn't call names, especially when they apply to you.
"Oh, so you are not against all socialism."-mikehuck
"You just want the government to only give the entire country the socialism that BJ chooses."
My mistake I confused you with Bobby. :)
"Are you suggesting that we do not have socialized law enforcement?"
Maybe something like the FBI could be considered a socialized law enforcement body (maybe). But your local police forces are certainly not. Their is no Federal Police agency that directs and organizes local law enforcement. It is a pretty loose organization.
Besides that even federal law enforcement agencies like the ATF, and FBI are independent of eachother. They all might be 'government' agencies but they are not controlled by a single centralized entity. So no, I'd argue that no the law enforcement in this country is not socialized in that sense.
We not only pay taxes for our mail service, beautiful parks and our firefighters who bravely went into those towers and saved lives....but we pay taxes for those who are in need when they lose a job, are disabled, our children's education, etc. That's the way it has been for decades. That's how our Country rolls.
I was told to 'leave' when I disgreed with Bush...so I'll tell you the same thing: If you don't like the way this Country has been run for the last 100 years, then leave.
But even if you did only travel by private jet, you still wouldn't be able to maintain your opulant lifestyle for long if the government only did law enforcement and defense, because the result would be increasing illiteracy, lawlessness, environmental destruction, poverty and decay that would inevitably trickle right back up to you.
The rich are the disproportionate beneficiaries of a modern society which allows all of us to live civilized lives. And modern society rests on certain basic government services, like education, adequate road systems, sewage and garbage disposal, postal services and electrical grids etc. etc. etc.
This is one of many reasons why the rich should pay a higher percentage of taxes. Don't it take it me, take it from Adam Smith.
Maybe you could clarify what you mean. How do the rich benefit more than the poor from government education, roads, sewage, garbage, and postal systems?
It seems like the poor benefit more, the rich could afford private schools. It seems like roads, sewage, garbage disposal, postal services, and eletrical grids are neutral. I don't see how they benefit the rich more than the poor. Especially since the rich are paying for them, and the poor are using them for free.
As far as Adam Smith goes, his agreement with increased taxation on the wealthy does not translate into agreement with what is going on today. He was pretty explicit in his tax policy, it was not meant to support the bloated government we currently have.
Is that what you are saying?
Your average Joe doesn't provide a service that 27 million people use every day. Or in one store about 1500 people a day. (Same link.)
In 2008 Mcdonalds paid $1.8 billion dollars in income taxes. (pg.42) That is about 30% of their net profits. Joe Sixpack if he is one of the nearly 50% of people who won't pay any income tax will pay a much smaller tax rate.
The ratio of what services, and taxes Mcdonalds provides compared to what joe sixpack provides is wieghted in Mcdonalds favor. Mcdonalds is far more efficient than Joe with the services government provides.
The rich receive a vastly disproportionate amount of the goods that would be impossible to produce without basic government services. So what is wrong with them paying a higher percentage for those services? This one reason Bobby Jindal fan's assertion it is unfair for the rich to have to pay for other peoples healthcare, education, etc. was ridiculous.
Your positions appear to be much more moderate than his.
I agree. However, it is not a one-way street. The workers benefit from being employed. The wealth the employees have (though smaller) could not exist without their employment.
"These goods have to be shipped; they're not going to be shipped without government provided roads."
Why not? Goods traveled around the world before government provided roads. Goods were far more scarce, and more expensive, and sometimes only the rich could afford them. Government roads have benefitted the poor by allowing them access to those goods at far cheaper prices. Again, an equal benefit.
"The production of these goods requires an educated citizenry; something unattainable unless the government ensures, one way or another, that everyone is educated."
Before public schools, people still worked in factories, still farmed, still learned to read, there were still doctors and lawyers, still accountants and hotel managers. I'm not arguing against the an educated populace, but it certainly wasn't necessary. There were private schools which the rich benefitted from and the poor didn't. in turn the poor continued working factory jobs, labor jobs, and made a far smaller salary. The wealthy were still wealthy, and they could educate their children, the poor couldn't. If anything the public school system has helped the poor more than the rich.
"Corresponce is still very much dependent on postal service, which is provided by the government."
How do the rich benefit more from subsidized postal services? Again this is not a new idea, correspondence services existed before the U.S postal services. It was more expensive and therefore again the rich were the primary beneficiaries of it. The poor it seems benefit from it services more than the rich.
"The production of the goods requires electricity, which is also provided [by the] government."
Everyone pays an electric bill, rich or poor. There are often subsidies for the poor who can't afford it, perhaps the rich use it to create wealth, but in so doing also provide services to the rest of the populace in turn. Therefor it is a benefit to all. Considering that the wealthy pay the majority of taxes in this country, it seems any government subsidy of electricity would also be paid for by the wealthy, and the poor would be the beneficiaries of that.
"And of course, these goods need to be protected from theives and invading foreigners."
At the very least this is neutral. Police and Firemen don't discriminate between rich and poor. (At least they aren't supposed to right?) If a poor person calls 911 the police respond, and likewise with a rich person. If a Mercedes is in an accident, the ambulance doesn't drive faster than if it was a 82' Ford Fiesta. (If they made them in 82').
"The rich receive a vastly disproportionate amount of the goods that would be impossible to produce without basic government services."
The poor are beneficiaries of the goods they produce. The poor are disproportionate in the services they receive from the government in regards to the taxes they pay. At the very least the poor are equal to the wealthy in regards to the production of goods. Unless you are talking about luxury items such as Yachts, the wealthy and the poor are on equal footing, one benefitting from the other, and both benefit equally (at least) from the government.
"So what is wrong with them paying a higher percentage for those services?"
I certainly don't have a problem with the wealthy paying more in taxes. I do have a problem with the idea the rich benefit more from government services than the poor.
You could make the arguement that some of the rules benefit the wealthy, and allow for them to prey on the poor. Or you could argue that the system favors the rich in some ways. But government services like schools, roads, sewage, police benefit everyone equally. (At least) In some cases the poor benefit more, because they are getting them for free.
"This one reason Bobby Jindal fan's assertion it is unfair for the rich to have to pay for other peoples healthcare, education, etc. was ridiculous."
Again I agree. I don't have a problem with the rich supporting the government more than the poor. The problem is certainly not that. The problem is how much should the government provide, should the government provide healthcare, schools, roads, jails etc. Where do you say enough is enough?
"While these benefits are indirect, they are real nonetheless."
Again I agree, but for the poor as well as for the rich. Both derive benefits from the government, and it is certainly not in favor of the poor.
If someone invades me home it will take the police at least five to ten minutes to arrive. This is plenty of time for the criminal to kill my entire family.
I don't rely on the police - I rely upon myself. This is not advocating lawnessness - it is advocating personal responsibility.
I wouldn't presume to defend the position that Bobby is taking. It sounds like he is taking a far more raddical view than I would, anarchy even. Every man for himself. A death match, Unreal Tournament in real life, that doesn't sound very appealing to me.
Right wing voters are distracted by non-controversies and non-scandals like ACORN, death panels, birth certificates, confiscation of guns, media bias, Socialism, etc.
Just because it is not federal doesn't mean they don't fund government...
-----------------------------
The Midnight Review
Say "Hannity falsely says everything."
I mean, I have gotten into arguments with self-identified "libertarians" who turned out to think only income taxes were really eeeeeeeeeevil - possibly because it's one of the few that isn't inherently regressive.
Of course it is. Sean, you are one of the folks most loudly proclaiming your patriotism with your idiotic Great American Panel, and also talking about how great America is.
How does America get great? How about, part of that, is through taxes. So, do your patriotic duty, and STFU and pay your taxes just like a lot of other people do.
Taxes are redistribution of wealth. I vote for whoever will tax me the least. WHy should I have to support other people.
I am find with my tax money going to pay for F-16s, waterboards, and aid to Israel, but I resent moochers on food stamps and welfare. THey shoudl get out of the hammock and get a job.
I am find with my tax money going to pay for F-16s, waterboards, and aid to Israel"
LMAO. All in the same breath.
He's a troll who mostly makes troll posts. He's got a persona he created that he supports.
He tries to derail threads away from the actual topic to disrupt this site.
It's the same thing mainstream Republicans do - they push disinformation so that our side has to waste time debunking their nonsense so that our national discourse isn't weighed down with actual discussions about the topics that SHOULD be concerning to us! Those on the right KNOW that they can't win on the facts - for example, healthcare reform. They knew that HCR was a great thing, a necessary idea whose time should have come years ago, but they were against it because they didn't want a Dem to successfully pass it! They weren't against it because it was a bad idea!
And on this topic, it's actually a good thing that close to 50% of Americans don't pay any income taxes - it's really sad that close to half of our population makes so little money that they need every penny of it that's left over after other taxes and fees paid to support themselves and their families!
And BJF can't let us talk about that! He can't let us talk about the fact that Hannity ignores that the poorest in our nation are still forced to pay many regressives taxes and fees.
He's a caricature of a rightwinger, and it's done on purpose, because no rightwinger could win hardly any argument on the issues that face our nation.
It's a benefit to all of America to have a rising tide lift all boats, and the way we raise the boats of the lowest income Americans is by providing them with help via taxes collected from those who aren't at the bottom.
And the American public supports a progressive tax structure, which means that those who earn a lot pay more, since they can afford it and their basic needs are well-met. Those who struggle to meet their basic needs pay little or no income tax, and that's the way the American public wants it!
View My Blog
Admin OptionsEdit Post Edit Your Tags
Cancel
Delete Post Edit Blog Posts
Now seems to be an appropriate time to bring this blog back!--3/25
Here is an 1 example of the many responses I am receiving relative to this blog. This particular reply came via the forum so you will not find it here.->"Good topic. The question of our media is multifactorial but based on a single premise. Ever since Watergate our national media is no longer interested in providing news, they are providing opinion. Journalism is no longer a time honored profession of supplying information, it also implies its opinion."
This blog is not about taxation as much as it is about the business of missinformation via the media. I use commonly heard taxation statistics simply because most of us have heard them so it becomes easier to comprehend the fact that the media does in fact missinform and that causes us to believe that the world around us is different than what it really is. In other words --> By having been missinformed for decades we have come to believe things that simply are not correct-- And that is NOT the way we need it to be! We can not allow ourselves to be lied to--Its that simple yet profound! The easiest way to illustrate my claim is to 1st use what is probably the 2 most prolifically heard, missinforming tax statistics on the planet.-> Follow along and learn. -->
You ever hear the one about the top 10% paying 70% of the taxes paid? <--Not even close!-- Try about 30% 0f the taxes paid via the income tax while earning about 50% of all income earned! The 70% one commonly hears via the medias talking heads represents 70% X the 40% that the income tax provides relative to the 100% total revenues received! Does the media misslead us? I report-- U decide!<--Sound a little familiar? Then there is the often misstated stat claiming 1/2 of us pay no taxes at all so I ask who pays SS/Med if 100% of us pay into that slush fund. And then there is the commonly held belief that biz actually pays the expense of 1/2 of SS/Med and and all of W-comp and a slew of other government mandated expenses BUT -- HOLD ON--> Who reimburses biz the cost for having paid those expenses? I say biz merely FRONTS the cost of paying for these expenses! Remember only 1 thing-> Biz pays NO expense that is not reimbursed!<-Economics 101. Are we missled? Again--I reported--U decide?
I say yes and I ask why does the media do this? Is it no longer a requirement for the media to report facts accurately?
Reference the chart below to see the top 10% paid 71.22% of personal income taxes paid. The IRS tells us the income tax provides about 44% of all revenues received and that the top 10% earn about 50% of all adjusted gross income earned so simple math reveals the top 10% pay about 32% of all revenues received (NOT 70%) via the income tax while earning 50% of all income earned. Yes-They pay a little more via SS/Med but we all pay SS/Med and who pays what is not the issue here---> The world of missleading stats is the issue I am attempting to address. I provide the chart below from ntu.org for those that wish to do their own calculations.
Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?
Tax Year 2007
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$410,096
40.42
Top 5%
$160,041
60.63
Top 10%
$113,018
71.22
Top 25%
$66,532
86.59
Top 50%
$32,879
97.11
Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
This post is not about who pays how much! This post is about WHY the media seems to have lost track of the fact that their main job function is to report things accurately without bias. If the media can not even accurrately report a statistic then who will? I fear the business of missinformation is a business we need to dig into and fix just as I feel Government is in dire need of a major overhaul. Is there a connection in there somewhere? Are we intentionally missled? ---> I do not know---> BUT I do want to find out why I am being missled---- as should we all! I say the media has a lot of explaining to do. What say you?I will be updating this blog as time passes so check back often and please go viral with this information.You will also be interested in my real world of tax stats blog because I dig deeper into the tax system than I do here because this blog is about the media. === GO VIRAL!!
Nobody should have the right to vote themselves more of another person's money.
THis is BHO's great scheme. If less than 50% pay taxes,a majority who don't pay taxes can vote themselves more and more of my paycheck.
This is tyranny of the majority. IT is no different from two men and one woman in a room holding a vote on whether to rape the woman. If the two men vote yes, this is democracy.
This is absurd because people have inaliable individual rights. People have no right to vote themselves more of my money. I wish they would go to hell.
Yeah. Shout that from the "bough" of your ship.
Debating you on substance is best described as a fool's errand. But I'm waiting for a temp study in the lab, so I'll play fool till the bell rings.
I would wager that based upon your demonstrated level of education you are paying far more in FICA than income tax. 75% of Americans are in that category.
Most Americans who complain about their tax withholding don't comprehend the distinctions between income tax and FICA. Hannity stirs them (perhaps you?) up because you don't know the trick he's playing.
My income has ranged between $100-250K over the last decade, yet I pay more in FICA than income taxes. 2007 I paid next to zero income tax due to pretty big patent expenses and commercial real estate losses, but hit the limit in FICA. As self-employed, I paid 15.3% to max of $105K or about $16,000.
Give us a range of your gross income. It would appear less than $35K a year, especially for the region of the country in which you live and educational level.
Finally. You visualize poor and lazy people as the biggest moochers in our society. Your experience is extremely limited. I doubt you have ever sat on a board, whether at the PTA or a C corporation. You literally haven't traveled much in this country. nor do you demonstrate you've been outside this country.
Guys like you are easily aroused to anger by the likes of Hannity who uses sleight of hand to distract you with poor people literally stealing pennies, and ignore guys like his boss Murdoch whose buddies slipped him more than a billion in free broadcast rights.
The biggest moochers in our nation are crony capitalists. During the Bush/Cheney era these people redistributed $1.6 TRILLION from our kids and grandkids futures into their pockets. And that doesn't cover the $3 trillion in vigorish to medical insurers. And the $4 trillion in slush to military paperwork. I know the crony capitalists (no, they're not friends of mine) and occasionally sit in a room with them for charity events. Some actually got there through meritocracy, but most through inherited wealth, even here in Silicon Valley.
Bell went off. Time to get back to the lab. Still working to save human lives.
I can assure you, this is not even close to the case. I pay federal income taxes, NY state income taxes, NY city income taxes, property taxes..........FICA is a drop in the bucket compared to the aforementioned.
I work in midtown Manhattan and I live in Fairfield County, Connecticut. This is the MOST expensive region of the entire country.
I have a MA in Economics and a PhD in International Political Economy from the London School of Economics.
I conduct econometric market analyses of Asian currency markets tailored to the needs to specific clients seeking to relocate in Asia.
Take a wild stab - it is plenty to ensure that what I pay in FICA is a drop in the bucket compared to income taxes. I pay more in NY STATE and CITY income taxes than FICA and I don't even live in New York.
I lived in England for five years. A student concession Eurail pass and Ryan Air can get you anywhere you want on the continent for a relatively inexpensive sum. I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. I spent six months in Australia and six weeks in Quito.
I guess you are just as off in your estimate of my passport stamps as you are about my job and education.
His post was far off base in every aspect of his claim. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I like them to do so using REAL facts - no things they conconcted out of whole cloth.
You've been sandbagging us all along by playing stupid.
I also don't believe a word of his alleged work "experience."
That said, I am knowledgeable about Austrian economics. Nobody has ever posted anything contradicting this.
Additionally, your faith that even with a super majority, Republicans are going to create your conservative utopia. What about the federal funds your hero Bachmann accepts for her farm? SOCIALIZED CROPS.
Just finished my taxes, and I didn't mind paying them, because at the end of the day, I can still afford my way of life. I realize, through several more unfortunate siblings, that life is harder the further down the pay scale you are.
Why, so you'll have more company when you arrive?
It is almost breathtaking to imagine how ignorant you have to be to type that and feel good about it.
I'm sorry, I know it is rude of me and the above will likely be lost on the target, but that statement caused me to laugh out loud.
People who get a refund are dumb. They are allowing the government to collect interest on THEIR money that they overpaid, instead of collectint the interest themselves.
I have told my accountant that she will be fired if I ever get a tax refund.
Instead, behavioral economics suggest that getting a tax refund is actually healthy for the working underclass. Getting that lump sum back gives one an economic incentive to pay down debt, put a down payment on a house or car, or purchase large items like a new refrigerator or dishwasher.
The 15th Amendment doesn't mention poll taxes. Poll taxes, as well as literacy tests and all the other conventional barriers to the franchies, were prohibited by the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Besides the obviously repugnant twist your brain took on this one, how did you think you would enforce a barrier to the vote for 50% of the populace? I'm curious how long you think that would last, as several studies have shown that the lower classes also own most of the guns and have shown a prediliction for using them. Just sayin'.
See the 24th Amendment. TIme to brush up on your COnstitution.
-- Other side of the coin: What does that mean for America if you have a voting electorate that's not able to make enough money to pay "any" taxes?
"So we -- and it seems like, at this point, what incentive is there going to be for the people that are paying taxes?" - Sean Hannity
-- By definition they're making more use of what the taxes purchase by virtue of their relative success, such as how a successful businessman makes disproportionate use of the court system as well as the police to protect their interests locally and the military overseas. Fox depends on all the homes having been wired for electricity for example.
-- They likely didn't get to their relative level of success without a lot of help from a family which gave them a better shot with a safe neighborhood to grow up in with good schools, good medical and dental care, etc. And that family had a much better chance of being able to provide very well for their kids if they were of one race, creed or color versus another (and that family's family going back). America is NOT a meritocracy and those deluded rugged-individualist Foxbots shouldn't feel so smug about their economic station in life.
-- Without those people in a class lower than them around, they would feel less successful, less dominant, and less safe in times of war which the lower classes fight in disproportionately, and disproportionately for the interests of the wealthy. Also they buy a lot of what the wealthy sell, if they have the money, although there is a growing disconnect from American businesses to the American consumer thanks to globalization.
-- If the less well connected, the less well born, the less successful had to pay as much taxes as Hannity and his masters would like, the likelihood would increase of a political or even violent change in the class order to the detriment of the wealthy. (This is what Hannity is being paid to dissuade the masses from thinking about doing.)
-- If they're truly Christian and wealthy, they wouldn't mind paying more to the extent it's spent in accord with New Testament teachings. But the Fox crowd is watching to rationalize their nominal Christianity into real Christianity.
Hannity and his fellow-travelers in disinformation don't want you to know that you can pay zero in income tax, and still pay full FICA amount up to $106,800.
It's actually not too difficult for self-employed with high Schedule A reductions such as mortgage and medical expenses.
#1. The top 50% of people in the US who file income tax returns collect almost 90% of the income. Why is it the least bit surprising that the people who make the most money pay the most in taxes? Even Sen. McCain has said that makes sense.
We should ask ourselves - as others here have done - just how is it possible that half the folks collect 90% of the money? But that's another story.
#2. By historic measures Americans today are not as heavily taxed as we have been in the past. The right wing nutz scream about paying too much in taxes - they don't have the facts. Again.
#3. According to the GAO, half the corporations in America pay no income taxes. $0. Period.
#4. The percentage of Federal government revenue paid by corporations via income tax vs. the percentage paid by individuals is declining. Corporations pay less, individuals pay more.
#5. President Ronald Reagan raised personal income taxes.
And #6 - the Bonus Fact - The Boston Tea Party was held because the British government lowered the import duty on tea. The Colonists objected to a reduced revenue tax because they thought it was unfair! Of course, they also objected to taxation without representation. But we took care of that in 1776 and 1789.
Then if they live in Cook County, where the sales taxes are 10%, that's easily another $300 in taxes, if they spend $500/month on groceries (taxed at a lower rate) and other sales taxable goods. So deduct another $25/month from sales taxes. That leaves them $1,098.37/month to pay rent, utilities, food, clothes and other expenses, one of which isn't health insurance. No, they are going without. But of course, according to Sean, these people have it easy because they pay no taxes.
Randy
Randy
(With no reason or rebuttal)
Very well put, and this information should really get out there a lot more!
Thanks fantagor! :)
Nah, you're right, then nothing would ever be written.