The following information is pulled mostly from 2001 data.

Income tax accounts for approximately 43% of the revenue collected by the Federal government. In addition social taxes (social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and unemployment) account for about 36% of the revenue. The remaining revenue is derived from a variety of corporate taxes (12%), excise taxes (4%) and other (5%).

Who pays this? Well if you're in the top 50% of income earners (income above $28,000) you pay 96% of the federal income tax. The other 50% of the population is sucking the life out this country. It gets worse as you work your way up the pay scale. Earn above $56,000, you're now in the top 25% of wage earners and you now account for 82% of the income tax. And if you're in the top 10% of the population, with earnings above $92,000, you still account for 65% of the federal income tax collected.

I know a lot of you in this group are married and have working spouses. Chances are you fall in the top 25% of wage earners and some are even in the top 10%. So how does it feel to be rich and have to carry those other 75% on your backs as you work to provide for your own family? Personally it's making me tired. So when I hear about the democrats wanting to roll back the tax breaks for the rich, I just have to ask "who is that?" Because I sure don't feel rich. If I'm in the top 25% does that mean a middle class tax cut doesn't apply to me? By definition the top 25% isn't the middle. What I've found that to mean in the past is give aware more child tax credits and earned income credits to poor families and raise my taxes to pay for it.

Corporate earnings are taxed at 35%. So if you're lucky enough to make a few extra bucks and put them into an investment for your future security you get to pay taxes twice, once at 35% and then again at your individual tax rate which is likely above 20%. So people like me who are hardworking and trying to avoid the social security, Medicare, Medicaid merry go round have to work twice as hard to save for retirement. It's almost like the government wants a class of socially dependent citizens.

In FY1990, the richest 10 percent of Americans paid 53.9 percent of the Federal Budget. The poorest 25 percent paid 0.9 percent. (Of that 25 percent, 93 percent own color televisions, 75 percent own cars, 60 percent own microwaves and VCRs, and 40 percent own their own home.) 44.7 percent of all eligible Americans either paid no Federal Income Taxes at all, or received an Earned Income Tax Credit." --Source: The Congressional Budget Office (1998)

rant off

Ok I'll rant know. What the heck is this child credit anyone. Why should I have to pay more tax because I decided not to have children? Does having children mean you use up less government resources? I think you use more(i.e. school). So not only am I paying for people's kids to go to school I'm paying more than they are. That doesn't seem right does it?

Any liberal care to talk to this? Nice post by the way, I'm right there with you.

penzt8,
Don't forget the unemployment tax. State rate is 2.7% (depending on your state) of the first $8,000 of worker earnings per year. Then there's the federal unemployment tax, another 2.7% of the first $8,000 of earnings per year. This isn't a payroll deduction, but a direct tax on employers.

Then there's the employer's Social Security match. 7.65% of employee pay...

The first quarter of 2004 is almost over. As the company Treasurer I get to file the forms to prove that we paid paid our taxes during January, February and March. Lucky me.

Yo plabonte

See if you still have the same view after paying $1000 a month in child care. The cost of children is astounding! That tax break sure as hell doesnt make up for it.

so why should those without children subsidize those with children?

Subsudising what? Parents with children keep the dollars flowing. When was the last time you had a monthly grocery bill upwards of $1000.00. Or have to by four sets of clothes 3-5 times a year. Not to mention all of their other needs. And the child care issue I mentioned above. And for all of that I get $1000 a kid....wooohoooo!!!

John Stocil (spelling?) of ABC news recently did a segment on this very subject. He asked Al Sharpton what % of taxes the top 1% of earners should pay. He replied that they should pay 15%. That was before John informed him that the top 1% of earners in this country pay 34% of taxes and the top 5% of earners pay 53% of the taxes. The top 5% income was around 135k as I recall. That's a nice income, but by no means rich.

This is on top of other taxes such as real estate, state, and local. One step forward and 2 steps back.

As I see it children are a personal decision. I have two of my own. I know the cost of raising them. I got that little check this past summer. Now I get to pay it back because I earn to much. Apparently the government thinks I'm wealthy. Well, I'm definitely not in the top 10% (above 92,000) and by no means consider myself wealthy.

So what do you call it when someone pays more (higher percentage and higher actual dollars) than someone else? I say we're subsidizing lower income families who choose to have children but are not financially able to support them. I get less for my taxes because I use less of the public infrastructure (education, medical, etc.) than someone with 4 kids.

The only thing that helps me with my federal tax is my mortgage but it's really just a trade off. I end up paying more in property tax than my income tax would have been on that same money.

BTW, can you tell who just did his taxes?

Yeah Pentz Im with ya there.

And this thread is pissing me off cuz I still have to do mine!!

UGH!

ooops penzt...

See now Im can:t even tyiope strighsght

This has been around a while, but I just happened to get it in an email this morning:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler - a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough - had this to say about "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore 127 million; Bush 143 million;
Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000; Bush 2,427,000;
States won by: Gore 19; Bush 29;
Murders per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2;Bush 2.1.

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly land owned by the tax-paying citizens... Gore's territory encompassed [most of] those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare.."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

LLT,so what you are saying is you're into bondage? I never would have guessed. X :~)

LOL@X!!!


Maybe you can adopt the gay lifestyle, find a same sex partner, move to San Fransico and get married...

I'm sure there has to be SOME sort of tax benefits there....

So how do you fix this? The federal government needs to get out of all the social programs, education programs, and any other programs that are not nationwide in scope. Keep the departments of defense, state, transportation, treasury, commerce, energy, and roll the homeland security and veteransa affairs under defense. Get rid of departments of interior, education, agriculture, health and human resources, and move the responsibilitites out to the states where they belong. There's way too much federal regulation already. Let those states that want to give welfare, education, and medical care to illegal immigrants pay for it out of their own resources.

penzt8 did a good job of explaining my rant.

Kids are a personal decision. I've decided to not have kids for economic (as well as other) reasons. If I'm not paying for my own kids why do I have to help pay for everyone elses?

$1,000 a kid? And how many kids to you have BeatDragon. Thats a heck of a lot more then I got as a credit. You know what I got? $0.00

If I bought a hummer I could say that more of my money gets in the system through gas, repairs, etc. Does that mean I should get a credit that you don't because I made an expensive life choice?

In your eyes its a tax credit to have kids. In my eyes its a tax penalty for not having them.

yeah plabonte, I understand yer point and can see it from your side as well. I really dont think of it as getting a credit for having kids tho.

By the way, I have 2,478 kids. Just enough to keep me in drum sticks.

Just to give you some idea of how the federal gov't has grown over the past 200+ years. Biggest growth is during the past 50 years.

Washington 1789-1797 3 departments
Lincoln 1861-1865 5 departments (war and navy were separate departments)
T Roosevelt 1901-1909 7 departments (war and navy were separate departments)
Truman 1945-1953 9 departments (war, defense and navy were 3 separate departments)
Eisenhower 1953-1961 8 departments (combined defense, navy and war departments)
LB Johnson 1963-1969 10 departments
Carter 1977-1981 13 departments
Reagan 1981-1989 12 departments
G Bush 1989-1993 13 departments
GW Bush 2001-presnt 14 departments