THis is how I explain it to my Right-wing friends:


People who make more than $250, 000 a year need to pay more taxes to be fair. To explain that let's compare someone who makes $50, 000 a year (person A) versus someone who makes $500, 000 a year (person B.
There are many taxes both of these people pay besides the Federal income tax. State and local governments charge fees and licenses that both Person A and Person B have to pay. City sitckers, license plate stickers, fishing, hunting license, fees for state parks, tolls, etc Then there are sales tax, property tax, there are taxes on your phone use, your internet use, your energy use, etc. So lets say that--not including income tax--that both of these people pay about $15, 000 a year in taxes. That leaves person A with $35, 000 a year to live off--MINUS income tax, whereas person B has $485, 000 a year to live off of.
Now, both of these people benifit from what teh state and local taxes go toward: schools, roads, police protection, fire department, etc. The difference is that Person A is paying 30% of their income to support these things that are paid by state and local taxes, whereas person B is only pay 3% of their income!!! Yet they are getting all of the same benifits!!!
Now THAT is not fair. So to compensate for this imbalance, the federal government has to raise taxes on the rich person. That is the only fair thing to do. Understand now?

I am one who feels that it IS the patriotic thing to do.

If you disagree with me, then tell me the value of a human life.

The greatest amount of military recruits come from families that make less than $100,000 per year. The largest income category for recruits in 2006 was from families that made between $30,000 and $40,000. We all know that thousands of our soldiers have already died and we all know that more will die too. (Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...art1_large.gif)

Our country asks them for their CHILDREN. Only thing the rich are being asked for is a few more dollars. We call the people who serve our country with their lives "Patriots". I wonder what we call the ones that refuse to offer a small percentage of their incomes? It appears from the response to Biden saying it was a patriotic thing to do, that the ones who refuse even a small percentage (yes, very small compared to the life of a son or daughter) are called 'friends' by the republicans.

Why should the middle class pay a HIGHER tax rate that the rich which is what is occurring now? The idea that the rich invest in the middle class is CRAP. If that was true then why are we down almost a million jobs this year and why has Bush's job creation numbers been so abysmmal his entire term even after 9/11 was no longer a factor? And if the rich paid their fair share the national debt wouldn't be nearly as bad, although still pretty bad because of Iraq. In other words, the country can't afford for the rich to not pay more in taxes!

The rich HAVE to pay more now. The country doesn't have a choice. Clinton did it in 1992 to reverse Reagan's trickle down mistakes and now Obama would have to do it help erase Bush's mistakes. And I am willing to bet that if McCain is elected (which is looking more and more unlikely now thank goodness) even HE will raise taxes. But he will of course target the middle class and not the rich if he can help it. Wouldn't want to piss off the base.

We don't have a choice now! We are now in the red 10 TRILLION DOLLARS.

You are only as strong as your weakest link and if society does not help the poor and middle class succeed, then the country on a whole will suffer as a result. This is proven by the results of trickle down economics. There is no case of trickle down economics working anywhere in the world, including here in the U.S.

Because they can. Social Security should be paid whether you make $10 or 10 billion in my opinion. There should be NO CAP!

2 problems, Rock...
1st, your comparison is is highly suspect. If person A is paying $15,000 in all other taxes except income taxes, then you can bet the that person B is paying much, much, more, due to their larger buying power. Person B probably has 3 or more cars, 2 homes, maybe a large boat...much more "stuff" than person A that can be taxed...therefore, there's no way that their state, county, local taxes will be even.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that Person B actually pays $75,000 in all non-income taxes. Then, following your math, it costs Person A 30% of their income , and now Person B pays 15% of their income.
The leads to problem # 2....

What's not fair about that?
See, Rock, in your example you point out all the things that each person does/buys to be taxed on.....those things all have choices involved. It's those choices that have to be reigned in if your Person A. Sure there's always food, clothing, and shelter that everyone needs, but my point is that someone making 50k a year will always have to make different choices than those who earn more, no big screen TV, no fishing boat, no new 2nd car, Person A has to be a responsible spender.....and the government should never be in the business of making those choices the same.

By the way, if person B is paying 15% in state and local taxes and 35% in income tax, is that fair? 50%, is that fair? I'll always say no. Nobody, not Bill Gates, not Warren Buffett, nobody should have to pay 50% of their income to taxes, IMO that's criminal!

Denny Crane!

'Fair' is subjective. One mans 'fair' is another mans 'socialism' and another mans 'oppression of the poor'. Thats why the 'fair tax' is such a dumb name.

I've never met a poor person who was hiring.

When I was in Vietnam we decided to build our own bar behind the squadron headquarters.
The First Sergeant and myself strolled down to where they were beginning construction on a new (indoor) base theater.
The Sarge told the civilian contractor; "You should give us 334 bricks so we can build ourselves a squadron bar."
The civilian contractor looked confused and asked; "Why?"
Sarge replied; "So you will know where they went. 'Cause if you don't GIVE them to us, we will come back later tonight and STEAL them."
The contractor couldn't refute Sarge's flawless logic and GAVE us the bricks.
(We later ran short and went back for about 40 more.)
((We didn't bother asking that time.))


And THAT is why rich people should pay a LOT more in taxes.
Because if they don't, the poor people will revolt and take EVERYTHING from them.
Just think of it as "a form of insurance".
Or "the cost of doing usiness".



Mac

Well, of course not. The middle class does most of the hiring in small businesses. The rich mostly hire for minimum-wage, and hire off-shore if they cannot find skilled people to work for that wage here.

I almost puked every time I heard Gramm spew that crap. No poor person ever gave him a job. whoopo. No poor or lower-middle class person needs whatever skills the old doddard has. Rich people do.

Middle-class shop owners would have a great use for my skills and integrity if they could afford to compete with rich maggots like the Walton family.

....and it's those small business owners who will be hurt the most by Obama's tax plan!

Denny Crane!

Yes Denny, that's why the BIG Corporate interests are screaming so loudly.
Because they are just trying to look out for the small businessman.

Please Denny, I just had surgery last week.
It really DOES "hurt when I laugh" that hard.


Mac

Obama and Biden both have said the taxes were to be levied on people whose income is above $250,000 and small business owners do not make that much. Pass the glass of kool-ade to those who don't know the score. Pure bull****.

Of all the reasons for the progressive tax system, that's probably the best.

You seem to be saying that people who make more money have earned the luxury of wasting it, while people who make less have not earned that luxury. Well I would say that niether person has earned that luxury. If there was no such thing as society there would be no money, so a person who is making lots of money owes that luxury to the fact that there is a society. Therefore they have an obligation, the social contract if you will. Part of that obligation involves paying taxes, a larger amount of taxes than poor people, because they benifiting from society/capitalism/the corporate-economic system MORE than the poor people (or even teh middle-class). Right now we are not seeing the stinkin' rich fulfililing their obligation to society.

it's really the only reason that can stick, if the poor had the balls to put their money where their mouths are (metaphorically speaking, of course)

but, they're too busy trying to watch Lost...

or, pay for groceries...

Exactly!!! If we were a hunting/gathering society, we would be much more egalitarian. The guy that brought home the meat on Monday would be the hero, only to be replaced by the guy that brought home the meat on Wednesday. The woman who brought home the most fruits and vegetables would be the heroine when some guy failed to bring home the meat on Tuesday, and the woman who did the same on Friday.
The farther I get from my anthropology studies, the more I see them as more creditable than the current mindset that there is a permanent hero or heroine, supplying the needs of the tribe. The evolution of the egalitarian tribe to one-man rule is something that we feel uncomfortable with, because we have a genetic disposition toward appreciating the contributions of all of the tribe, and the fact that everyone's contributions are important.
At some point in our society, we failed to appreciate all the contributions of our tribe. We don't value the people who haul away our garbage and trash; we don't value the people who stock the shelves in the grocery store and check us out; we don't value the people at the convenience store/gas station who sell us our gas and beer; and we sure don't appreciate the clerks at the stores where we shop. We only value the people who make money on the backs of these members of the tribe.
Until, and unless, we remind ourselves that it takes all of these people to keep the tribe operative, we'll remain prey....
Sallie

life's not fair...so get over it

Military service is voluntary...taxation is involuntary....if it weren't for the rich the poor would have nothing at all

Well, you can't really count property taxes, local taxes, excise taxes, etc. They are too different depending on where you live and what kind of house and cars you buy.

So that's why most people only look at INCOME taxes.

I favor a flat income tax...fair for everyone that way. But I am voting for Obama, since a flat tax is pretty low priority.

That is not true. I've known many poor people who are much happier than rich people I have known. Happiness is not "nothing" as you say. You dont need rich people to be happy. You dont need rich people for food, shelter and clothing. All you need is a little know how. And you certainly dont need rich people for love. That's right, I said it: LOVE. Does that word make you uncomfortable? Is that something that you have in your life?


Fairness is something we should strive for as a society because fair society would be a better society. Do you not want a better society?

If it weren't for the rich, the poor would probably have a job that pays decent wages. The rich exploit poor people. That is why everything is made in China.

I was wondering when someone was going to get to my statement.

It is a pity that you don't think that military service isn't a sacrifice of some kind. It is even more of a pity that you feel that one class of citizens should be immune to doing something that perhaps is "above and beyond" the norm to help our country in time of need when another class is giving more than it's share.

Let me ask a few friends of mine who have served if what they did was a form of sacrifice for our country or not. A guardsman away from his wife and 2 little kids for 18 months, if he chose not to go he would have been AWOL. Or let me ask a long time family friend whose daughter married her husband right before his guard unit deployed. They were married a week before he left. He never came back. Of course service is voluntary, but they ARE doing it when no one else will. Perhaps because it is voluntary what they are doing for our country becomes even more of a sacrifice and a gift for our country. I think it sure makes having the "rich" pay a little bit more seem even that much more insignificant.

And where are the benevolent rich lined up helping the poor as implied by your statement? Again, that is a line that I haven't seen.

I would heavily disagree that if it wasn't for the rich, the poor would have nothing.....i believe it would be better stated "if it wasn't for the middle class, the rich would have nothing"......

I am sure that you will argue with me and that there is nothing I can say that will change your mind for I do believe it was made up before you opened this thread. So I will agree to let e believe my way and I will let you do your thing.

You are correct about life not being fair,but will you refrain from whining when those on top are forced to pay their "unfair" fair share?

That's one o' the dumbest gosh darn things I've ever heard, you betcha!

most small business owners will benefit from Obama's plan. 95% of them.

absolutely true. at least not while he or she is poor. It takes wealth to risk. and wealth comes from wages , savings and work. Most small business owners use their investments (home and 401K) to get leverage to get capital. Since, as a country we have no savings, we rely on foreign investment. however foreign investment must pass through the investment banks and equity markets to get to the small entrepeneur. at each exchange point or "hands" this money crosses the capital loses efficiency.

Wrong!
If a small business owner's business is so sucessful that he can afford to pay himself $250,000 then he deserves to pay higher taxes on that income. But that will not hurt him, nor will it hurt his business. So you need to stop promting this lie.

If this small business owner was making over $250,000.00 a year, damn straight, I wouldn't complain about paying more taxes and I would give the local Food Bank and Red Cross some hefty donations too.

It is quite scary to think there are lefties here who think a business that is forced to pay more in taxes won't pass that expense on to the consumer. Even your local pizza shop raises prices (or lets someone go) when their profit margin is reduced. What do you think your thin and crispy is going to cost you when Tricon has to pay more in business tax? Come on folks...use yer brains. Didn't your daddy or mama ever teach you there is no such thing as a free lunch?

That's actually a good thing in my opinion. People need to be more reliant on themselves and on the small businesses within their community instead of the large corporations that will be affected by higher taxes. Making this larger corporations pay higher taxes, which in turn will make the cost of their products go up, will even the playing field and allow small businesses to compete. My hope is that Wal-Mart's prices will go up, along with the prices of all the other evil corporations.

It's hilarious to read the posts here, like the ones that say, if I made $200K or if I made $500K, I'd be grateful and be happy to pay more taxes....I'd be willing to bet that once you actually made that amount of money you'd understand that... when you make more money your lifestyle changes, you want to give more to the church, or the local food bank, or the Childrens Hospital, help your parents, send your kids to private schools, etc, etc.....and now, instead of paying 10-20% in Federal Income Tax, you're paying 35% or more on top of the 10-15% state and local taxes you pay, ................and, all the while, listening to idiots who say you're not paying your fair share!

Why punish success? How much is enough?

Denny Crane!

My prices won't go up. They are regulated by the State of Va. BUT I still wouldn't mind paying more taxes if I made over $250,000.00 and I STILL would give a hefty donation to the Food Bank and Red Cross.

you seem to think that the only reason people are interested in making more money is so thatthey can give it to their church or to charity. Come on Denny. No one's buying that. Let's try to keep this conversation based in the realm of reality. In reality most people try to make excessive amounts of money due to their thirst for power, their greed. Let's get real here, okay?

Yeah, Rock, let's keep it real....if you have that overall view of people, then that's an issue for you to handle....however, if you live in a major metropolitan area....Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, LA, NYC, Boston......what kinda of power is $200-$300K/year gonna get you? I mean really, it's nice, you'll be comfortable..... but power and greed on that income, aint happening.

My point is there are many here who are clueless.

Denny Crane!

like cutting taxes increases revenues?

could you show me an example where an increased business tax increased prices? We increased taxes in 93 yet we see no correlation to CPI. PCE actually fell.

So you think someone who makes 300,000 has the same power and opportunity to express their will in our corporate consumer culture as somone making $15,000. Come on Denny, again. Get Real.
As for my overall view of people, it is simply a well defined attribute of human behavior that if you put them in a situation where they have excessive acess to power and the temptations of greed that they are eventually going to be more likely to abuse that access than not. Not everyone mind you, but most. Even basically good people. I mean its pretty easy to be good if you dont have the temptations there looking in you the face everyday. In our corporate consumer culture people who are rich have much greater acess to rip people off in order to advance their own agendas and self-interest.

Funny,all through the 50's and 60's the corporations paid more in taxes and the individual paid less in taxes and gee,the titans of Wall Street did just fine and the economy grew on solid stable ground and was not a house of cards and businesses were profitable and people made a good living,with only one bread winner.

Then the corporations started shifting their tax burden to the individual and that pesky middle class started to shrink. And it was accelerated under Reagan to what we now have today.

The Republican/neocon motto: Profit and self first before all others,if the others at all. If you are a memeer of the upper 1-2% then the rest of civilization to you is nothing more than a world of servants and slaves,numbered assets to be used as you see fit.

I have read the entire thread and it never ceases to amaze me how strong that neocon koolaid truely is,and Crane and Maxxi are shining examples.

mutt

And election after election, democrats will promise higher taxes on the wealthy because it will solve our nation's problems and yet during decade after decade of democratic-controlled House and Senate from the 60's on, how many problems actually got solved? Did we eliminate the homeless due to higher taxes on the wealthy? Did we eliminate poverty due to higher taxes on the wealthy? Did we eliminate energy costs due to higher taxes on the wealthy?


NO.

The Democratic mantra has always been.....keep 'em in the gutter and promise 'em the moon because once they've left, they'll become conservatives. I saw it for three decades in the military. As recruits, without a pot to pee in, the ratio of Democrats to Conservatives ran nearly 4:1 pre-Reagan. Once military men found themselves in a position of moderate income, their positions became more and more refined and the ratio began to roll over in the Republican camp.

There's a quote that works here. "Beauty is despised by those of whom it has been denied." Change beauty for money and you've summed up a Democrat. Only in the warped business mind of a Democrat could one possibly think that a business won't let people go or raise their prices despite lower profit margins because after all, business' run on the principal of making Democrats happy, not making money.

no we increased the prison population, privatized it and created another profit center



substantially reduced it.



NO we cut taxes and relied on the petrodollar. That dependence drives our current foreign policies.



couldnt have been the military I was in. Once they understood the reason for their desert occupation they began to question it. as recruits became more educated and the military became more selective attaitudes changed. Now that we have lowered the standard as an NCO I was forced to explain how a checking account worked.

Denial isnt a river in egypt!

I've never met a rich person who hired anyone when he could avoid it, or one who paid an employee a single dime more than he had to.

Make the rich richer, and they do nothing. Make the poor less poor, and the rich sell them things, and hire them. Try to lift the economy by the top, and you accomplish nothing for anyone but the rich. Try to raise the economy from the bottom, though, and everyone benefits; the rich by identifying opportunities and exploiting them, the poor from direct assistance, and the middle class by getting jobs out of all this.

Supply side economics doesn't work. Demand side economics not only works, it works to benefit everyone.

I was a voting officer at two naval bases during a career of one collateral duty after another. The first was Pensacola NAS. One should assume if I'm using ratios, I would have first-hand knowledge of 'em. My recollections are indeed, quite accurate. I might not have been at the BASE you were on but I was most certainly a uniformed man; retired in fact.

Enough time for today. Enjoy the debates. I'm out.

and that means what?

I look at the reason why the rich should pay more in taxes and it's a pretty simple reasoning. The rich reap more of the benefits in the form money, resources and power than the rest of us do so they have a moral obligation to return part of the benefits to the rest of the people. Concentration of money, resources and power in the hands of a small group of people does nothing to help the average person nor does it help the country in general. When the benefits of this country are shared we all benefit. That doesn't mean everyone has an equal share but it does means that the benefits should benefit all it's citizens. The will always be people who are rich, people who will always be middle class and there will always be people who are poor. The difference is not having all the wealth concentrated/controlled by a small group of people.

Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000



Table 1. - Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI andTotal Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2000 [All figures are estimates based on samples]
Descending cumulative percentiles

Year: Total..................Top 1%............Top 5%.........Top 10%.......Top 25%..........Top 50%

Number of returns: [1]
1986: 102,087,623......1,020,876......5,104,381......10,208,762......25,521,906......51,043,811
1987: 106,154,761......1,061,548......5,307,738......10,615,476......26,538,690......53,077,380
1988: 108,872,859......1,088,729......5,443,643......10,887,286......27,218,214......54,436,429
1989: 111,312,721......1,113,127......5,565,636......11,131,272......27,828,181......55,656,361
1990: 112,812,262......1,128,123......5,640,613......11,281,226......28,203,066......56,406,132
1991: 113,804,104......1,138,041......5,690,205......11,380,410......28,451,026......56,902,052
1992: 112,652,759......1,126,528......5,632,638......11,265,276......28,163,190......56,326,380
1993: 113,681,387......1,136,814......5,684,069......11,368,139......28,420,347......56,840,694
1994: 114,989,920......1,149,899......5,749,496......11,498,992......28,747,480......57,494,960
1995: 117,274,186......1,172,742......5,863,709......11,727,419......29,318,546......58,637,093
1996: 119,441,767......1,194,418......5,972,088......11,944,177......29,860,442......59,720,884
1997: 121,503,284......1,215,033......6,075,164......12,150,328......30,375,821......60,751,642
1998: 123,775,831......1,237,758......6,188,792......12,377,583......30,943,958......61,887,915
1999: 126,008,974......1,260,090......6,300,449......12,600,897......31,502,244......63,004,487
2000: 128,227,143......1,282,271......6,411,357......12,822,714......32,056,786......64,113,572

Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):
1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302
1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768
1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367
1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993
1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767
1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097
1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803
1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179
1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802
1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344
1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174
1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393
1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491
1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415
2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682


Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (constant dollars): [2]
1986: N/A......108,411......56,913......44,394......29,418......15,786
1987: N/A......122,614......60,224......46,585......29,915......15,641
1988: N/A......132,828......61,484......46,861......29,922......15,526
1989: N/A......132,152......62,043......46,986......29,709......15,317
1990: N/A......128,096......60,493......46,126......29,135......15,124
1991: N/A......124,919......60,000......45,480......28,582......14,756
1992: N/A......129,654......60,658......45,942......28,780......14,828
1993: N/A......128,522......60,475......45,728......28,519......14,657
1994: N/A......132,069......61,556......46,392......28,841......14,711
1995: N/A......137,406......63,137......47,306......29,007......14,661
1996: N/A......145,026......64,462......47,792......29,163......14,769
1997: N/A......156,222......67,320......49,353......30,014......15,198
1998: N/A......164,427......69,999......50,775......30,877......15,553
1999: N/A......176,119......72,537......52,630......31,792......15,855
2000: N/A......182,038......74,527......53,510......32,070......16,075


Adjusted gross income (millions of dollars):
1986: 2,524,124......285,197......608,467......886,510......1,490,173......2,103,569
1987: 2,813,728......346,635......722,221......1,038,221......1,709,389......2,373,869
1988: 3,124,156......473,527......890,702......1,232,536......1,950,860......2,657,865
1989: 3,298,858......468,079......918,421......1,286,539......2,054,478......2,805,235
1990: 3,451,237......483,252......953,337......1,338,032......2,144,177......2,932,537
1991: 3,516,142......456,603......943,350......1,343,202......2,174,765......2,984,003
1992: 3,680,552......523,586......1,031,093......1,443,784......2,299,401......3,131,400
1993: 3,775,578......520,586......1,048,252......1,474,463......2,357,953......3,212,299
1994: 3,961,146......546,700......1,103,084......1,552,205......2,481,074......3,371,352
1995: 4,244,607......619,610......1,222,723......1,704,513......2,689,820......3,627,542
1996: 4,590,527......736,545......1,393,805......1,909,149......2,952,637......3,944,383
1997: 5,023,457......872,826......1,597,107......2,151,401......3,267,600......4,327,992
1998: 5,469,211......1,010,245......1,796,647......2,393,716......3,589,600......4,721,430
1999: 5,909,329......1,152,820......2,011,763......2,652,835......3,927,308......5,126,164
2000: 6,423,977......1,336,773......2,267,403......2,955,386......4,313,786......5,589,755



Descending cumulative percentiles
Year: Total............Top 1%.....Top 5%.......Top 10%....Top 25%....Top 50%

Total income tax (millions of dollars): [3]
1986: 366,979......94,491......156,240......200,703......278,976......343,289
1987: 369,046......91,559......159,642......205,230......283,857......346,655
1988: 412,761......113,841......188,303......236,411......321,297......389,145
1989: 432,838......109,259......190,188......241,458......334,258......407,599
1990: 447,061......112,338......195,088......247,514......344,340......421,075
1991: 448,349......111,267......194,480......250,282......346,511......423,759
1992: 476,163......131,156......218,479......276,213......373,700......452,070
1993: 502,720......145,836......238,083......297,808......398,516......478,563
1994: 534,754......154,337......254,106......317,902......425,402......509,256
1995: 588,331......178,035......287,741......357,402......472,808......561,225
1996: 658,124......212,626......335,433......411,404......535,164......629,684
1997: 727,303......241,239......377,241......459,639......594,007......696,161
1998: 788,452......274,009......424,506......512,836......651,964......755,240
1999: 877,292......317,419......486,464......583,002......732,890......842,168
2000: 980,521......366,929......553,670......660,150......823,706......942,179


Average tax rate (percentage): [4]
1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32
1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60
1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64
1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53
1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36
1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20
1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44
1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90
1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11
1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47
1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96
1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09
1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00
1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43
2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86


Adjusted gross income share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......11.30......24.11......35.12......59.04......83.34
1987: 100.00......12.32......25.67......36.90......60.75......84.37
1988: 100.00......15.16......28.51......39.45......62.44......85.07
1989: 100.00......14.19......27.84......39.00......62.28......85.04
1990: 100.00......14.00......27.62......38.77......62.13......84.97
1991: 100.00......12.99......26.83......38.20......61.85......84.87
1992: 100.00......14.23......28.01......39.23......62.47......85.08
1993: 100.00......13.79......27.76......39.05......62.45......85.08
1994: 100.00......13.80......27.85......39.19......62.64......85.11
1995: 100.00......14.60......28.81......40.16......63.37......85.46
1996: 100.00......16.04......30.36......41.59......64.32......85.92
1997: 100.00......17.38......31.79......42.83......65.05......86.16
1998: 100.00......18.47......32.85......43.77......65.63......86.33
1999: 100.00......19.51......34.04......44.89......66.46......86.75
2000: 100.00......20.81......35.30......46.01......67.15......87.01


Total income tax share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54
1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93
1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28
1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17
1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19
1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52
1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94
1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19
1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23
1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39
1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68
1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72
1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79
1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00
2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09


N/A-- Not applicable.
[1] The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million.
[2] For Table 1, constant dollars were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U, 1982-84=100). For 2000 the CPI-U = 172.2
[3] Total income tax is the sum of income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax reported on returns that showed a positive amount for adjusted gross income. Therefore, total income tax excludes alternative minimum tax, Form 8814 tax (tax on a child's interest or dividends), and Form 4972 tax (tax on lump-sum distributions from qualified retirement plans) reported on some returns with a negative amount for adjusted gross income. See also footnote 1.
[4] The average tax rate was computed by dividing total income tax (see footnote 3) by (positive) adjusted gross income.

Note: Unles otherwise stated, money amounts are in current (not constant) denominations.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.


Please say it again about how the rich aren't paying their fair share....lol

Next you are going to be saying that it is not FAIR that person A, only making 50k, can not afford a waterfront house. But Person B, making $500k can. so, maybe the govt needs to make it even more fair, and take away the waterfront and give it to Person A.

If you are all for taking away his hard earned money, then it is not a big step to take away his home either.

Here is the reality, not everyone can be rich and it is not the govt responsibly to pay for peoples leisure activities.

No,not everyone can be ultra wealthy,but at the same time,driving those people into the ground and making them nothing more than paid slaves or servants is not the answer either. But from your reply, it is apparent that you went to the Tom Delay School of Business,a school that promotes slave and forced labor and the lowest possible wages and zero benefits and sit back and enjoy watching them fend for themselves with nothing,so you can further feed off of their created for your profit misery.

mutt

Who exactly are "those people" and who exactly is "driving them into the ground"?
Who's "forcing labor" on someone else?

Denny Crane!

You really are under a rock or naieve aren't you? It has been posted here at the board as well as documented in the main stream media that the middle class wages are and have been declining. While the upper 1-2 % have seen staggering increases.

Some of the current CEO's make upwards of 482 x what their highest hourly employee make. And in case you haven't noticed,instead of cutting their wages and salaries,the upper management tosses a few hourly workers onto the street to stay in business. Never once thinking that they might bite the bullet and cut their own outrageous salaries.

But Crane,that goes against all you believe and have been taught. In your mind the hourly worker is nothing more than a number,a disposable number,nothing more. If that number doesn't line your pockets to your expectations,that number is disposed of and another number is put in its place at a lower wage.

You and those like you that have been taught this and live it to the nth degree are part of the cancer that infects this once great nation. All part of the neocon race to the bottom line,maximum profits with near zero for wages and taxes,and yet enjoy all the benefits of the socialy built infrastructure.

mutt

Your overly dramatic posts are tedious and since you know nothing about me, stick to worrying about your own cancers and infections
Yes, CEO make a ton of money, so what, jeez, get over it...they are typically hired by stockholders and they have 1 job, to maximize the profits for those stockholders. That doesnt make them "slave owners", and, if my memory is correct nobody in the US is ever forced to accept a job . People who are hourly employees of any company should realize that if the business struggles that the last person in, or the least productive worker, may be the first to be laid off....sorry Mutt, that's just life in the big city. All the fringers here want to act like it's some big conspiracy to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor, when in reality, it's just simple business.
BTW, when was the last time you voluntarally cut your salary?

Denny Crane!

to maximize the profits for those stockholders


No matter what the cost either in product or people. Product is profit,people are expendable right Crane? If they land in the gutter that's their tough ****,even though that road to the gutter was made by those just like you.


That doesnt make them "slave owners", and, if my memory is correct nobody in the US is ever forced to accept a job

Really,well,that's nice to know,I guess I'll go tell that to those who have been made homeless and are now living in tent cities that their job loss was their fault and that their ability to find a job is their fault also. And that the loss of their home was their fault as well and so was their loss of their health insurance.

I'll be sure to let them know that those at the tops of their company that tossed them to the street are suffering as well,with their still enforce health insurance and their home as well as the salary that they were getting when he tossed them to the curb.

Then I'll go ask those that are working for those people just like you if they dare stand up and ask for a raise or benefits. My guess is the answer will always be no,since the labor laws were changed to allow those like you to get rid of those who would dare ask for a living wage with benefits,how dare those numbers ask for those things.

And then I'll ask them if they feel like a slave,of course making sure to let them know that I won't rat them out. My take is they will answer yes. But to you,that is just another chapter out of the Tom Delay Forced and Slave labor Manual for more Profit book.


People who are hourly employees of any company should realize that if the business struggles that the last person in, or the least productive worker, may be the first to be laid off....sorry Mutt, that's just life in the big city

It would never occur to you in your pathetic life that a change might be long overdue? Nah,it's easier to keep all you can get for yourself at the expense of your fellow man,oopps,sorry,that productive disposable number.


All the fringers here want to act like it's some big conspiracy to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor, when in reality, it's just simple business.
BTW, when was the last time you voluntarally cut your salary?


Keep telling yourself this Crane,but so you know,all the information and numbers out there prove otherwise. As for me cutting my salary when I was at corporate, that was back in the early 90's Crane. How much did I cut it? I took it to just a withdrawl for food and fuel cost,nothing more for over 6 months to keep the others below me working. Try it sometime,it is a humbling experience. Nah,forget that,t would cause you to go into all kinds of fits.

And so you know,I am no "fringer",but you have shown your true colors Crane,and all the others here now see you for what you truely are. So keep on trying to spin and dodge and disrupt,it ain't working. All you are is a neocon,a slimey person who wants all he can get for himself with as little cost to himself as possible.

Like I said,you are part of the cancer that is infecting this once great country,and when your hero thieves in Washington run for the hills,I doubt that you have a seat on the plane when they head for their hide away.

Which means all you will do is slither under a rock somewhere and hope for the day another pack of thieves comes into town.....


mutt