Comments on: Comparison of Share of Income to Share of Income Taxes Paid in 2007

By: jerry

jerry — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:35 +0000

I think the suggestion that America as it is today should just not have an income tax is absurd. For the first 126 years of America’s existence, we didn’t have an interstate system, or much of an education system, or a space program, or a gigantic world-dominating standing army with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and stuff like that in it.
Personally, I like having those things. You may as well say “America did just fine without automobiles and telephones for the first 126 years of its history.” … times change.

As to who benefits from taxes… I say the wealthy certainly benefit more than anyone else, and it is fair to ask them to pay more. The reason is: most of the spending is military. Having a big military means that people can’t just come over and take your stuff away at gunpoint. The wealthy have most of the stuff, thus derive most of the benefit from this. I don’t think they’re going to starve if they are asked to chip in a little more to cover it.

By: John Poughkeepsie

John Poughkeepsie — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:32:09 +0000

I would love to see where the tax dollars get spent geographically. I will bet that states like Texas get an inproportionate share of Federal tax money doled out to them compared to states large tax paying states like Connecticut, California and New Jersey. Does anyone know of a report or chart that follows this?

By: PerotCharts

PerotCharts — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:44:12 +0000

RE: Comment #11 below–
Yes, tax revenues did decrease from 2001 to 2004 as a result of the ‘01 asnd ‘03 tax cuts. But notice the sharp increase in tax collections after 2003. See this chart: http://perotcharts.com/category/budget-deficit-charts/page/2/
Editor

By: akornoh

akornoh — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:03:02 +0000

I would like to see a similar chart which includes the Social Security and Medicare taxes. The true tax burden on a working family includes these taxes. In addition, since the employer pays an equal amount of those taxes (thereby redirecting value generated by that labor to the government), I would like to see a chart which includes The employer portion of the Social Security tax and medicare tax.

Thanks

By: bbowzer

bbowzer — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:07:26 +0000

… demonstrates how damaging the Bush tax cuts were. They dropped revenue substantially. If those are reinstated, plus the Iraq war ended then the budget is nearly balanced for the long term.

By: seventyfive

seventyfive — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:57:53 +0000

ajax Said:
“That’s easy to say now. You may not have thought so working in a factory 16 hours a day, and your kids, too.”

So you’re convinced that increased government taxation and spending is what brought about better working conditions? So by your measure, the USSR is an economic powerhouse and Hong Kong is now defunct? Is that correct?

Perhaps the reforms implemented by Canada or New Zealand are a bad idea and France has it right?

By: mangoldiger

mangoldiger — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:24:30 +0000

Wake up America! The income tax started in the same year the “FEDERAL RESERVE BANK” was allowed to exist to make up money, lend it, charge interest to the government for wasteful spending and paying back corporate supporters with war and oil contracts…
Sound too bad to be true? That is what I thought until I studied the subject closer.
WAKE UP AMERICA!

By: jhong

jhong — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:43:57 +0000

The suggestion seems to be that the taxes are collected to provide equal benefit to each person. But taxes are used very often to redistribute wealth. Most people can see the good of such a system when those who are disabled or disadvantaged are supported by the idea of a welfare system.

If the bottom 25 percent income earners are expected to receive financial benefit from the government, it seem redundant to first collect tax from them and then provide them with benefits. You simply collect less tax. At the same time, those who make a lot more money than the average person would not expect to receive much benefit from the government. So, it is natural that there would be a imbalance between income made and taxes paid.

What is not clear is, what is the true purpose of a tax? Is it simply a pool of money for the government to use for what ever it pleases or shoud there be a better guideline of its use?

Some govenment projects such as public transit will benefit the lower income people more than the wealthy, while lowering sales taxes will tend to benefit those with higher income than the lower. Government spending is not monitored by which income groups would most benefit.

By: vic20078

vic20078 — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:54:37 +0000

So the bottom 50 % does pay taxes. I’m sure I’m in that bracket, and I know that I pay taxes. So why do the talking heads on the radio claim we don’t pay taxes? Please explain??

By: ajax

ajax — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:40:31 +0000

jpace said:
“America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history.”

That’s easy to say now. You may not have thought so working in a factory 16 hours a day, and your kids, too.