Who Pays the Most Taxes?

FYI...

Top 1% of wage-earners pay 34.27% of taxes

Top 5% of wage-earners pay 54.36 % of taxes

Top 10% of wage-earners pay 65.84% of taxes

Top 25% of wage-earners pay 83.88% of taxes

Top 50% of wage-earners pay 96.54% of taxes

The bottom 50% of wage-earners pay less than 4% of taxes.

Sources: Internal Revenue Service

Tax Policy Center

Tax Foundation

Link: RedBlueChristian - WHO PAYS THE MOST TAXES?.

Comments

[ZCT]

So they should. Those who can afford to pay, should pay more.

Life is always like this though isn't it? If you have a company of 100 staff, I suspect 10 of them will produce the bulk of the revenue, as opposed to each bringing in 1% of the revenue.

As a further comment here, let's also consider a reality check. The gulf between rich and poor in America has grown wider over the past eight years. If this whole tax thing were such a big deal, why is the gap continuing to grow wider?

[ZCT]

Also if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to have a small rant here on your blog:

This election isn't just about taxes. We've all watched the "Joe" the "Plumber" debacle unfurl on the news. He was even being interviewed on Fox the other day, claiming that Obama, a United States Senator, lacked patriotism. This from a guy that hasn't paid his taxes.

This Joe guy has been effectively appointed by the McCain campaign as Mister Average. A guy McCain rather cynically believes the public will identify as being just like them.

But the fact is, Joe does not represent the people at all. He is just one guy. We all have different hopes, dreams, aspirations, and political leanings.

With that preamble out of the way, let me make my point. A lot has been made over the tax issue in this election. Ever since that 'chance' meeting between Sam and Barack, we've heard a lot about 'socialism' and various other nonsense.

But I think what really matters is how our country will look years from now. What will the legacy be of the next president of the United States?

It's not about minor differences in tax policy. It's about society as a whole. What good is a tax cut, if you can't afford health care any more? What if there are not affordable grants and loans around when it's time for your kids to head off to college? What if we have a warmonger for a president who gets us caught up in a war with Iran, and our children get drafted?

I think the McCain campaign has done a very good job of pushing this 'socialist' nonsense, and getting us all worried about tax (Republicans love to play the fear card). But there is more to life than that. If taxes are low, but inflation is at 10% and wages are stagnant, that can hurt too.

Voters need to look at the big picture with each candidate, and weigh how their entire life will look 5 years from now, rather than focusing on the single issue of tax.

[Rich]

Jeez, chill! :) I posted something I found interesting with no comment. Some of what you say I can see. But I could counter with what is the good of taxing the rich more when they cut jobs? What good is "windfall profit" taxes on big oil when they pass those taxes on to the consumer? Both sides can be argued very well?

That is why my stance is fair taxes and LESS FRIVOLOUS SPENDING. Why is it I have two neighbors on SS Disability when they are fine to work? How many more are there? I say get out Iraq too. More money saved and more tax relief. I just disagree with you that we all have to give more to the government to get along. I say the government needs to tighten up. It's long overdue. Help those that need, but get rid of of all the waste.

[rick]

I know you are not a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, so our constitution probably means very little to you. It does to most hard working Americans tho. It appears your man will be elected. There will be change alright and it will be interesting to see what the folks that voted for obama think at the end of his 1st term. I dont think there will be a second one. I just hope there are enough conservatives left in congress to check and balance this dude.

[ZCT]

I'm perfectly chilled, I was just commenting. I'm not all angry or anything!

I disagree with your issue of the rich and taxes. If Bill Gates has to pay an extra 1% tax next year, he isn't going to call Microsoft and demand a huge layoff. If Exxon Mobil don't get a large government hand out like Bush has been giving them, they won't have to lay staff off or go out of business. And as far as passing a lack of tax cuts onto the consumer, I am okay with the government capping their profits. They have been taking the piss for the last few years, making record profits on the backs of working Americans paying $4+ at the pump.

I agree on less frivolous spending. Although I don't think that it is frivolous to pay people disability. Some people will always try to milk the system, but the alternative is punishing the genuinely needy. It's not like living on SS is a walk in the park.

As for your comments about my citizenship status, I thought that was a little unreasonable. Just because I cannot vote does not mean I don't care. As a result of my excitement and interest in this election I have been blogging at my highest rate ever. I have donated money to Obama's campaign.

It seems wholly unreasonable to suggest that I don't care, merely because I am not yet a citizen. I am a legal permanent resident, and I am passionate about America being the best country it can be.

I think you'll find I speak alongside the majority of working Americans who will today elect Barack Obama in a landslide victory.

[ZCT]

My mistake, I thought both posts were by Rich, I misread that the second comment was by rick.

[Clint]

I gotta say, ZCT makes some good points.

It's just inevitable, we must pay taxes in order to keep running this country as we know it today. I don't really see the problem with the above tax percentages. The top 5% make so much more money that the rest of the country that these numbers make good sense.

It's also nice to see someone who even isn't a citizen yet be that passionate about our country. I think we take our freedoms for granted much too often. Just my two cents.

[rich]

I just don't like the thought of ANYONE paying more than the above to fund a rebate for 47 million people who do not have any income tax liability. If you do, great. Of course a large portion of those people will have a tax liability when Obama raises their taxes in 2009 by letting the Bush cuts expire. He is lying when he says he will cut taxes for 95% of the working families. He can cut the rate, but when those other cuts expire, people like me will see their liability go up. THAT IS A TAX HIKE. He is flat out lying. If you can't see it, oh well. I and everyone else who is trying to tell you this, will be proven right in '09.

[Jake]

As crazy and weird as it makes me sound, the thought of paying a little more tax does not really bother me in the end, so long as I know it will benefit the people of this nation. Granted, I know that's usually not the case given the tendency of governments to wasteful spending, but for what it's worth that's where I sit.

I should be clear though, that is not an endorsement of Obama. And my statement is substantiated on nothing more than personal opinion. I'm not saying it could or would work.

[Rich]

Jake,

I completely agree with what you just said. However, it has never happened. This would be the first time that more taxes truly helped across the board. We got the New Deal decades ago and we still have the poor. We've had program after program enacted and we still ahve no justice. We have poored more money than we'd ever need to into the school systems and they are still lacking. We have citizens and politicians alike that take advantage of all this money that we send them.

From a Christian perspective, if the church lived out the mission as given us, we wouldn't need the government for any sort of welfare. That is what is so crazy about all of this. And I know everyone this discussion is not looking at from that perspective, but some of in do.

[Jake]

Oh, absolutely! How I long for the Church to fulfill its mission as it should! But one of the questions I've been wondering about in relation to that is whether or not this is viable in North America or the West anymore at this point. The Church has declined so much in size and influence (and continues to do so at alarming rates) that even if the Church was fulfilling this part of its mission, it wouldn't be enough to reach out to all of the oppressed in our society.

I can almost physically feel the tension inside of me because of this. Unless we see some sort of mass revival, I think we stand at a sort of crossroads. From a pragmatic standpoint, can we holster and use the influence of the state for a time to help the Church in this part of her mission? Or must we just grin and bear the ever-increasing disparity in our society and continue to fervently proclaim the Gospel in the hope that it will take root and transform the hearts of our nation and rebuild the Church? These are not easy questions for me, not at all.

Government has certainly not helped across the board, as you say, Rich. And surely that is the result of flawed government programs. But is that to say that government could never come up with an effective and efficient (ie., non-wasteful) program? I think there are deeper issued to consider here as well, such as the participation of Christians in politics, governmental structures (two-party vs. multi-party system), etc.

Food for thought, I suppose.

[rick]

for zct
You said you gave money to Obama's campaign. I figured that. He got over 3/4 of a billion bucks. Boy, that would sure help a lot of soup kitchens out.

[Eric]

Thought I'd chime in with just a personal thought. Rich I appreciate your blog and it's been a fun read as this ridiculous election is coming to a close (though It'll never be truely over will it...). I realize that this is first and foremost a blog that allows comments, and people will be people. It is my hope and desire that there will always be a few people left who can discuss important issues fairly and even handedly without resorting to name calling and talking points. It is sad to see that some cannot.
I am a Christian first and it is God who raises people up and sets others down. I'm all for engaging in the polictical discussion but as Christians, we should never forget that. ZCT, if you read this, I'm sorry that you must resort to anger and name calling when discussing politicians that you disagree with. You have every right to disagree but why you cannot articulate your points without tearing someone down is beyond me. We should strive to get beyond the silliness of O'Reilly and Olbermann. Just because you are a democrat doesn't mean that all republicans are evil "like Bush." Just because I vote republican doesn't mean that all democrats are evil. We can have different points of view and be very passionate about them but let's be adults.

The Bible says in Roman's 13: 1-7:
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."

I did not vote for Obama but if he wins tonight I will honor him as my President as we should. If McCain wins I would hope those who didn't vote for him would do the same.

We all can still dream, right?

P.S. Rich, sorry for the long post, I just had to get that out.

[ZCT]

@Rick

I completely agree that the money wasted on the US election is obscene. They need to shorten the campaign length and come up with some kind of sensible budget for it, observed by both parties.

However, while I think the system is imperfect, it is what it is. I made a small donation, and Obama is going to send me a tee shirt and fridge magnet. Everyone's a winner!

[ZCT]

@Eric

I have never been angry while posting anything on Rich's blog.

I don't recall any real name calling. Sure I do that on my blog, but that's MY blog. It is left leaning and very much against Bush and his politics (which since you brought it up, are about as un-Christian as you can get). People choose to read it, and either agree or not. I don't censor comments on it, and in fact always try to respond to them.

When you make the decision to have a political blog, you are going to get extreme opinions, as well as those in the center. That's part of the fun.

I applaud Rich for his blog. I disagree with many of Rich's opinions, but I completely respect him as a person, and understand that not all people think like me.

Personally I find discussion, even heated discussion, about the issues illuminating. If everyone just agreed all the time, it would be a boring world.

But none of my posts are ever meant in anger or hate. I'm a liberal remember ;)

[ZCT]

@Clint

Thank you for your kind words.

[Eric]

I'm sorry but I have too...

That response pretty much summed up my point. You can't discuss things intelligently with some people no matter how hard you try. You are way too quick to make assumptions ZCT....

I'm done.

[Clint]

I like the mention of Romans 13. I think that pretty much sums it up better than any of us could put it.

Here's something I need to overcome: Whenever I read a strong opinion that differs from my own, I need to properly discern it as a separate opinion and not an attack on my views necessarily. I am so guilty of this, and actually your blog is helping me get over this notion.

Anyway, don't know if that's exactly what happened in the comments on this particular post, but just wanted to throw that out there.

[ZCT]

@Eric

I'm not going to get into a back and forth here on someone else's blog. But just because you cannot understand or agree with an opinion doesn't mean that no intelligence is in play. It is an intellectually dishonest argument when you try to claim that your opponent lacks the intelligence to have a 'real' discussion. It's like trying to pretend that your position is 'common sense' or invoking the dreaded 'slippery slope.'