Take a look at how more and more of the tax burden has been shifted to fewer and fewer people:
Mark Perry of the Enterprise Blog adds this analysis:Bottom Line: Taken together, the data in these graphs challenge the rhetoric that the Bush tax cuts were “tax cuts for the rich,” by showing first that there were more Americans, both in total numbers and as a share of the total, who paid no tax after the Bush tax cuts than before. One could even argue that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were actually huge “tax cuts for the poor and middle class” because they helped to increase the number of “non-payers” by more than 14 million Americans between 2000 and 2007. Secondly, the tax burden on “the rich”—the top 1 percent of taxpayers—reached a record high in 2007 of more than 40 percent, and was higher after the Bush tax cuts than before.And it's going to get worse. Every Democrat solution to our economic problems includes new taxes on the rich.
It seems to me that if there's an undertaxed group it would be the bottom 95%, and especially the more than 40% that don't pay any income taxes at all. While I'm all for low taxes, the idea that so many people are getting a free ride while others are paying all the nation's bills simply isn't fair.
Posts
3 comments:
Under the Obama administration you can count on if you have any money they want it to either use on themselves or give it to the loafer's in society. I'm surprised that the wealthy business owners don't just close up their business operations.
You've hit the nail on the head in your take on the income tax, Rick. Tax equity (tax fairness) is something no political interest group seems to want. And we don't have it.
No one wants to have to pay up, but all like the bennies special interest groups get from the political pie. When the emphasis becomes voting oneself a piece of that pie, as opposed to what is good for the nation as a whole, we are on the road which the Roman Empire once trod. And I weep. . .
I'm more inclined to think a large share of that top 1% will be retiring in the next 5 years, dramatically reducing their taxable income. This will cause states and fed to look lower on the scale for tax revenue and, when it's not there, the reality-chickens will reeeaallly come home to roost.
Post a Comment