More tax data...the rich really do pay their fair share, and more

[billc]

Well, here is some more tax data putting the lie to the myth that the rich don't pay their fair share...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/07/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/

To break it all down even more simply, consider the following, based upon two tables at the link above:

• In 2009, the top 20% of earners brought in an income about 10 times that of the bottom 20% of earners. However, they paid about 221 times as much in taxes.
• Breaking down the top one percent of earners is even worse for the liberal argument. To wit: The top one percent of earners made about 50 times as much money as the bottom quintile in 2009, but paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes.

Let me repeat this: in 2009 the top one percent paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes as the average in the bottom twenty percent. So now the question arises: what is the fair share the wealthy should pay? Is 40% of their income going to the federal government enough? How about half? Does it matter that the 50% or so of Americans who pay little or no non-retirement income taxes basically get a free ride when it comes to federal roads, immigration control, etc. – on the backs of the wealthy?

According to the Tax Foundation in an October 2011 report, “The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.” In short, most taxes for non-retirement social spending – the same social spending liberals are so keen on expanding – are being paid by those people liberals also say don’t pay enough in taxes – the top five percent.

 

[WC_lun]

The rich pay a lower effective tax rate than all but the poorest in our country. Add sales tax and such and it goes even further in the wrong direction. You need to seriously stop drinking the cool aid and start readin non-partisan studies, like from the CBO and think tanks dedicated to fair taxes instead of a political idealogoy...or is it that you don't care if your information is accurate as long as it tells the narrative you think it should?

 

[granfire]

The rich pay a lower effective tax rate than all but the poorest in our country. Add sales tax and such and it goes even further in the wrong direction. You need to seriously stop drinking the cool aid and start readin non-partisan studies, like from the CBO and think tanks dedicated to fair taxes instead of a political idealogoy...or is it that you don't care if your information is accurate as long as it tells the narrative you think it should?

or maybe look at your own bottom line and ask yourself why you would fight the battles of the ones that could buy you out with what they have left in petty cash....

People who can spend more in a day shopping for frivolities than I make in a year do not really cause me to lose sleep over when they are taxed on what they earn, or not as it seems to be the case....

:deadhorse:s425:

 

[WC_lun]

Gran, its simple really, because if the narrative is believed that Billi is selling, then the rich will pay less and the rest of the country will be asked to pay more, increasing problems we already have. That and my belief in what is right and wrong. I know the liklihood of the rich in this country buying the political and legislative outcomes they want is very great, but if myself and others that believe that is wrong do not speak up, then that liklihood changes to certainty.

I know its like beating a dead horse. I'm tired of these post as well. However, if someone doesn't speak up when nonsense is told...well you know the line about tell a lie often enough?

 

[billc]

It seems that regardless of the rate that they pay, they are payin more in dollars than other people. I'm all for a flat tax rate, with a 30-40 thousand dollar exemption for all American taxpayers, but how much should any, one taxpayer be expected to pay regardless of what they earn? How much is enough for someone like Mitt Romney to pay each year? Is 3 million dollars in taxes enough? 3 million dollars paid by one man, while some pay no federal taxes. Sure, some people don't make enough to pay any taxes, which I understand, but does it make sense to call Mitt Romney and other wealthy taxpayers bad people after they already pay millions of dollars to the government? If you don't like how much the middle class is going to pay in taxes, fix that problem. Stop calling people who pay millions in taxes bad people and instead, perhaps say thank you for contributing so much to this countries efforts. Remember, all of this money goes to a bloated, corrupt government.

Again, I ask, does anyone here complaining about what some wealthy people pay, pay nearly as much in real dollars as they do to the government each year? Are there rich people who pay no taxes, probably, and they should be brought in line. For the ones who do pay, and pay a lot, I have no problem with an upper limit on what they or any other American pays in taxes. I don't want the corrupt politicians in local, state or the federal government getting one more penny than absolutely necessary to run the essential services of our country. One penny more than that is a crime.

This is enough...

in 2009 the top one percent paid about 1,500 times as much in taxes as the average in the bottom twenty percent.

 

[elder999]

It seems that regardless of the rate that they pay, they are payin more in dollars than other people. I'm all for a flat tax rate, with a 30-40 thousand dollar exemption for all American taxpayers, but how much should any, one taxpayer be expected to pay regardless of what they earn?.

This is the key word, billi-"earn," and it's significance escapes you.

In 2009, the top 20% of earners brought in an income about 10 times that of the bottom 20% of earners. However, they paid about 221 times as much in taxes

Earned income is salary. Yes, if the CEO of United Framistats has a salary of $750,000 a year, he pays more in taxes-substantially more, and at a higher rate. However, it's likely that his "earned income"-his salary-is not all of his income, unlike most Americans-if he is paid in substantial amounts of stock in his company, or stock options, he pays at a much lower rate than most would-probably around 15%, but, depending upon how the stock is valued, he might not pay anything. Likewise, if he receives income from stock in the form of dividends, he pays capital gains tax on that income-again, around 15-20%.

Putting it another way: I own around 100,000 shares of WALMART. Each of those shares is shaping up to pay about $1.40 a year in dividends, for a total income of $140,000. If you earned that much in salary, you probably will paid around 34% in income taxes last year, but if you earned it as a capital gain, you only paid around 15%. In one case, the father of two with a steady job, and what used to be a solidly upper-middle class income, keeps around $92,000 of his income-maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

The guy whose money came from WALMART stock gets to keep around $120,000. Multiply that over inconceivable amounts-500,000 shares of WALMART, and other investments, and it can get pretty outrageous-especially if that dividend income is transferred offshore, or invested in other instruments that make it even less subject to taxes-and not one dime of it goes to "job creation," unless you're a banker-then it makes work for you.

 

[granfire]

Gran, its simple really, because if the narrative is believed that Billi is selling, then the rich will pay less and the rest of the country will be asked to pay more, increasing problems we already have. That and my belief in what is right and wrong. I know the liklihood of the rich in this country buying the political and legislative outcomes they want is very great, but if myself and others that believe that is wrong do not speak up, then that liklihood changes to certainty.

I know its like beating a dead horse. I'm tired of these post as well. However, if someone doesn't speak up when nonsense is told...well you know the line about tell a lie often enough?

permanent sleep deprivation, your Honor....

I meant to put the dead horses under billie's post

 

[WC_lun]

No worries, Gran

 

[billc]

Here is one of the great minds, Thomas Sowell...

 

[WC_lun]

Nothing is as simple on our taxes as the above quote would make it seem. Also, it isn't a sense of greed that makes many people want to change the tax code, but rather a sense of fairness.

 

[Big Don]

Where was all this anti wealth angst when John Kerry was running for President? Oh, you mean it isn't genuine? I'm shocked...

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm from far away, Don, so please forgive my ignorance. I like to think that, with the help of you fellows here, I know more than average about what goes on in American political circles but I don't understand how those two things (i.e. Kerry and a functional taxtation system) go together?

 

[Big Don]

I'm from far away, Don, so please forgive my ignorance. I like to think that, with the help of you fellows here, I know more than average about what goes on in American political circles but I don't understand how those two things (i.e. Kerry and a functional taxtation system) go together?

John Kerry, fabulously wealthy, married into money ran for the Presidency as a Democrat, there was none of this false outrage over how much money he (his wife) had. Shoot, Suke, when it came out that he is cheating on his taxes by not bringing his yacht home, that was ignored.
Mitt Romney is rich, and running as a Republican, NOW the rich are evil, not releasing tax returns is evil and wrong.
Really, you don't see it?

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah I see :nods:.

For me, in general terms, that is not a function of Republican vs Democrat 'bias' or somesuch thing. It is a function of the fact that the economy of the developed world has taken a kicking and, after fleecing the ordinary man, the coffers are still not full enough to restore equibrium. So, at least for appearances sake, those who have extracted value from the economy and who then mask that value, to the detriment of the host, are being pursued a little more rigorously than they have previously been used to.

That higher profile means that being a tax evader/avoider is more poisonous, politically, than previously.

 

[Sukerkin]

Stories like this one on the BBC do not show the hyper-aquisitive in a very flattering light either, which I would imagine only serves to fuel the senstivity to politicians showing their avarice (or refusing to come clean about it):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

Flavour quotes:

"A global super-rich elite had at least $21 trillion (£13tn) hidden in secret tax havens by the end of 2010, according to a major study."


"Tax expert and UK government adviser John Whiting said he was sceptical that the amount hidden was so large."


"Mr Henry said his $21tn is actually a conservative figure and the true scale could be $32tn. A trillion is 1,000 billion.

Mr Henry used data from the Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and national governments.
His study deals only with financial wealth deposited in bank and investment accounts, and not other assets such as property and yachts."

 

[Big Don]

Ah I see
That higher profile means that being a tax evader/avoider is more poisonous, politically, than previously.

I don't think you do.
Romney has been a major player in Republican politics for a while, the IRS hasn't filed suit against him, and yet, his refusal to release his tax records, which, by the way is NOT required by law, is met with all kinds of hand wringing angst and much gnashing of teeth.
John Kerry, whose wife's fortune frankly eclipses Romney's berthing his yacht in Rhode Island specifically to avoid paying taxes in his home state of MA is widely ignored.
Harry Reid, google his name see what terms google suggests..., claims an anonymous person claims Romney didn't pay taxes in years and OMG, major brouhaha.
Do you honestly not see a difference? Harry Reid, by the way, also refuses to release his tax records, and somehow amassed a $10 Million dollar fortune as a US Senator... Really? How did Mr Reid manage to sock away so much cash while earning less than $200,000 a year? But, the Mainstream Media doesn't care about, or mention that either...

 

[Sukerkin]

So, in the current climate, it is only Romney who is being singled out for special attention? Or is he the only one in the 'mix' who is being 'coy' about his dubious finances?

If I had to guess, I would say that all of that nest of vipers that is the pool of politicians will be up to their chins in shady deals - name and shame the lot of them, put them in prison where they belong and vote for someone else that isn't a figure head presented as a 'choice' by the ruling classes.

Pipe dream there sadly.

 

[Big Don]

So, in the current climate, it is only Romney who is being singled out for special attention?

Pretty much, yes.

Or is he the only one in the 'mix' who is being 'coy' about his dubious finances?

Not by a long shot

If I had to guess, I would say that all of that nest of vipers that is the pool of politicians will be up to their chins in shady deals - name and shame the lot of them, put them in prison where they belong and vote for someone else that isn't a figure head presented as a 'choice' by the ruling classes.

Pipe dream there sadly.

That said, if he doesn't have a legal requirement to reveal them, then it should be a matter of choice on his part, the same way the whole Birth Certificate issue was with the Big O. When the Birthers, or even the curious said "If he has nothing to Hide, why doesn't he release it?" the answer was always "Because he doesn't have to." I think the same standard should then apply here.

Most people treated the Birther's as kooks, rightly so, why then are Romney's tax records not entitled to the same consideration?
One's tax records are MUCH more private than one's birth certificate...

 

[billc]

Since you have asked the question Sukerkin I will also try to answer it. Mitt Romney is being attacked by obama for not releasing more than 2 years of tax returns because he is a very wealthy man. The press, and even people on martialtalk are making a major issue of this as well as the fact that he might have bank accounts overseas, which is still legal. When John Kerry ran for president, he was also a rich man, more wealthy than Mitt Romney, because he married Theresa Heinz, the widow to the Heinz ketchup fortune. He only released tax records for himself, not for his wife who was worth twice what Romney was worth. Also, the Kerry's owned 75 million dollar yacht. They didn't anchor it in their home state because the taxes on that yacht would have been huge. Sooo...they moved the yacht to another state to avoid paying the taxes on it. The press at the time ignored this issue. The only ones who brought it up were conservative talk radio hosts and internet sites. The regular press ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS and the other liberal cable news outlets did not cover the story, or if they mentioned it, it was in passing or discounting the double standard.

Now, there are allegations from the trial of a convicted felon from Chicago, Tony Rezko, that President Obama was recieving payments from Rezko, for his campaign, and didn't pay taxes on it. Here is the story from the thread I started...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ony_rezko.html

The best part of the article...


Cooley also told a source that, "Dan was wearing a wire for a couple of years on Tony Rezko, and he told the feds he was giving money to Rezko for Barack Obama. They told him over and over again never to discuss Obama and wires with the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's office, and never even mention Obama's name."
Another undercover operative for the feds in the investigation of Rezko, Bernard T. Barton, Jr., alias "John Thomas" was also prohibited from taping conversations concerning Obama.
According to the source, Cooley added that Frawley told him in several emails, during multiple phone conversations, and in a face-to-face meeting in Chicago, that he gave more than $1 million to Rezko "who said that he wanted it for Obama."


And some more detail...



Daniel T. Frawley, a former business partner of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, claims he gave Rezko $400,000 that Rezko gave to then U.S. Senator Barack Obama.
This claim comes through Frawley's emails to, and conversations with, Robert "Bob" Cooley, former Chicago mob lawyer turned government informer and author of the book on Chicago corruption entitled "When Corruption Was King".
Cooley was the star witness in a series of trials in the early 1990's as part of an F.B.I. investigation named Operation Gambat. Those trials led to theconvictions of over a score of Chicago crooks, including First Ward Alderman Fred Roti, a made-man; the Chief Judge of Cook County's Chancery Court; the Assistant Majority Leader of the Illinois State Senate; and the only Federal Judge in U.S. history convicted of fixing a murder trial.
About April 2011, Frawley, along with Daniel Mahru, a former business associate of Rezko dating back to 1989, and a former business partner of current White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett, began conversations with Cooley concerning collaboration on a book about Chicago corruption.
Frawley's claim that the money he gave Rezko went to Obama is alluded to in a December 1, 2010 deposition executed in the context of a legal malpractice complaint filed by Frawley, on July 9, 2010, against his former attorney and long-time friend, George Weaver.




Konicek: I'm assuming the information is about the payments made by Rezko to Obama, so we know we're talking about the right conversation, right?
Franklin: (Charles Franklin, representing Frawley.) I'm not going to make any objection. I think that's - you may make that assumption, but I think it's unfair to make the - to have Mr. Frawley make the assumption. Also, it doesn't go to who or where or the forum non conveniens issue.
Konicek: There's going to be multiple conversations, I want to make sure I understand where each occurred. So you said he (Weaver) withheld information. Am I correct it was about Obama being paid by Rezko?
The Witness: (Frawley) I'm not answering that question based upon my attorney's instructions."
Less than two months later, on January 26, 2011, the feds charged Frawley with bank fraud, although the statute of limitations on his crime had expired. He pled guilty on February 14, 2011 and was ordered to make restitution of $4,000,000. He awaits sentencing in mid-April after four previous sentencing dates were postponed.
Frawley's claim, that he passed money to Rezko that went to Obama, is referenced in an email to Cooley dated May 31, 2011, wherein Frawley outlines his thoughts on how to bring "this" to the public's attention.







Wellll...if we actually had a main stream media that wasn't actively campaigning for obama, they might actually give this allegation half the attention that they are giving to everything associated with Mitt Romney's legal bank accounts and tax returns.


This article posted on www.illinoispaytoplay.com on February 27, 2012, and was cited in an American Thinker piece on February 29, 2012. But at that time, no mention was made of the possible Obama tax avoidance issue.
After multiple postponements, Frawley is now scheduled to report to serve a one-year and one-day sentence (making him eligible for early release after serving not-more-than 85% of his sentence - in a minimum security camp near where Blago is incarcerated) after the November election.
Frawley's pro bono attorney, Thomas Durkin, has been nominated by President Obama, and championed by the two Illinois US Senators, to become a Federal Judge.
Now that the presidential candidates' tax histories are on the table, isn't it time that a White House correspondent ask a question about Frawley's accusation?


What are the odds that a member of the White House press corps. will ask about this new info. on obama's relationship with the convicted felon, Tony Rezko, the guy who helped obama buy his chicago home? Funny that they haven't looked more deeply into his relationship with Rezko isn't it?

The problem with obama with this article is that this same Tony Rezko, helped President obama buy his home in Chicago, so there actually is a very personal connection to this convicted felon. However, there is absolutely no media curiosity about this allegation, or the previous relationship between the President of the United States and this convicted felon, political fixer. Now this convicted felon, Tony Rezko, was also involved in testifying against a sitting Illinois Governor, Rod Blago (I won't spell his whole name) who is also now a convicted felon serving a long prison sentence. In a chicago tribune article on Governor Blago, there is another allegation that Rezko was supplying money to obama. Once again, absolutely no curiosity by the press on this 25,000 dollars or the 400,000 dollars from Tony Rezko. All of the press attention is on Romney's legal banking activity and his legal tax returns. There is an unfair effort on the part of the media between the coverage of these two candidates.

The American press ignores the financial activities of Democrat Presidential candidates, and pursues the legal financial activities of the Republicans, casting them in the light of illegality when there is no evidence of illegality. This double standard is one of the reasons alternative media are becoming more popular here in the states while the main stream media outlets, the New York Times, Washington post and other papers are losing money and having to lay off their personel, even more so than from just the changes in the medium.

 

[elder999]

:lol:

Seriously, billi?

1) John Kerry's personal net worth is not at all equal to Mitt Romney's. Teresa Heinz Kerry's is, in fact, she's a genuine billionaire.

2) WHen Kerry ran, he released 9 years of his tax returns-while I don't blame Mitt Romney one bit for not releasing his (there's bound to be something in them that no one, Republican, Democrat, or other, rich, middle class,or poor, would like) it's something of a given for presidential candidates.

3) I keep my yacht in Mexico, because it's where I sail. The Kerry's keep their in Rhode Island because that's where Newport-the onetime home of the America's cup is, and that's where the Skull and Bones set, and anyone else part of the yachting world in the northeast who gives a damn about such things, sails.

I mean, they've got houses all over the country, more than a billion dollars, jets that can get them to their boat quickly, and you think they keep it in Newport to avoid taxes? They keep it there because......well, because it's the place to keep a yacht in their world.

BTW, the Isobel is lovely-a Friendship Yacht, designed by Ted Fontaine-I'm almost envvious, but she only cost $7 million, not $75 million....

View attachment $John-Kerry-yacht-Isabel-09.jpg

Additionally, while I keep my vessel in San Carlos, it's registered in New Mexico-which gets me a few yucks-a 46' motorsailer registered in a landlocked state-and that's where I pay taxes, because that's where I live. It gives me yucks for people in Mexico to see "Los Alamos, New Mexico" under the name ( :lfao: ), on the stern where it goes on all such vessels, like the Kerry's:

View attachment $0730_kerry-yacht1-630x446.jpg


Kerry bought the vessel in Rhode Island, though-and paid about a half a million dollars in Massachussets sales tax.

So, it galls me to have to defend John Kerry, but not nearly as much as I delight in proving you wrong.and , honestly billi, I bought my boat in San Diego-I didn't do it to avoid New Mexico sales tax, but becuase that's where it was. In fact, I paid taxes in California and New Mexico-though New Mexico was rather complicated........in any case, by your same logic, what possible reason could Mitt Romney, a man who owns banks, have for keeping hundreds of millions in overseas bank accounts, at banks he (presumably) doesn't own?

It's like F. Scott Fitzgerald said, billi-the very rich are very different from you and I. There is no better evidence of this than press and pundits alike misascribing the reasons for buying a boat in Rhode Island, or keeping it there, when you live in another state, even though that states only one short drive away.

I mean, the guy anted up $500000 just to shut those people up, when legally he didn't have to.....hell, the boat's actual owner is one of Teresa Heinz Kerry's Pittsburgh corporations, and they rent the thing out for expen$ive charters, when they're not playing themselves-if you want to really talk about limiting their tax liability....:lfao: