Gerry Hahn’s June 16 letter [“Newt’s wealth OK, but should be shared more”] stated that the affluent should pay more taxes. According to the latest IRS information, the top 1 percent (based on adjusted gross income) pay 38 percent of all income taxes, while the top 5 percent and top 10 percent, respectively, pay 58.7 percent and 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent pay 2.7 percent. How much more taxes do Mr. Hahn and others who believe in redistribution of income want the so-called affl uent to pay? Why do they believe in punishing the successful — those who invest in the economy and create jobs?
Actually even those earning as much as $200,000 are likely to pay no more than 16% on their income, more if you calculate it on what the government calls your taxable income, but that means some of the things you pay for don’t count. Add in state and local taxes and that same individual may pay 25%. Sounds good to me – I wouldn’t give away the chance to earn that much just because I have to share 25%. But people who are a lot wealthier buy tax advice that goes way beyond TurboTax. And they pay much smaller shares of their income, let alone their property. So if you are annoyed about the unfairness between us, I’m with you. But if you’re bellyaching about how large a share of income the wealthy have to pay, just chill out. They don’t (Steve Gottlieb, Professor of Law at Albany Law School)
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
When Pols talk about a tax on millionaires, what they are really talking about is a tax on Individuals earning more than 250K per year and couples at around 350K, that's a far cry from a million. They do this for two main reasons: 1, Its much easier for the public to go along with the "soak the millionares" theme 2. Like most things they do, they avoid telling the real story.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Actually even those earning as much as $200,000 are likely to pay no more than 16% on their income, more if you calculate it on what the government calls your taxable income, but that means some of the things you pay for don’t count. Add in state and local taxes and that same individual may pay 25%. Sounds good to me – I wouldn’t give away the chance to earn that much just because I have toshare 25%.
…Being forced to pay 25% of your earned income, just because your talents are valuable, so the government can pay for bombs used in bombing Libya, WHILE the U.S. government gives Libya millions of dollars in foreign aid,,, is considered "sharing". What-a-hoot!!
…Being forced to pay 25% of your earned income, just because your talents are valuable, so the government can pay for bombs used in bombing Libya, WHILE the U.S. government gives Libya millions of dollars in foreign aid,,, is considered "sharing". What-a-hoot!!
…Being forced to pay 25% of your earned income, just because your talents are valuable, so the government can pay for bombs used in bombing Iraq, WHILE the U.S. government gives Iraq BILLIONS of dollars in foreign aid,,, is considered "sharing". What-a-hoot!!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Or insert Afghanistan, where in 2 + years troops levels have risen from 33,000 to 102,000 and war cost has risen from 60 billion to 120 billion annually.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Logged
