'more taxes on the rich' ideas, as there aren't that many of them. Consider. According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, there are currently 4.5 million households that earn over $200,000/year, the highest wealth division compiled in Census reports, which is approzimately 3.8% of all households in the country. Note, that is households, not individuals. e.g. If the wife makes $80,000, and the husband makes $140,000, that fits the criteria. Not what I'd call wealthy. The average income of those making over $250,000 is $425,226, and there are 2.37 million households in this range, although this data is not broken down by state. $425,226...now we're starting to talk wealth.

So, what are the states/areas with the most high-income households? Top 5 are:

5. Massachusetts, % of households earning $200k+, 6.22%. Median income, $59,981.

4. Maryland, % of households earning $200+, 6.9%. Median income, $65,183.

3. New Jersey, % of households earning $200k+, 7.5%. Median income, $64,143.

2. Connecticutt, % of households earning $200+, 8.0%. Median income, $65,213.

1. District of Columbia, % of households earning $200+, 8.4%. Median income, $53,685.

So,if you want to start soaking the rich, looks as if you should start in your own back yard.

Also, list to the top 15 are:

15. Minnesota
14. Texas
13. Washington
12. Colorado
11. New Hampshire
10. Illinois
9. Hawaii
8. New York
7. Virginia...that you?
6. California

There are many blue states in that top 15 list. Think they'll stay blue if tax laws change. I don't know.

...that I happen to live in one of the richest Congressional districts in the country. That is why I'm stunned to see that there is now a waiting list for people to get into the local homeless shelter, and many have given up and set up tents nearby in the winter weather.

In poll after poll, when the American people are asked, they say raise taxes on the wealthy. A few years ago I saw an article in the Washington Post asking how people thought social security's solvancy should be solved. Some two thirds said "tax the rich". A few weeks ago I saw a poll that asked how we should balance the budget. The number 1 answer was "tax the rich". The 2nd answer (20% said) was "cut military spending". 4% and 3% thought we should cut social security or medicare.

Now, if we actually did tax the rich, do you really think those states in the south who always talk about the "liberal elite" would stay red?

Although retired, I'm in the $200k+ category. You have any idea how much of that $200k+ I get to fucking keep? Of course you don't. After federal, state, local, property, and sales taxes, state and local 'fees', insurance payments, (home, auto, health), of which all the above are 'mandatory', if much more of MY money is taken, I'll be looking to pitch my own tent.

Why is it that liberals look at someone else's success over a lifetime, and think they are entitled to take most of it? Yeah, I collect social security too, and also pay tax on 85% of it. Why is that, you may wonder? That's a tax on a tax, WTF.

...that there are endless numbers of homeless guys who would even be willing to get on their knees, shut their eyes real tight, and suck your cock for the privilege to pay the taxes you do.

The incessant whining from the 6 figure and up crowd is utterly unbelievable. If you can't live VERY comfortably making 200k+ then you're fucking something up.

I'm always asked why we should punish success. I'd like to ask, why should we reward incompetence?

made you appear "weak" to the right wing trolls. We know you're tougher than that. Stick around & give them a well deserved kick in the ass like I do---------

Now that's ironic.

In my own defense, "counsellor", never announced duration of my hiatuses ( my last one lasted 8 days ), or announced that I was gonna perm. leave the board, as much as that would please you & your fellow board manginas-----

"WHy should we reward incompetence"

That's an excellent question Willy, I'm glad you are starting to see the conservative point of view. ALL 'social' programs boil down to rewarding incompetence. So why do we continue to literally PAY people to fuck up their lives?

Willy, the other problem with the "tax the rich" mentality is that it doesn't just stop with fixing Social Security. It doesn't stop with increasing funding to Medicare. EVERY SINGLE TIME a liberal suggests ANYTHING that is going to cost more money, their answer on how they intend to pay for it is always, always the same mantra "tax the rich". You don't just want to tax the rich to fix social security, you want to tax the rich to pay for EVERYTHING in this country. At what point are you going to realize we can't actually expect the wealthy to finance this country from top to bottom, while 80% of wage earners get a free pass. Its just not feasible. I might perhaps be a little more open to the idea of raising taxes, if I wasn't convinced that there would be no end in sight to the mountain of additional taxes you would foist onto the wealthy if given the chance to do so.

"ALL 'social' programs boil down to rewarding incompetence. So why do we continue to literally PAY people to fuck up their lives?"

Let's start with social security. It's an insurance program to provide you, and every other American a modicum of income when they are unable to work or are too old to work. I had no idea that old age was the result of incompetience. Yet, how many banks were bailed out for their own incompetience?

"EVERY SINGLE TIME a liberal suggests ANYTHING that is going to cost more money, their answer on how they intend to pay for it is always, always the same mantra 'tax the rich'."

I so wish it was. If it did happen, then the rich would be paying more in 35% on their income. It was 70% under Nixon, and 91% under Eisenhower. And yet surprise, surprise the rich still invested here, and we didn't have a multi-trillion dollar debt and bridges falling apart. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to be hooked lately on the idea of getting rid of income taxes entirely and switching to sales taxes, which is the same message they've always had, and that's "fuck the poor".

"At what point are you going to realize we can't actually expect the wealthy to finance this country from top to bottom, while 80% of wage earners get a free pass. Its just not feasible. I might perhaps be a little more open to the idea of raising taxes, if I wasn't convinced that there would be no end in sight to the mountain of additional taxes you would foist onto the wealthy"

I don't expect to finance the entire country by taxing the rich, but it's a damn good place to start. Why not tax the people who can most afford to pay those taxes? Feel free to be more open. Taxes on the wealthy have declined for the last 60 years, and it doesn't seem to be stopping yet. Perhaps the reason for this is because they have enough excess wealth to bribe government to their own liking. That's worked out just dandy, hasn't it?

A few afterthoughts.

1) Many of the wealthy now make most or all of their income as capital gains. Which means they aren't paying 35%, but rather a measely 15%.

2) I don't know how many Americans don't pay any income taxes, but I don't think it's 80%. That number has increased lately, primarily because Americans are making less income than they used to.

I'd prefer to post a smaller version of this image, but I fear it would be unreadable.

-- Modified on 1/31/2011 1:45:44 PM

-- Modified on 1/31/2011 1:47:56 PM

trumpeting numbers that you have no idea about what 'real' tax rates are. All things considered, I don't pay 35% tax as you sugggest, but I do pay well in excess of 60% taxes in total on my income. I paid $92.67 in tax on 305 gallons of fuel oil, delivered this morning. I just paid $72.20 tax on 4 new tires, and front end alignment on my SUV. Registration on our 3 vehicles total $105.00/year in tax. Any of that included in your 35%...fuck no. And that's just for starters, the list goes on and on. But you liberal ass doesn't take any of that into consideration.

Oh yeah, I'm strictly hetero, so you can keep those guys lined up in front of your house.

Priapus i agree i hit buffet table in vegas when i lose on duke but yesterday i kicked ass when my st. johns annihiliated,pulverized,and destroyed duke. LOL

the rich pay a lower percentage in total taxes than the average working person.

200k is like 80 k in other places. I can see why you bitch about taxes considering the state taxes are high and I read some where state is getting to increase tax again.

I wouldn't want to live in any of those states too freaking cold.

If only criteria is taxes for blue state and red state divide, then rapid slide into -------?

Of course, federal taxes are something different from state and local taxes.

You wouldn't pay 35% unless you were making in excess of $373k, and quite frankly, I think the top margin should kick in higher.

Consumption taxes are by nature regressive. It's for this reason, that I'm opposed to them. However, Jersey, I would note that back in the 50's and 60's, the average state sales taxes was only 2%. Compare that to today. My own home state of Virginia charges 4.5%, and we're one of those low tax states.

Why were these taxes so low at the state and local level back then? Because top marginal income taxes were 70%-92%. The federal gov't could cover most of the state expenses.

This led to a very efficient and progressive tax system, where millionaires could still be millionaires, but didn't have enough to bribe government to their liking, and we didn't have bridges falling apart.

willy, a short history lesson. Back in the 50's and 60's you mention, there was no Medicare, Medicaid, FEMA, TSA, Homeland Security, Dept's of Education, of Energy, of HHS, Welfare, WIC, and the list goes on. Govenment, both federal and state, was much smaller then. Lot less shit to pay for. Monthly Social Security payouts were smaller because there were fewer recipients, and their life span was shorter.

Oh, and there were bridges falling apart. The decade of the 1940's had seen little to no spending on infrastructure, as it was all going toward the war effort, and post war recovery.

...then explain why our debt as a percentage of GDP declined while those programs were created. Take note that our debt as a percentage of GDP increased only AFTER Reagan cut top marginal income taxes.

If you'll put your roach down for a minute, we were talking about individual taxes on the wealthy, not the GDP. You really seem to be hung up on GDP. What the fuck does that have to do with the IRS tax tables?

You mentioned that state taxes in the 50's and 60's were low because the top tax rates for individuals were in the 70% range and higher. My point was that the federal government did not have as many programs to fund as it currently has, and there were few, if any, federal unfunded mandates on individual states.

Looking at your chart, it is obvious to anyone with a hint of history that the percentage decreased after 1945, mainly because we were no longer fighting a war in every country on earth. That, plus the fact that our allies were repaying their war debts to our government, and the economy was strong. All those GI's coming home needed homes, cars, raising families, etc. As a side note, do a search on "Operation Wetback". Eisenhower rounded up, and deported 13 million illegals so the returning GI's could have the jobs the illegals had taken, in their absence. Why isn't that being done today?  

Reagan spent a LOT of money to reestablish our military to a combat ready status after Carter had decimated it by cutting spending in all branches. Don't believe it? I do, I was there at the time. When Reagan was elected, our nuclear triad was about 40% combat ready. I was personally involved in the B-52 fleet, and I can tell you first hand, half of them wouldn't fly if needed, until Reagan loosened the purse strings, and the spare parts channels were reopened. He basically outspent the Soviets, and Gorbachev had no choice but to cave.

Why did it decrease in the middle of Clinton's administration? Again, he cut military spending for one thing. 300,000 troops were told their services were no longer needed in the military. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. He also cut military retirement pay percentages, and benefits.

Your in your early 30's now, but let us know when you're 60 how you feel about the IRS forcibly taking large sums of your pay with retirement nearing, and you haven't saved shit.

pay taxes yourself.

I talk about debt as a percentage of GDP, because GDP measures the size of the economy. If our economy has doubled in size, and gov't spending has doubled in size, then relative to the economy, spending has stayed the same.

"My point was that the federal government did not have as many programs to fund as it currently has"

My point was that while those programs were being created, from the 50's to the 70's, debt as a percentage of GDP went down.

"Eisenhower rounded up, and deported 13 million illegals so the returning GI's could have the jobs the illegals had taken, in their absence. Why isn't that being done today?"

Because those same rich folks who want all those nice tax breaks for themselves also want an endless supply of cheap labor.

"[Reagan] basically outspent the Soviets, and Gorbachev had no choice but to cave."

The Soviets caved because Carter tricked them into invading the land where empires go to die, and it bled them dry.

"Why did it decrease in the middle of Clinton's administration? Again, he cut military spending for one thing."

Very true. But he also raised taxes. Speaking of which, since Clinton was President, Defense spending has doubled, and the Pentagon has admitted to losing a trillion dollars.

"Your in your early 30's now, but let us know when you're 60 how you feel about the IRS forcibly taking large sums of your pay with retirement nearing, and you haven't saved shit."

Sounds to me like a good reason to keep Social Security going, if not to increase the benefits paid out.