Posted by antoncresten on 8/5/2011 10:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by silentpadna on 8/5/2011 10:30:00 AM (view original):
Where were we? Oh yeah:
"What's a "fair share"? Still waiting....I've seen a couple of people try to address this in the myriad of class warfare posts. You can't realisitically talk about taxes and call for people to "pay their fair share" without a reference point.......
What percentage of the burden should the top 10% of earners pay?
What percentage of the burden should the top 25% of earners pay?
What percentage of the burden should the top 50% of earners pay?
Should there be a limit on what government spends? "
Anyone?
CRESTEN (or someone) shouted 40% above 500K. I guess that sort of addresses the issue. What would that do?
What is a "fair share"? The questions above are supposed to make it easy...I find it amazing (well not really) no one wants to go there....
TOP 10%------45%
TOP11%-49%-- 37%
TOP 50%-74%----29%
BOTTOM %--------NOTHING
So if the top 74% of the earners paid 111% of the tax burden (your numbers), that would be the proper share?
Using your numbers if the top 10% paid 45%, that would be a fair share? Hint: they pay more - quite a bit more. Using your numbers, if the top 49% paid a combined 82%, that would be a fair share? Hint: they pay more. If you are saying the bottom negative11% should pay zero...well, I don't even know what that means....
From the IRS as of 2008:
TOP 10%--------Pay 69.94% of total Income Tax
TOP 50% --------Pay 97.30% of total Income Tax
BOTTOM 50% ----------- Pay 2.70% ot total Income Tax
This after the economic crash in '08, but after the tax cuts for the "wealthy". Before the crash of '08:
From the IRS as of 2006:
TOP 10%--------Pay 70.79% of total Income Tax
TOP 50% --------Pay 97.01% of total Income Tax
BOTTOM 50% ----------- Pay 2.70% ot total Income Tax
In 2000, before Bush and before his cuts:
TOP 10%--------Pay 67.33% of total Income Tax
TOP 50% --------Pay 96.09% of total Income Tax
BOTTOM 50% ----------- Pay 3.91% ot total Income Tax
In each case (and in each case I got data for 23 years up to 2008), your "fair share" requirements were met. The share of the top 50% earners of the burden has gone steadily up from Clinton years through the Bush years.
Looking at just the top 10%, it climbs steadily as the economy
grows. The only drops in percent of total share of the top 10% happens when the economy crashes. You'll see a small pullback in their share in '01-'02 (after 9-11) and again in '08. You'll see a jump UP in their share of the burden after the TAX CUTS. How can that be????
As rates went down, share of the burden for the rich went
up. This correlates most strongly with economic growth, but inversely with rates. Rates mean very little when it comes to a recession. The best way to bring dollars into the treasury is to grow the economy and the numbers bear this out.
If your goal is to raise money in the treasury, leave tax rates alone. Get out of the way of business. If your goal is to make the "rich pay their fair share", I'd sure love someone to define it. All of the income and [<-- edited for grammar] share stats are on the IRS page. Anyone can find it. Easily.
My fair share of someone else's money is not defined by how much of it I want.
8/5/2011 1:03 PM (edited)