Hilary Clinton (what happened to the Rodham part, anyway?) and Barak Hussein Obama and especially the Breck Girl, John Edwards talk about the inequities of the rich vs poor in America.
They say that George Bush has been too good to the rich Americans, that rich Americans don't pay their fair share of income tax.
Let me throw a few figures at you from the latest Internal Revenue Service tax numbers; who pays what and in what amounts, OK?
The top 1% of income earners in America, folks making over $350,000 a year, paid 39.38% of all the income taxes paid to the government last year.
That means that the top 1% of income earners in the US paid a larger percentage of the total income taxes collected by the IRS than at any other time in the history of the United States!.
The top 5% of income earners, making over $145,000 per year, paid a whopping 59.67% of all income taxes last year.
So when Hilary, Barak, or John Edwards, or anyone else for that matter say before the cameras that the rich are not paying their fair share, they are lying.
They are lying and they know it.
The bottom 50% of all income earners, earning less than $30,800, paid a measly 3.07% of all income taxes paid to the IRS last year.
George W. Bush's administration, in spite of big tax cuts for everyone, has soaked the rich for more taxes than any other administration in history.
Remember that when in the coming year the Democrats throw their tired old class warfare pitches to get votes.
George Bush has collected more taxes from the rich than any US President in history.
Don't let the Democrats make you believe that the rich don't pay their fair share.
They pay MORE than their fair share.
And just remember this when you hear the "fair share" lies in next year's Presidential election runup:
The top 1% pays 39% of all taxes,
The top 5% pays 59% of all taxes,
and that the rich have paid more taxes under the Bush administration, despite tax cuts, than the rich have ever paid before in US history.
Simple.
4 comments:
Boy mister linky is getting a little pushy about his income, isn't he?
hrmpf.
Anyway, I was going to say that I look at it like this:
10% of $20,000 is $2,000
10% of $200,000 is $20,000
Of course you pay more if you make more. They're taxed the same amount, though. Are you suggesting their income tax be reduced, or that they get tax breaks like a small business owner would? Be able to claim more to reduce tax due? I'd say it's fair as it is.
That's just my two cents, though.
Leanne, I wasn't advocating any particular tax scheme, just showing how the Democrats, in throwing around the phrase, "the rich need to pay their fair share" is a smoke screen.
I personally believe that the rich, percentage-wise, pay way more than their fair share.
As to which tax scheme I think is fair, I personally favor a flat tax.
I think the IRS should declare, say, everyone below $30,000 a year income pay no taxes, and everyone else pay 10%. No exceptions and exemptions, a simple 10% of income above a certain level would be fair for everyone.
But that's a different subject and point than what I was trying to make in today's post.
I've already heard Hilary Clinton use the phrase "fair share" until I'm sick of it, and I was trying to show that she was lying in saying that the rich don't pay their fair share.
The numbers are startling to me.
Oh dear, this is the second time I've said this on your blog but "Preach it, brother!"
Oh, if we are going to talk percentage in teh comments, I'm gonna add my .02.
I think EVERYONE should pay 1% and then everyone pays their fare share, the rich still pay more, the poor still pay less, and it is equal. No exemptions or refunds. How could it get more fair than that? Just because you do not make that much money doesn't mean you don't have responsibilities in this country.
Post a Comment