Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Here are the 47%

  1. #1
    Havakasha is offline

    Here are the 47%

    Another issue in which S&L falls back on simple Republican talking points without doing any investigation.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...nt.php?ref=fpa

    CHART OF THE DAY: These Are The 47 Percent
    Brian Beutler | October 14, 2011, 5:45AM

    If the left and the right are proxies in a class war, then they're currently fighting to win a battle of public perception. Each side wants the public to see them as on the side of the beleaguered many against the powerful few.

    Democrats are vying for victory by supporting tax increases on millionaires and the "Buffett Rule," which posits that all millionaires should pay at least the same effective tax rates as the middle class. The Occupy Wall Street protesters have turned "We Are The 99 Percent" into a rallying cry.

    How do you argue against that? By obscuring what the fight's really about, and perpetuating the sense that hundreds of millions of people are gaming the system. To do this, conservatives and Republican elected officials are citing recent data to create the impression that a small majority of people in the country pay all the taxes, and nearly half (a large minority) pay nothing at all. It's a false impression, and when you break down who comprises this now-famous "47 percent" -- the poor, the disabled, and the elderly -- it makes you wonder why anybody thought it was a good idea to pick a public fight with them.

    What's really going on here is that about 47 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Either they owed nothing, or they got as much back from the federal government as they paid -- or more.

    This ignores payroll taxes, state and local taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes and much more. But to hear conservatives talk about it, you'd think these people's entire tax burden was $0.00. In April, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), citing similar data, claimed "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government." Notice the absence of the key qualifier, "income." And Grassley's far from alone.

    As Benjy Sarlin explained at length the Republican answer to this problem, remarkably, is that Congress should raise these people's taxes.

    So who are these people? This chart, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explains just about everything you need to know.


    Right now about one-third of the 47 percent are people who are too old to work, full time students, disability beneficiaries, long-term unemployed and other such despicable freeloaders. Because the 47 percent figure comes from using "households that file" as the denominator it includes people who have part time jobs and low paying jobs, Social Security and unemployment beneficiaries. The rest were people whose jobs paid little enough that, on net, they owed no income taxes. These people may have benefited from the stimulus' Making-Work-Pay tax credit, or saw their incomes drop enough during the recession to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and so on.

    In this regard, attacking the 47 percent for gaming the system is an implicit call for taxing Social Security income, taxing disability benefits, further taxing unemployment benefits, and so on.

    Moreover, and this is key, the 47 percent is only 47 percent because of the recession. As CBPP wrote in May, the high number "reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act -- including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits -- were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent."

    As CBPP tax expert Chuck Marr explained to me, this is a good phenomenon, and one that helped prevent the economy from sinking even further in 2009.

    "The place to start on this though is that the years discussed are just not typical -- this is the worst economic climate since the Great Depression," Marr said. The numbers have been bumped by about 10 percentage points "that's what you want -- should we argue that we should raise taxes on these people to keep it at 37 percent?"

    That's what a lot of Republicans seem to want. But the result would be terrible for an already weak economy.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 10-14-2011 at 09:55 AM.

  2. #2
    Havakasha is offline
    A Quarter of U.S. Millionaires
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...NfL_story.html

    By Lori Montgomery, Wednesday, October 12, 12:17 PM

    A quarter of millionaires in the United States pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than many middle-class families, according to a new congressional analysis that offers fresh support for President Obama’s push to raise taxes on the nation’s wealthiest households.

    The report, by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, found that when all federal taxes are taken into account, including taxes on wages, investment income and corporate profits, households earning more than $1 million face an average tax rate of about 30 percent — significantly higher than the roughly 19 percent rate paid by households earning less than $100,000.

    However, the average obscures a great deal of variation within income categories, the report says, with some millionaires paying rates as high as 35 percent and others paying rates as low as 24 percent. Using 2006 IRS data, the CRS found that about 94,500 households making more than $1 million a year paid a lower rate than the most heavily taxed households earning less than $100,000 year. About 10.4 million moderate-income families paid more than 26.5 percent of their earnings in federal taxes.

    The prime culprit, according to the report by Thomas L. Hungerford, a CRS specialist in public finance, is low tax rates on investment income, such as capital gains and dividends. Although ordinary earnings are subject to payroll taxes as well as income tax rates of as much as 35 percent, investment income — which constitutes the bulk of earnings for many very wealthy households — is taxed at no more than 15 percent.

    This disparity has been brought to public attention by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, a former Washington Post board member, who complained that he pays a lower tax rate than any of the 20 employees in his office, who earn much less than he does. After Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, Obama argued that policymakers should overhaul the tax code to ensure that millionaires pay at least as large a share of their income in taxes as middle-class families do, a principle Obama dubbed “the Buffett Rule.”

    The CRS report demonstrates “that the current U.S. tax system violates the Buffett rule in that a large proportion of millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than a significant proportion of moderate-income taxpayers,” Hungerford writes, though “not to the extent alluded to by Mr. Buffett.”

    Congressional Republicans have attacked the Buffett Rule — and a separate proposal by Senate Democrats to impose a 5.6 percent surtax on income over $1 million — as “class warfare.” They argue that raising taxes on millionaires would penalize many small businesses, which are the primary engine of U.S. job growth. They also oppose raising taxes on investment income, arguing that it would discourage savings and risk-taking.

    The CRS report offers a withering rebuttal to both of those claims. The report notes that just 1 percent of tax returns with business income have adjusted gross income of more than $1 million a year. And those businesses are some of the least likely to create jobs.

    “Many observers claim that small businesses are the primary creators of jobs,” the report says, but “most of the research cited by these observers is from the 1980s. More recent research suggests that small businesses contribute only slightly more jobs than larger business.” And the main difference “appears to be due to hiring by new startup firms rather than to existing small businesses.”

    Start-up firms “generally do not generate much business income in their first years in operation; consequently, most small business owners of startup firms are not in the top income categories and would not be affected by tax policies that observe the Buffett rule.”

    As to savings, the report notes that private saving rates have fallen over the past 30 years while the capital gains tax rate has fallen from 28 percent in 1987 to 15 percent today. “This suggests that changing capital gains tax rates have had little effect on private saving.”

    While some argue that lower capital gains rates boost investment in high-risk projects, the report argues that most venture capital “is supplied by pension funds, college endowments, foundations and insurance companies — sources not associated with the capital gains tax. In 2003, only about 10 percent of investors in venture capital funds were individuals and families.

    “Capital gains tax rate increases appear to increase public saving and may have little or no effect on private saving,” the report concludes. “Consequently, capital gains tax increases likely have a positive overall impact on national saving and investment

  3. #3
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Another issue in which S&L falls back on simple Republican talking points without doing any investigation.
    Really? You make yourself look stupid : http://siriusbuzz.com/forum/showthre...1139#post71139

    Have you done your "research" about simply eliminating income tax on these individuals that I proposed?

  4. #4
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Since I know how hard it is to click on a link, I'll spell it out for everyone to see.

    Here is what I wrote.

    "Keep in mind, this is only about income taxes. Lower wage earners do pay state taxes, SS taxes, sales tax, gas taxes, property taxes, city taxes, county taxes....Well, here are many of the taxes lower wage earners pay.


    Accounts Receivable Tax
    Building Permit Tax
    Capital Gains Tax
    CDL license Tax
    Cigarette Tax
    Corporate Income Tax
    Court Fines (indirect taxes)
    Dog License Tax
    Federal Income Tax
    Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
    Fishing License Tax
    Food License Tax
    Fuel permit tax
    Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
    Hunting License Tax
    Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
    Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
    IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    Liquor Tax
    Local Income Tax
    Luxury Taxes
    Marriage License Tax
    Medicare Tax
    Property Tax
    Real Estate Tax
    Septic Permit Tax
    Service Charge Taxes
    Social Security Tax
    Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
    Sales Taxes
    Recreational Vehicle Tax
    Road Toll Booth Taxes
    School Tax
    State Income Tax
    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    Telephone federal excise tax
    Telephone federal universal service fee tax
    Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
    Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
    Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
    Telephone state and local tax
    Telephone usage charge tax
    Toll Bridge Taxes
    Toll Tunnel Taxes
    Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
    Trailer registration tax
    Utility Taxes
    Vehicle License Registration Tax
    Vehicle Sales Tax
    Watercraft registration Tax
    Well Permit Tax
    Workers Compensation Tax"

    Hmmmm? It really makes you think about the character of Hava-get a freakin' accountant-kasha who makes blatently false claims, and apparently doesn't doesn't take the time to read what has been posted. Ideologues behave in this fashion.

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    S&L is one of those who repeatedly talked about the almost 50% that dont pay income tax
    without exploring what this figure includes and how misleading it is.
    Its a Republican talking point and one of many S&L has adopted without serious investigation.
    But yet somehow he ignores these facts.

    FRI OCT 14, 2011 AT 09:35 AM PDT
    94,500 millionaires pay lower tax rate than many middle-class families
    byLaura Clawson
    Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson
    One of the teeny tiny contradictions when Republicans simultaneously say that millionaires already pay higher tax rates than middle-class people and that the Buffett Rule would hit millionaires unfairly hard is that if they're already paying a higher rate, the Buffett Rule wouldn't touch them. But a new Congressional Research Service report shows just how much millionaire underpayment Republicans are scrambling to cover for:
    ...when all federal taxes are taken into account — including those on wages, investment income and corporate profits — some households earning more than $1 million a year paid as little as 24 percent of their income to the Internal Revenue Service in 2006.
    That’s substantially less than the share paid by many families making less than $100,000 a year that faced a top effective tax rate exceeding 26.5 percent, the report said.

    All told, 94,500 millionaires paid a smaller share of their income in taxes than 10 million households with moderate incomes, the report found.

    That means that many millionaires do pay more than middle-class families, of course—they still pay historically low tax rates, but a smidge higher than those of us who have to work for a living. Most of those millionaires paying a slightly higher share of taxes than you or I wouldn't be touched by the Buffett Rule becoming law, because they already live by it. The 94,500 who are paying less than you or I, though—they'd pay more.

    The report also takes on the claim that raising taxes on millionaires would raise taxes on small business and hurt job creation:

    The report notes, however, that recent studies have found that "small businesses contribute only slightly more jobs than larger businesses relative to their employment share." And that difference is attributable to hiring by startups, which also end up destroying about 40% of the new jobs they create within five years when the businesses flame out.
    Furthermore, the CRS report said, "most small business owners of startup firms are not in the top income categories and would not be affected by tax policies that observe the Buffett Rule."

    Look for Republicans to adjust their objections to the Buffett Rule based on this information approximately never. And since 76 percent of people polled (including 66 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of tea partiers) support it, it would be tough for public support to get much more robust.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 10-14-2011 at 03:05 PM.

  6. #6
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    S&L is one of those who repeatedly talked about the almost 50% that dont pay income tax
    without exploring what this figure includes and how misleading it is.
    Its a Republican talking point and one of many S&L has adopted without serious investigation.
    But yet somehow he ignores these facts.
    .
    Ummm Hello??? Did you look above? It should be clear enough for even you!!!

  7. #7
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560

    American public wants President Obama’s tax on wealthy

    by Jack E. Dunning on It was the expected outcome and the Senate blocked Obama’s jobs bill with all Republicans voting against it primarily due to the 5 percent tax on the rich that was included. But just a day after the vote, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll says Americans want our government to tax millionaires to get the job market moving. What makes this so appalling is the fact that the GOP has put their stupid ideology of no taxes over the wishes of their constituents.




    When asked the simple question should Congress pass the legislation, 30 percent said yes, 22 percent no. But when given the details of how the bill would help the jobless by cutting payroll taxes, funding new road construction, and extending unemployment benefits, 63 percent favor the bill, only 32 percent oppose it. At the same time they were told it would financed by a tax on the wealthy.

    Additionally, 64 percent think the rich cats and corporation should definitely pay their fair share. On the other side of the issue, 31 percent think taxing the rich and corporations is bad, saying it will take away money that would be invested to grow the economy. It is interesting that 20 percent of those polled were by cell phone, thus, probably a younger group. Regardless of the mix, the public has made its statement, and many will remember come 2012.


    The numbers these political hacks—including 2 Democrats that did not support the President’s Jobs Bill—will have to face are 6 million Americans whose unemployment benefits will run out in 2012, some as early as January. Although the Millionaire Tax may be another step toward Social Democracy (like Social Security and Medicare), drastic measures are needed in the current economy, and it is time that the U.S. begin the level the playing field between the wealthy and the working class.

    http://nastyjackbuzz.blogspot.com/20...nt-obamas.html

    How about this? It would appear that villifying "the rich" and "corporations" is good tactic. It's called demogoguery and it's been used for milleniums to hurd the sheeple. It is effective. But truthfully, it is immoral and unfair to all of society.

  8. #8
    Havakasha is offline
    "when given the details". The devil is in the details. Right wing website? lol

    The many polls i have seen demonstrate that the American people are overwhelmingly
    in favor of slightly higher (back to the rate in Clinton administration) taxes on the rich.

    I can show those MANY polls if.........
    Last edited by Havakasha; 10-16-2011 at 09:30 AM.

  9. #9
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    "when given the details". The devil is in the details. Right wing website? lol

    The many polls i have seen demonstrate that the American people are overwhelmingly
    in favor of slightly higher (back to the rate in Clinton administration) taxes on the rich.

    I can show those MANY polls if.........
    I acknowledge that most want to raise taxes on the rich. Like I said above, the left has demonized them long enough and loud enough to brainwash the masses.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ouyG...eature=related
    Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 10-17-2011 at 10:18 AM.

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    No. Wrong again. The majority of American people recognize an obvious and necessary policy correction.
    Bringing back the tax rate for the top income brackets to what they were under Clinton, as well
    as increasing taxes on milionaires has nothing to do with "demonizing them". Absolutely absurd comment.

    From Zbigniew Brezinski who was by the way considered a right leaning centrist during the Carter Administration

    Brzezinski received the 2011 Jury du Prix Tocqueville Prize on Oct. 14 in recognition of his dedication and contributions to advance "the principles of individual liberty as the foundation of free, prosperous and humane societies." In his acceptance speech, Brzezinski discussed the challenge he sees facing contemporary America.

    "Though a democracy, it is becoming a country of socially ominous extremes between the few super rich and the increasingly many who are deprived. In America today the top 1% of the richest families own around 35% of the entire nation's wealth, while the bottom 90% own around 25%. It should be a source of perhaps even greater concern that the majority of all currently serving Congressmen and Senators, and similarly most of the top officials in the executive branch, fall in the category of the very rich, the so-called top 1%."
    Last edited by Havakasha; 10-18-2011 at 09:25 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •