As You Go To Pay Your Taxes
April 15th 2009 05:47
As you pay your taxes, it would be good to read this article. To summarize some of the stuff that might boil your blood:
- In 2001, people who made 44,300 or less paid 3.3% of the tax burden. By 2005 that same income group paid 1% of the tax burden.
- Liberals like to robotically call Bush's 2001 tax cuts "tax cuts for the rich." In fact, in 2001 the top 10% of Americans, those making over $92,000 a year, paid 67.8% of the tax burden. In 2005, still under Bush's tax cuts, they paid 72% of the tax burden. Yes, the rich saved more in terms of dollars, but percentage wise the lowest tax bracket went from 15% to 10%, while the top went from 39% to 35%. That means the poorest taxpayer got a 33% break on their taxes and the richest got less than 10% of a break. More in dollars, but leaving them with a higher share overall. And all tax brackets were lowered. The child tax credit was doubled, so people with lots of kids, got the biggest break of all. Hardly a break for the rich alone. Most of it went to the other 90%.
- In 2001 the bottom 40% of earners made 13.5% of the nation's income, paid no taxes and received rebates back from the government totalling $16.3 Billion. By 2005, on the backs of the rich, they received rebates totalling 33.5 Billion.
- President Obama's proposed tax changes will increase the number of people earning money but not paying taxes to 50% of the population. That's 50% of potential voters with no tax liability, and a good portion of them getting checks back from the rich.
What does this all mean? All the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric is a big, fat lie. The rich got a bigger percentage of the responsibility overall for the tax pie out of Bush's tax cuts. Yes, capital gains rates went down, mostly affecting the rich, but their percentage of taxes paid still rose because they invested more since lower taxes meant better return.
It also means that the number of voters in this country that have no responsibility of paying for what their congressmen spend will outnumber those who do. As Ari says in the article linked above, it's not good for a democracy to have a non-taxpaying class outnumber those who pay taxes, especially when those not paying the taxes are receiving rebate checks and "entitlement" checks that continue as long as they stay "poor." I put poor in quotes because I know people who make a third of what I do and have flat screen TVs, cell phones for all family members and full cable, partially with taxpayer dollars. And yes, these people fall into that 40% that pay no taxes. All of my TVs are at least 9 years old and I have to have cable to watch TV on them soon because of government mandated changes.
So, if you owe taxes this year, or if your refund doesn't equal what you paid still, thank the politicians, left and right. As you pay next year, remember that those who already pay no taxes are getting part of what you paid.
Oh, and by the way, that extra $13 a week you might be seeing in your check - it's not a tax rate reduction and you will owe taxes on it as income next April. All they did was spread a "stimulus" check over the last 9 months of the year, so just like you owed taxes on last May's stimulus checks, you'll owe taxes on that $13 a week, if you pay taxes.
My advice? Find a local tea party tomorrow and show your support for what neither party is getting right: taking care of our money and properly sharing the burden. I have to work since I work for a CPA, the best place to work as our tax code grows, or I would be there.
Parting shot: watch this video, but not while you're eating
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
- In 2001, people who made 44,300 or less paid 3.3% of the tax burden. By 2005 that same income group paid 1% of the tax burden.
- Liberals like to robotically call Bush's 2001 tax cuts "tax cuts for the rich." In fact, in 2001 the top 10% of Americans, those making over $92,000 a year, paid 67.8% of the tax burden. In 2005, still under Bush's tax cuts, they paid 72% of the tax burden. Yes, the rich saved more in terms of dollars, but percentage wise the lowest tax bracket went from 15% to 10%, while the top went from 39% to 35%. That means the poorest taxpayer got a 33% break on their taxes and the richest got less than 10% of a break. More in dollars, but leaving them with a higher share overall. And all tax brackets were lowered. The child tax credit was doubled, so people with lots of kids, got the biggest break of all. Hardly a break for the rich alone. Most of it went to the other 90%.
- In 2001 the bottom 40% of earners made 13.5% of the nation's income, paid no taxes and received rebates back from the government totalling $16.3 Billion. By 2005, on the backs of the rich, they received rebates totalling 33.5 Billion.
- President Obama's proposed tax changes will increase the number of people earning money but not paying taxes to 50% of the population. That's 50% of potential voters with no tax liability, and a good portion of them getting checks back from the rich.
What does this all mean? All the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric is a big, fat lie. The rich got a bigger percentage of the responsibility overall for the tax pie out of Bush's tax cuts. Yes, capital gains rates went down, mostly affecting the rich, but their percentage of taxes paid still rose because they invested more since lower taxes meant better return.
It also means that the number of voters in this country that have no responsibility of paying for what their congressmen spend will outnumber those who do. As Ari says in the article linked above, it's not good for a democracy to have a non-taxpaying class outnumber those who pay taxes, especially when those not paying the taxes are receiving rebate checks and "entitlement" checks that continue as long as they stay "poor." I put poor in quotes because I know people who make a third of what I do and have flat screen TVs, cell phones for all family members and full cable, partially with taxpayer dollars. And yes, these people fall into that 40% that pay no taxes. All of my TVs are at least 9 years old and I have to have cable to watch TV on them soon because of government mandated changes.
So, if you owe taxes this year, or if your refund doesn't equal what you paid still, thank the politicians, left and right. As you pay next year, remember that those who already pay no taxes are getting part of what you paid.
Oh, and by the way, that extra $13 a week you might be seeing in your check - it's not a tax rate reduction and you will owe taxes on it as income next April. All they did was spread a "stimulus" check over the last 9 months of the year, so just like you owed taxes on last May's stimulus checks, you'll owe taxes on that $13 a week, if you pay taxes.
My advice? Find a local tea party tomorrow and show your support for what neither party is getting right: taking care of our money and properly sharing the burden. I have to work since I work for a CPA, the best place to work as our tax code grows, or I would be there.
Parting shot: watch this video, but not while you're eating
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
| 58 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
A Glenn Beck event in Salem overflowed the spot they were gathering and they had to spill out into other venues. The local paper said it wasn't newsworthy that over 300 people had crammed into a small space to watch the special, and many more had been turned away by the fire marshall, including me.
You have to watch Fox to hear that any of us are upset. No other station is reporting it, while CBS puts out polls where they polled 36% Dems, 25% Republicans and the rest independents and proclaim Obama is still popular. It's like they forget that 57 million people voted against him.
And then they call us sore losers. What were they in 2001 over the hanging chads? Or in 2004 when they ran the most boring candidate of all time? It's not about losing the election any more, it's that the president we elected is spending our children into poverty.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Yes, there's a big difference between their howling and the reality of the new regime and the damage it will do. If anyone stole an election it was B.O. (B.S.) and of course, Al Franken(stein).
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
Personally, I'm still waiting for this unnamed corporation to call me and pay for me to go that liberal bloggers keep saying are fueling this, since conservatives that were outraged at Republican spending the last eight years but not enough to take time off from their jobs must be paid off to protest even worse spending.
These aren't Republican or Democrat protests. They are anti-spending, pro-small government protests by people that want the government to stop spending so much and to do something about a tax code that has grown in pages by 50% as its used to pick winners and losers. It's now 70,000 pages.
Hundreds of Thousands of people will gather today, but I bet there will be more coverage of "Bo," the new puppy than the tea parties, if they cover them at all. It's like the MSM says, "Hey, people are gathering to . . . OH, LOOK, A PUPPY!"