CBO: Top 20% income earners' pre-tax income dropped 36% between 2007-2009 while paying 67.9% of federal taxes

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 2:23 PM GMT
    And yet the extremists believe that they should keep taxing the rich even more. How can it be healthy for a democracy for the wealthy to pay for practically all of the federal government?

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/cbo-top-earners-pay-68-percent-of-tax-burden/

    The top 1 percent of earners’ pre-tax income dropped 36 percent between 2007 and 2009, while the four lowest quintiles saw a loss of only about 5 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. During those years, the average pre-tax income for all earners dropped.

    The top 20 percent of earners — the top quintile — bore 67.9 percent of the federal tax burden in 2009. The middle quintile paid 9.4 percent, while the lowest paid .03 percent of the federal tax burden.

    As the CBO study points out, average tax rates depend both on tax laws and economic conditions. The average federal tax rate was 17.4 percent in 2009 — the lowest since 1979, when the United States was also in a recession.

    Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office reported a federal spending deficit of $900 billion for fiscal year 2011.

    Economists and policy makers continue to debate the ideal tax rate — and who should pay for the growing deficit.

    President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats maintain that joint-filers making more than $250,000 should pay their “fair share.” On Monday, he urged Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. Those making more than this arbitrary threshold, however, would see their taxes increase.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 13, 2012 2:49 PM GMT
    Interesting isn't it Riddler? They, "bore 67.9 percent of the federal tax burden in 2009." As time passes now who will really be in control?
  • DalTX

    Posts: 612

    Jul 13, 2012 2:49 PM GMT
    How are things in Canada?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 3:12 PM GMT
    DalTX saidHow are things in Canada?



    Do they really believe this propaganda ? Even the most partisan should know better than this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 3:13 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    DalTX saidHow are things in Canada?



    Do they really believe this propaganda ? Even the most partisan should know better than this.


    How is this propaganda? Do you dispute the facts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 3:14 PM GMT
    DalTX saidHow are things in Canada?


    The stats aren't nearly as polarizing but they are similar in that the wealthy do pay considerably more of government.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 13, 2012 3:30 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    realifedad said
    DalTX saidHow are things in Canada?



    Do they really believe this propaganda ? Even the most partisan should know better than this.


    How is this propaganda? Do you dispute the facts?


    In my response above that of RealLifeDad, I almost added a comment that I would expect RJ liberals to deny the data. I wonder how they ever manage to set inside out of the rain.

    Fortunately, nothing is changed by liberal comment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 3:35 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    realifedad said
    DalTX saidHow are things in Canada?



    Do they really believe this propaganda ? Even the most partisan should know better than this.


    How is this propaganda? Do you dispute the facts?





    Well I must make an admission, I misread this , I thought it was saying the top 20% had payed 67'% of their personal incomes, not that amount as a group. I read to quickly. So disregard that comment of mine.


    But I will add that I don't feel the least bit sorry for multi millionaires paying a much larger percentage than the middle and poor folks do, because they have a much larger excess to pay it from.

    Anyone going to tell me that these rich folks are going to have to give up any of their boats, cars, planes, extra homes or cancel a trip to Europe over these taxes ? To those who have the most, the most is required.

    Anyone remember how great our economy was when taxes were higher as in Clintons time in office ?

    Bush cut taxes for the wealthy promising jobs as a result. WHERE ARE THE JOBS ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2012 11:04 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    riddler78 said
    realifedad said
    DalTX saidHow are things in Canada?



    Do they really believe this propaganda ? Even the most partisan should know better than this.


    How is this propaganda? Do you dispute the facts?





    Well I must make an admission, I misread this , I thought it was saying the top 20% had payed 67'% of their personal incomes, not that amount as a group. I read to quickly. So disregard that comment of mine.


    But I will add that I don't feel the least bit sorry for multi millionaires paying a much larger percentage than the middle and poor folks do, because they have a much larger excess to pay it from.

    Anyone going to tell me that these rich folks are going to have to give up any of their boats, cars, planes, extra homes or cancel a trip to Europe over these taxes ? To those who have the most, the most is required.

    Anyone remember how great our economy was when taxes were higher as in Clintons time in office ?

    Bush cut taxes for the wealthy promising jobs as a result. WHERE ARE THE JOBS ?


    No one is supposed to feel sorry for them - but when you have a society that is so dependent on one subgroup how can you claim it's healthy? High income earners should first be differentiated from those who are wealthy. While I'm sure there are a significant number of those who also have a lot of assets - just because you make $5M doesn't mean squat if you have to spend $4.990 to get it. People who have high incomes are however the economically most productive individuals in society by definition. So in understanding that we respond to incentives, taxing income is taxing productivity for them. At some point they decide it's not worth making that extra dollar in the US.

    As for the issues of tax cuts and jobs, it's surprising you would make that claim after all this stimulus which was supposed to create jobs. Further, with continued uncertainty in regulations that have been expanded, is it any surprise businesses don't want to hire? You can easily make the point that the recession Bush inherited the first time around was minimized because of the tax cuts - and that's what many economists have said.

    Clinton inherited much of a peace dividend with reduced military spending but also welfare reform that resulted in the greatest reduction in child poverty rates in the US. But still both the economies under Clinton and Bush were built on what we now know (and many knew then) to be an unsustainable real estate bubble which in turn has been based on US policies that have had a bias towards home ownership.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2012 6:39 AM GMT
    A progressive tax system is the basis of capitalism. You will find it in book 4 of the Wealth of Nations.

    Note that the $250,000 is on taxalbe income not on income alone. This article is so incomplete not addressing the cap. gains tax breaks millionaires get.

    Funny, the GOP does not speak for the middle class on the wealthy.