WHO PAYS TAXES, and who deserves a tax cut?

[rainstorm]

YOUR PERIODIC REMINDER OF WHO PAYS WHAT

Just in case you've forgotten, here are some statistics for who paid what taxes in 2001. The figures for 2002 should be available soon and I'll bet that you'll find even more of the burden on the higher income Americans. Look at this folks. The top 25% of income earners in this country are paying 83% of the taxes. For those of you who went to government schools, that means that the bottom 75% of income earners in America are only paying 17.1% of the income taxes.

Now .. the next time you hear some leftist ranting about "tax cuts for the rich" perhaps you'll see things a bit differently.

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$292,913
33.89

Top 5%
$127,904
53.25

Top 10%
$92,754
64.89

Top 25%
$56,085
82.90

Top 50%
$28,528
96.03

Bottom 50%
<$28,528
3.97

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service


READING ASSIGNMENTS

[stormchazer]

YOUR PERIODIC REMINDER OF WHO PAYS WHAT

Just in case you've forgotten, here are some statistics for who paid what taxes in 2001. The figures for 2002 should be available soon and I'll bet that you'll find even more of the burden on the higher income Americans. Look at this folks. The top 25% of income earners in this country are paying 83% of the taxes. For those of you who went to government schools, that means that the bottom 75% of income earners in America are only paying 17.1% of the income taxes.

Now .. the next time you hear some leftist ranting about "tax cuts for the rich" perhaps you'll see things a bit differently.

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$292,913
33.89

Top 5%
$127,904
53.25

Top 10%
$92,754
64.89

Top 25%
$56,085
82.90

Top 50%
$28,528
96.03

Bottom 50%
<$28,528
3.97

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service


READING ASSIGNMENTS

Thank you very much!!

[rainstorm]

no problem. and what people dont understand is that ss and medicare arent taxes. that is money that the politicians forcibly take from our pay checks and then promise to return it to us in our old age. good luck!! ss and medicare are insurance premiums.

[stormy]

all i know is that they sure take alot out of my husbands paycheck. soon i would love to get a part time job. he said that would increase our tax rate. well i dont think i will see ss and medicare my not be around either.

[rainstorm]

a 20 yr old investing their ss money in their own investment plan would be wealthy by 50. good luck collecting any ss money if you are young now

[wxid]

My mother paid over $50,000 in ss before she died. While she was dying they were only willing to give her 200.00! That would't even cover the gas for the hearse! On top of that, they refused to pay the 200.00 because THEY lost her application!

[rainstorm]

thats how the govt cheats people. if it were a private policy, it would have been paid to her heirs. the govt counts on people dying, so they can keep the money

[ColdFront77]

There are those of us under 30 years old that get Social Security, too. Not just for retirees.

[streetsoldier]

My Social Security, the allotments for Debi and coppertop, plus my small pension and quarterly (tiny!) oil/gas royalty checks are what keep us going. We are "between the cracks"; too much to be considered "poverty" level, but not enough coming in except for necessities...no medical insurance, either, save for coppertop.

It's not "being on the dole", really...I paid into this fund, and had to fight for it in an administrative law court.

I suppose, for some, that would render me a "useless eater"...and I'm painfully aware that I can no longer be "productive". But, without SS, I wouldn't be here at all.

[rainstorm]

no one begrudges you streetsoldier. there should be programs to help people in your situation. but the fact is, the govt depends on people dying to keep ss solvent. you cant designate an hier to collect your money if you die. in a private polisy you can. plus, in any30 year period, including the great depression, a person would be independently wealthy if they had invested their ss money themselves. the worst thing abut ss? black males rarely collect a penny of the money the govt took from them, as they often die too early.

[Danaus]

And once you get ss and your spouse dies, you lose what you should be getting if you remarry. My MIL is in that situation. After paying into ss for over 30 years, she couldn't collect on her own ss, she had to collect under her husbands ss (he passed away 20 years before she retired).

I'll be up a creek once Hubby hits 65. No insurance, because since he will have to take Medicare, the company will drop his coverage. No benefits because I'm 7 years younger than him. Good luck finding a job with benefits at age 58. And especially being partially disabled (I dread the thought of how my hip will function when I hit 50) I won't be eligible for any benefits because the disability is not total and I've not worked 16 quarters. If he drops dead tomorrow I'll never be able to match his income and will get ss only until my youngest turns 17. Yep, ss never returns to you what you put into it unless you live to be 100 and are VERY healthy.

[wxid]

My mother paid over $50,000 in ss before she died. While she was dying they were only willing to give her 200.00! That would't even cover the gas for the hearse! On top of that, they refused to pay the 200.00 because THEY lost her application!

....I wonder whose Country Club dues my mother paid for ? Did I mention the funeral and her debts cost $10,000...I am just now paying it off....that was 1996. That SS $ sure would have been VERY helpful, even just a portion of it.

[streetsoldier]

Having just had to call Social Security to register our address change (belatedly...we just didn't think of it), I learned that no taxpayer has an "account" just for him/herself, but your SS withholdings are used immediately to pay for those who are on the program...45 million people.

That portion that is NOT paid out goes into a Social Security Trust Fund, against future expeditures (this, while I was waiting for "the next available operator" to serve me).

[stormchazer]

And once you get ss and your spouse dies, you lose what you should be getting if you remarry. My MIL is in that situation. After paying into ss for over 30 years, she couldn't collect on her own ss, she had to collect under her husbands ss (he passed away 20 years before she retired).

I'll be up a creek once Hubby hits 65. No insurance, because since he will have to take Medicare, the company will drop his coverage. No benefits because I'm 7 years younger than him. Good luck finding a job with benefits at age 58. And especially being partially disabled (I dread the thought of how my hip will function when I hit 50) I won't be eligible for any benefits because the disability is not total and I've not worked 16 quarters. If he drops dead tomorrow I'll never be able to match his income and will get ss only until my youngest turns 17. Yep, ss never returns to you what you put into it unless you live to be 100 and are VERY healthy.

Social Security is a great example of short term emotional thinking. Lets start a prescription drug benefit. It will only cost $420 Billion. Of course it will expand at the average cost of inflation of 6%. We will regulate companies and require them to charge recipients a set price for drugs. Soon, drug countries lose profit margin. Do they cut jobs? Overhead? How about they raise prices to those who have private insurance? Where do they get funds to do new research? What do think will happen?

Here is another one. The cost of medical insurance is too expensive. Congress passed a law which created the HMO. By lumping people in a service that regulates what can be charged for a procedure we can lower cost. Everyone charges the same for the procedure since there is no reason to be competitive as there is an artificial cost ceiling. The problem is the procedures gets more expensive with rising inflation, forcing HMOs to raise the charge allowance. New procedures arise with initial higher cost due to the limitation of there availability in the market. Fifteen years ago, 1 lab did MRIs in Polk County and of course it was costly. HMOs can't cover the cost of this experimental procedure so do not initially offer it. Regular insured must pay a higher percentage of a procedure because HMO regulation is squeezing the doctor and hospitals. HMOs, to stay solvent, must be more restrictive of when a certain procedure is done to trim cost. Shorter hospital stays also cut cost. Insurance Rates rise with inflation and to cover rising overhead.

Congress decides medical cost are too high and we need universal healthcare. Where do think that will go? Do I sense a cycle?

Since 1952, money invested in the DOW Jones has had a return of 7% per year for a 20 year investment. Even naysayers say 5% is the average return. Do you think you will do better with SS?

The evil insurance companies are killing us for profit. Remember, no profit-no reason to start companies-no employees needed-no new research...I could go on and on! The government is the only "business" in America that can operate without a profit. Of course they have infinite funding. The American taxpayer.

[stormchazer]

Having just had to call Social Security to register our address change (belatedly...we just didn't think of it), I learned that no taxpayer has an "account" just for him/herself, but your SS withholdings are used immediately to pay for those who are on the program...45 million people.

That portion that is NOT paid out goes into a Social Security Trust Fund, against future expeditures (this, while I was waiting for "the next available operator" to serve me).

Here is the kicker...in the 1970s (I think), Congress began including the SS funds in the general fund meaning they are spending it as fast as it comes in.

[opera ghost]

Even if we had equal taxes for all- the top 25% would still be paying out more than the bottom 50% Think about it guys. The ONLY way to equal out those numbers would be to instate a flat tax of a certain dollar amount.

Even massive tax cuts for the rich won't change the fact that they are still going to pay a larger portion of the overall. That's just math.

I'm, personally, all for a flat tax. But that's partiallyb ecause I'm tired of playing number games with trying to second guess how much I'm going to owe/get back with every change I have in circumstances. This year I got a raise- I got married... Who KNOWS what my tax bill is going to look like- I'd have to hire a mathematician to figgure it out before April!

[rainstorm]

a flat tax for everyone would cause an economic boom.

[JCT777]

a flat tax for everyone would cause an economic boom.

Sounds good to me. Everyone pays 10% of their income (as an example). End of story.

[Stephanie]

no problem. and what people dont understand is that ss and medicare arent taxes. that is money that the politicians forcibly take from our pay checks and then promise to return it to us in our old age. good luck!! ss and medicare are insurance premiums.

True, but now that they've taken my money for the last 25 years, I expect a payback.

I understand too that if we had invested that money on our own we would've done better overall. The sad thing is that not everyone will do that or could and we'd still end up helping those people out as well. What the whole system has become is a vicious cycle. However, if we didn't have SS to help out people like Bill, we'd be hit with the cost of this with some other tax.

I like the flat tax myself. I'm sure we'd save money just by eliminating the deductions, adjustments just in paperwork and labor alone.

[stormchazer]

no problem. and what people dont understand is that ss and medicare arent taxes. that is money that the politicians forcibly take from our pay checks and then promise to return it to us in our old age. good luck!! ss and medicare are insurance premiums.

True, but now that they've taken my money for the last 25 years, I expect a payback.

I understand too that if we had invested that money on our own we would've done better overall. The sad thing is that not everyone will do that or could and we'd still end up helping those people out as well. What the whole system has become is a vicious cycle. However, if we didn't have SS to help out people like Bill, we'd be hit with the cost of this with some other tax.

I like the flat tax myself. I'm sure we'd save money just by eliminating the deductions, adjustments just in paperwork and labor alone.

Agreed...but I wonder if the cost of covering those people would be far less then the cost we pay now in payroll taxes and the residual effects Social Security has on our society. I have always said that the government spends $5 in order to figure out how to give $1 worth of care to the needy. If the Government was not involved then I'm willing to bet private organizations will step in with better results.