This is from Factcheck:

Q: What percent of taxes does the top 1 percent pay and what percent of the income do they make?

A: The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html


As for the middle class:Q: Do middle-income persons pay lower federal income taxes under Bush than they did under Bill Clinton?

A: Yes, middle-income taxpayers pay less...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_middle-income_persons_pay_lower_federal_income.html





-- Modified on 10/12/2008 5:26:48 AM

First thing I'll mention, the wealth disparity within that 1 percent is much higher than the wealth disparity for the other 99 percent. It's the only part of the graph that has NO UPPER LIMIT.  

And it's rational to conjecture that the wealthiest people in the bracket, with Warren Buffet at the top, make 33,800 times more than the lowest part of the one percenters.  That dwarfs the mere 68 times more between the lowest quintile and the lowest of the top 1 percent.  

So, the top one percent starts with households making 1.299 million, and it ends with the current wealthiest man in America, Warren Buffet who poignantly conjectures that the collective group of richest (Fortune 400) Americans pay less taxes, as a percentage of income, than their secretaries. Those are the people who are under-taxed, not so much the bottom of the top one percent.

So those making 1.299 million perhaps have a reason to complain about their taxes, but if they were sane, they would complain that the wealthiest don't pay their fair share of taxes.

There are more angles here. One is the fact that the wealth have a higher marginal utility for their earnings. Meaning even after that 1.299 million pay their taxes, they still have about 45 (estimated) times the income that people at the bottom of the bracket make. That's certainly different than just scraping.

Another objection is that they deserve to keep their money. Which I answer: how do you know the capitalist system awards you exactly the income you deserve? One has to think capitalism is perfect to believe this.

Finally, the argument that "taxation is the government saying it knows how to spend your money than you do." Why stop there? Why not say any law is the government telling you it knows how you should behave better than you do. Why we hire a Congress and delegate it the right to make that decision. Better to send them all home and abolish government if you really don't believe that.  


-- Modified on 10/12/2008 5:31:03 PM

Why don't we try complete socialism along with complete totalatarianism.

If Government is so perfect why not have Government consficate all wealth and make all personal choices for us? Why stop at 50% or 60%, lets just give all of our money to the Government, and while we're at it we might as well have the government make all of our choices for us?

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?

Total free for all doesn't work, neither does total Gov't control.  In reality, neither party offers a true balance which is why both parties (and more) are needed.

However, 8 years of incompetency, lack of oversight, overstepping the bounds of the executive branch, clear violations of our constitution, lack of respect for the "other party" that it is TIME for a change.

McSAME is just more of the SAME.  THAT'S the point.

With your logic, won't any taxes, then, be the equivalent of totalitarianism? That's a very loose definition. Why not pay no taxes. I know, it's not what you're saying. So give me the same grace, I'm not talking about government being perfect. I'm not talking about socialism. I'm talking about effective government, not perfect government.

You don't want to pay any taxes because it's socialism, is that what you're trying to tell me? There are places that have lower taxes if that's your ideal country. I think you'll enjoy the Congo or Afghanistan where no taxes are required. You could buy some weaponry and handle all the policing and defense through your own staff. I'm sure it's cheaper. Or, you could buy real estate in Antarctica and just wait for that global warming thaw. Either that, or get a decommissioned oil platform and live on a mansion in the middle of the Pacific and just say "fuck you" to the rest of world. You ain't paying lousy taxes. That would be your ideal. A Randite paradise. No taxes there.

If your idea of patriotism is no taxes, it's like a marriage without expense, or without sex. What's the point? That's what people will think of a system with an ineffectual government. But they can't divorce it, so they'll tear it apart.  It ain't gonna happen. If you think you pay enough, I might say okay knowing nothing else about your income, but I say there are people  above you who aren't paying near your percentage of taxes. And strangely, they wouldn't feel the pain of it so much.

In another post, I talked about the income disparity even within the top 1 percent of income. It's far, far greater than the income disparity for the whole rest of the graph.  

I certainly don't think you're being realistic about government. Below a certain amount of government revenue per capita of population, not only can't the government function above banana republic level, but it actually loses the dedication of the people through its failure. Putting money into defense and policing, the only thing conservatives want to do, will cause the country's population to stop identifying with it. Divisions will arise, and the country will bifurcate. That's my prediction for the US, unless it begins to do more domestically of what it was doing in the 50s and 60s.



-- Modified on 10/12/2008 8:37:53 PM