Tags: Who | Pays | What | Taxes | ... | the | Latest

Who Pays What Taxes ... the Latest

Thursday, 17 January 2002 12:00 AM

The latest numbers are out … these for 1999 … on just what segment of our population pays what share of our income tax burden. As columnist Bruce Bartlett puts it, this is excellent anti-class-envy material.

Over the years there has been a steady progression in the shift of the responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to high-achievers. As I have told you countless times, this is all according to plan – the plan to shift the entire responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to a minority of the taxpayers.

This, of course, leaves the class-warfare party, the Democratic Party, free to soak the rich minority, who pay all the taxes, for the benefit of the lower- and middle-income majority, which pays virtually none of the income taxes. A sure vote-buying formula.

OK ... here's the latest from Bruce Bartlett's column (linked below):

For some historical reference Bartlett points out that in 1975 the top 1 percent of income earners in this country paid about 18.7 percent of all federal income taxes. Keep that figure in mind.

Now ... the figures for 1999. The top 1 percent of income earners now pay 36.2 of all federal income taxes. For those of you who attended government schools, that's over one-third. This is double their share of the tax burden from 1975.

If you have any brains at all, you will want to know just what share of total income this top 1 percent earned. After all, if they're earning 36.2 percent of the income, then they should be paying 36.2 percent of the income taxes. That would only be fair, wouldn't it?

Well, the fact is that this evil top 1 percent of income earners only earned 19.5 percent of the income in 1999. As Bartlett points out, their share of the income taxes exceeds their share of the income by almost 17 percent.

Now for some other income-earning segments.

If you're in the top 5 percent of income earners, your share of the income taxes paid went from 36.6 to 55.5 percent from 1975 to 1999.

The top 10 percent saw their share increase from 48.7 percent to 66.5 percent.

If you're in the top 25 percent, you're now paying 83.5 percent of the income taxes. In 1975 you paid 72 percent.

How about the top half? Your share is now at 96 percent. The bottom half pays 4 percent.

Guessing game. Of all the segments I mentioned above, which segment saw their share of the total income taxes paid actually go down in the last 25 years? You're right. Only one segment. The bottom 50 percent.

Another question. Which segment listed above has an income share that exceeds their share of the income taxes paid? Again, only one. The bottom 50 percent.

When these figures first came out in 1975, liberal Democrats in Congress denied them. They refused to believe the figures could be correct. They demanded that the Congressional Research Service develop the correct figures. After their own study was done, they found the figures were correct.

These figures never fail to amaze those who actually see them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this country don't listen to talk radio and don't study Treasury publications. So, since these figures certainly aren't going to be featured on ABC News or "Entertainment Tonight," most people will never know.

Bottom line? The evil, hated rich most certainly are paying "their fare share" of the taxes and are richly deserving of a tax cut. Just try to say it ain't so.

It would have been nice if someone at MSNBC had told me that one collar was sticking out of my sweater yesterday. I had no monitor … couldn't tell. Looked like a geek … but, then, what else is new?

So, Atlanta is ranked as one of the Top 10 "meanest" cities in America for urban outdoorsmen. Breaks my heart. The quality of life for Atlanta's responsible citizens who aren't on drugs or booze trumps being "nice" to the homeless every day.

The Georgia Public Safety Commission estimates that the average person in Georgia who actually does pay their natural gas bill pays an extra 12 percent to cover those who don't pay. Seems to me the rule should be "no pay, no gas." But nooooooo. Not as long as the politicians can saddle the rest of us with the cost. People who don't pay gas bills do vote.

I wonder how much weight I can lose before I host "TalkBack Live" next week. Also ... I guess I'm going to have to buy a suit.

This is pretty small stuff in the scheme of things, but it bugs me, so I'll put it in the column. I'm really rather fond of automobile dealers. The auto industry is a huge part of our economy, and these businessmen and women are vital to the local economies where their businesses are located.

When I was practicing law I represented no fewer than four separate automobile dealerships. I know what these people go through with deadbeat and unreasonable customers.

OK – having said that, while I am a fan of automobile dealerships, I am not a fan of misleading advertising. All businesses, and this includes car stores, need to deal honestly with the customers they have and the customers they want.

There are some tricky little lines that are showing up lately in car ads. Yesterday I heard one – again – that is particularly irritating. That line is "All credit applications accepted."

Now, I want you to think about this line for a minute. Just what are they saying? Read it literally. The dealer is telling you that if you take the time to fill out a credit application, he will accept it. Accept what? The application, that's what.

Does this mean that the dealer is promising that he will finance your purchase? No, not at all. All he is promising to do is to accept the application.

Here's the scenario. You apply for credit. Your application is "accepted." Then you find out that your credit application has been denied because, as you already knew, you are a complete deadbeat who hasn't paid a bill on time in eight years. You go marching into the automobile dealership and this conversation ensues:

"How come I didn't get my car loan?" "Well, basically … because you're a deadbeat. You don't pay your bills. Your credit rating is below 'sucks'."

"But that's false advertising."

"How's that?" "Your advertising says that all credit application are accepted."

"Yeah, so?"

"Well, you didn't accept mine and you promised you would."

"Sure we accepted it. We accepted your application when you offered it and forwarded that application to the credit company, and the credit company isn't going to give you a loan."

"But you said the application would be accepted!"

"It was. We did what we said we would do. The ad didn't say 'all requests for credit would be granted.' It just said we would accept your application."

Now … another thing. You'll only hear lines like this on advertisements for less expensive cars. The dealers who sell the expensive cars know their customers aren't dumb enough to fall for this nonsense.

I hope you caught my segment on MSNBC yesterday afternoon at 5:45 Eastern time. They had me squared off against some Pittsburgh talk show host (Bev somethingorother) on the issue of what should happen to Johnny Taliban.

I hope you caught it, because I wanted you to share in my amazement at Bev's typical leftist approach to the issue of what should be done with the Mullah of Marin. She actually wanted to know "what we [America] did" to cause this young man to go to Afghanistan and fight with the Taliban.

Yeah, Bev. It's all out fault. Let's just turn him loose.

Apparently there is some sort of an unwritten policy in Fulton County (Georgia) government that there will be no settlement negotiations or offers in racial discrimination lawsuits brought by whites. This policy, together with rampant discrimination against white-owned businesses and white employees, has cost the Fulton County taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

The latest is a $25 million dollar judgment brought against the Atlanta Fulton County Library Board yesterday. The complaint was brought by eight white librarians. These eight ladies claimed that they were demoted and sent to smaller library branches from the main downtown branch ... and that the demotions and transfers were because they were white.

Now the Atlanta Journal Constitution doesn't cover this in its story today, but some of the testimony in the trial was very telling.

For instance, there was testimony that at one of the library board meetings a comment was made, and caught on tape, to the effect that there were "too many old white faces" at the main branch and they had to be "moved out" of the main library.

Amazingly, the attorney representing the county told the jury that these jobs were merely "toys" to the plaintiffs and that these women needed to learn to accept their new toys and deal with it.

I guess the jury felt that when you go to college and study to get a degree in library sciences, and pursue a job with a large metropolitan library system, your job is something more than a "toy" to you.

Well – this is what we pay our taxes for, I guess.

The National Organization for Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund has decided that they want some of the $11 billion in federal relief money for the 9/11 attacks. They want the money for "affirmative action programs to help more women break into traditionally male fields like firefighting, construction and policing." They also say they will sue for discrimination if they don't get it.

Try to remember, friends. NOW is toothless. They have fewer than 200,000 members nationwide. They only have the power that their leftist friends in the media give them … and no more.

I guess what some of the pundits have said really is true – the country is getting back to normal.

President Bush wants to spend $1.2 billion over the next three years on the nation's election/voting system (voting machines, ballots, etc.). The Republican House wants to spend $2.25 billion and the Democrats in the Senate want to spend $3.4 billion.

Me? I think that the real solution to this mess is to federalize all election workers. We want professionals working the polls, don't we? As you know – you don't professionalize unless you federalize.

High school graduates need not apply.

That's the web address of a new "grassroots" effort to defeat Tom Daschle in 2004. They say it will be fairly easy, really. All they have to do is convince the 60 percent of South Dakota voters who went for Bush in 2000 that Daschle is not good for the state.

Daschle got some more bad news from his home state this week. The South Dakota House of Representatives passed a resolution asking Congress to leave President Bush's tax cuts as they are. The vote was 60 to 8.

http://www.dumpdaschle.org

The Gallup Organization came out with another poll this week. The president's approval ratings were still in the 80-plus percentage range. The poll also shows that most Americans blame Enron officials for the financial fiasco ... few blame Bush.

Just damn. Looks like the Democrats are going to have to find their Bush scandal elsewhere.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
The latest numbers are out … these for 1999 … on just what segment of our population pays what share of our income tax burden.As columnist Bruce Bartlett puts it, this is excellent anti-class-envy material. Over the years there has been a steady progression in the shift...
Who,Pays,What,Taxes,...,the,Latest
1917
2002-00-17
Thursday, 17 January 2002 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved