This is a chart of the household income distribution in the US. Ninety-eight percent of households earn less than $250,000 per year. In 2005 that was 112,363,000 households out of a total of 114,384,000. The median income was $46,326 and the average income was $63,344.Why does this matter? Because republicans would like you to think you are in the top 2%. They keep talking about your tax increase. In particular, they keep talking about how important the Bush Tax Cuts are and that we should not let them expire.
The fact of the matter is than the only part of the Bush Tax Cut that will not expire is for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000. If you fall within the 98% of US households, you will not see a tax increase. The republicans are trying to protect only 2% of the population.
If you are part of the remaining 98%, the Democrats have already given you a tax cut. Here are some of your Democratic benefits:
Up to $8,000 for first-time homebuyers. The credit will be available through the end of April.
Up to $2,500 for college expenses.
Up to $1,500 for making energy-efficiency improvements to homes.
For new vehicles purchased between Feb. 17-Dec. 31, 2009, the state and local taxes can be deducted.
An expanded child tax credit providing $1,000 for each child under 17.
The earned income tax credit now provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.
Many workers have already received, through adjusted withholding in their paychecks, the "Making Work Pay" credit of as much as $800 for couples and $400 for individuals. For those who haven't yet received the full amount due, they will get the additional money when they file.
So, if the republicans are trying to help you, congratulations. You earn over $250,000 per year. Otherwise, they are scamming you.
Posts
they are scammers Jerry! I say they don't give two shits about the American people, just about having the power!
ReplyDeleteI got my 800.00 in my tax return. It was a complete surprise to us!
Congress Critters get most of their contributions [payola] from people making over 250K.
ReplyDeleteThe system is broken.
As long as we do not have tax funded elections this insanity will continue.
You are right, RZ. The money should come from us, not the 2% and corporations.
ReplyDeletehttp://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2010/04/ralph-nader-when-banks-own-congress.html
ReplyDeleteI left a comment.
Fixing campaign finance and a tax code more complex and contradictory than the Bible would be of great benefit to the 98% you speak of, but as we are witnessing, people are happy to lobby against their own interests.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is than the only part of the Bush Tax Cut that will not expire is for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000. Speak it Brotha!!! I hate calling anyone ignorant..but the teabaggers are some dumb mutha fuckas. Hopefully the majority of the voters have more common sense than the rightwing nutters who buy all the rethugs bs hook..line and sinker.
ReplyDeleteExcellant post!
ReplyDeleteWhat is truly fascinating is that no matter what kind of logical factual argument you make we still have 20% of the population who will claim that tax cuts to the rich create jobs and tax cuts to corporations keep prices down...
Then you have another 30% of the population that really doesn't care and is just along for the ride...
47% of American households don't owe any taxes and gets a refund and yet they think that it is government spending and high taxes that are to blame for their inability to prosper...
Guess being a tea bagger is easier then demanding a pay raise...
Thank you CHAIRMAN TAO.
ReplyDeleteI guess the republicans are better at getting people to believe lies than the Democrats are at getting people to believe the truth.
Jerry, I don't think it's so much about being in that top percentage as it is about how much of the cost that percentage is bearing? And how much more can you take from them?
ReplyDeleteThat top 2% you are ragging on pays around 50% of ALL Federal Income Taxes while the bottom 50% pay around 3% or less with over a third paying nothing.
So, your statement or "argument" that "Republicans Help 2%" is pretty misleading and specious. I'm not sure what kind of "point" you feel you have made or are trying to make.
Realistically speaking, IF you are going to give a tax cut to anyone, the top 5% or so are the only ones paying in enough to warrant any kind of break or consideration.
Hank,
ReplyDeleteWhy then did Malcolm Forbes say, over 20 yrs ago, the taxation system here is so screwed up that his assistant pays more than he does in taxes? His quote from Forbes Mag:
That everyone earning should contribute to Social Security is indisputable; that everyone, regardless of how he’s financially fixed at retirement age, should collect Social Security is indisputably wrong. As it was well put in Washington Monthly, Social Security’s a device for taking money from present workers to support retired ones. Fair enough. But by what standard can we justify a system that taxes a $14,000-a-year secretary with two kids and gives that money to a Malcolm Forbes? At what to set the cap should be, can be, debated. But there should not be any debate as to whether a cap should be.
-- Malcolm Forbes (1985)
Warren Buffet says his sec. pays more taxes than he does.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Both men were referring to their tax rate I believe. I know Buffett was. Buffet's 17.7% on his however many billions is considerably more that his secretary's 30% on 40K (?) Again, a little misleading. All the more reason for a dramatic overhaul of our taxation system.
ReplyDeleteHank,
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that Buffett and his secretary should pay the same dollar amount? And what is fair about Buffett paying 17% while his secretary pays 30%?
Come on Jerry! You've been spending too much time over on Piperni's dump. Not ALL of us are ignorant!
ReplyDeleteWhat I think would be most fair is some sort of VAT or National Sales Tax. Do away with the current system altogether and just think of the billions that would be saved.
Of course, they are talking about a VAT now but ADDED to the taxes already in existence. I don't think anyone other than the wildest eyed radical liberal ever thought of a VAT on TOP of everything else. But these Progressive Statists are going to have to find every penny they possibly can with the wild, exorbitant spending they're doing. It's going to have to be paid for somehow.
But in answer to your question, no. I don't think Buffet and his Secretary should pay the same dollar amount. The comments concerning Buffet and Forbes gives the impression they are paying the same tax their employees pay.
And, yes. I think the percentages they pay based on the net results is probably fair. 17% of a couple billion is a sizable amount.
And for Buffet, Forbes, You, Piperni or anyone that thinks the Government deserves a larger share of their money, you can send donations to the Treasury Department. From what I understand, they will even send you a gracious "Thank You" note.
I don't think 17% is fair at all when hard working Americans have to pay 30% or so. Dividends should be taxed the same or even higher than wages.
ReplyDeleteI also think a VAT on top of income tax is a bad idea, so we do agree on something.
I don't think 17% is fair at all when hard working Americans have to pay 30% or so. Dividends should be taxed the same or even higher than wages. I agree Jerry!
ReplyDeleteWell....if you want to get right down to it, when they just simply waste and throw away our earnings as they do. When they are as irresponsible with it as they are, I'm not sure there is a fair percentage for any of us.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I worked in the Household Goods Relocation Industry for 30 years. (You know, "Strong back, weak mind.") and when I think (from a personal standpoint) of how hard I worked many times, and under the most miserable of conditions. And the physical difficulties I endured then and live with now because of those conditions. Then watch these idiots take my 30% (actually..WAY more) and waste it studying the sexual proclivities of the Africanized Slovakian Three Toed Sloth.....
Nah! NO percentage is fair until we get some responsible acting lawmakers in there. And right now, neither of the current crop of Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative jerk wads qualify!!
Start over from scratch with Health Care Reform?? How about if we just start over from scratch with the entire population of the Legislative Branch of Government.
(Now. I'm going back to bed and get up from the other side!!)
Okay. Okay! It WAS on Fox News. But sometimes, the "Forehead Slapping" logic is so simple it escapes us "Deep Thinkers".
ReplyDeleteTucker Carlson (I think. Just kinda heard it our of the side of my attention) said, "But it's this 2% that creates the jobs for the other 98%! It hurts everyone to slam them!" (Probably not an exact quote but danged close.)
Not bad. Not bad at all.
"But it's this 2% that creates the jobs for the other 98%!"
ReplyDeleteThat's a republican talking point. I have yet to see any proof of it. I believe most jobs come from small companies and they are not in the top 2%.
Jerry, you beat me to it..I was just gonna say that.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that our economy was much better off when the top marginal tax rate was in the 50% to 90% range.
ReplyDeleteOh common guys. Common sense!!
ReplyDeleteI think it would be rather difficult to be "creating jobs" with income much under that level.
Some talking points, rather Conservative or Liberal, just make sense.
Hank the Bush Tax cuts did nothing for the economy or job creation.
ReplyDeleteLooking at several progressive econ site's this info jumped out at me:
ReplyDeleteAs the top 400 households saw tax rates fall sharply, they also enjoyed a level of pre-tax income growth that far outpaced the median household. EPI President Lawrence Mishel addressed this disparity in the recent economic snapshot, Where has all the income gone? Look up. Adjusted pre-tax household income grew just 13.2% between 1992 and 2007 for the median family of four, but surged 409% for the top 400 households. In 2007 the median household income for a family of four was $50,233, while the 400 households at the top of the income range had an average annual income of $345 million.
I have to go get some cat food for all the abandoned cats I feed..but I will be back as Hank is a very civil rightwinger and it's actually a joy to debate him on this issue.
ReplyDeleteDusty, I could probably write a book on my feelings about this. But I won't. Oh...I can feel your disappointment, but what can I say!) ;-)
ReplyDeleteI should know the numbers as I have been hearing them all day, but they escape me at the moment so generally speaking. I'm not sure the statistics you quote really mean much.
First, you are talking about the top 400 households and comparing them to a group of households that measure in the 10's of millions. Not sure that's a good basis for comparison. Also, and y'all can scream at me for this one, there is probably a higher percentage of aggressive, incentive inspired people in that top 400 households.
And please don't everyone come crying to me about how insensitive I am, but there is probably a large percentage of people/households in that "median family group" that is perfectly satisfied with where they are, what they are doing and have no desire or incentive and never WILL have the desire or incentive to better themselves.
That is or course.....unless President Obama, Progressives and Liberals figure out some way of taking it away from someone else and GIVING it to them!! :-)
Hello again Hank,
ReplyDeleteI do not wish to go off topic here and discuss how people feel about taxes. If they want good roads and other amenities that they take for granted they have to pay them, also, it has little relevance to the facts.
Whether you approve of the validity and/or importance of the numbers I quote matters little to me. They are easily verified.
An important fact is that the Bush tax cuts for the uber rich did little if anything to create jobs and what it actually accomplished was increasing the living shit out of our debt by cutting revenue.
This is really clearly stated...AND THE TRUTH.
ReplyDeleteI'm able to keep my TAXES down.. by Reimbursements ..
I get around $150.00-250.00 worth of items for my jobs (reimbursements).. (clothes; etc); and I don't have to claim these items as part of my income).
So many people have to pay taxes on their salary and then more taxes when they buy something taxable.
Reimbursement for items I get working on not taxable; plus then I don't have to spend my own money buying these items..
Trying to survive in this economy happily.. !!
Dusty, just to keep those warm and fuzzy feelings going.....
ReplyDeleteI said nothing about the "validity" or "importance" of your numbers. I'm certain they are authentic enough.
What I DID and do say is that to compare numbers or statistical information for a group of 400 against a group of maybe 40 or 50 million or more is not a good basis for comparison.