From Nealz Nuze, Jan 17th.:

---

WHO PAYS WHAT TAXES … THE LATEST

The latest numbers are out … these for 1999 … on just what segment of our population pays what share of our income tax burden.  As columnist Bruce Bartlett puts it, this is excellent anti-class envy material.

Over the years there has been a steady progression in the shift of the responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to high-achievers.  As I have told you countless times, this is all according to the plan.  The plan to shift the entire responsibility for the payment of federal income taxes to a minority of the taxpayers.  This, of course, leaves the class-warfare party, the Democratic Party, free to soak the rich minority, who pay all the taxes, for the benefit of the lower and middle income majority, which pays virtually none of the income taxes.  A sure vote-buying formula.

OK .. here’s the latest from Bruce Bartlett’s column (linked below):

For some historical reference Bartlett points out that in 1975 the top 1 percent of income earners in this country paid about 18.7 percent of all federal income taxes.  Keep that figure in mind.

Now .. the figures for 1999.  The top 1 percent of income earners now pay 36.2 of all federal income taxes.  For those of you who attended government schools, that’s over one-third.  This is double their share of the tax burden from 1975.  If you have any brains at all you will want to know just what share of total income this top 1 percent earned.  After all, if they’re earning 36.2 percent of the income then they should be paying 36.2 percent of the income taxes.   That would only be fair, wouldn’t it?  Well, the fact is that this evil top 1 percent of income earners only earned 19.5 percent of the income in 1999.  As Bartlett points out, their share of the income taxes exceeds their share of the income by almost 17 percent.

Now for some other income-earning segments.

If you’re in the 5 percent of income earners your share of the income taxes paid went from 36.6 to 55.5 percent from 1975 to 1999.  The top 10 percent saw their share increase from 48.7 percent to 66.5 percent.  If you’re in the top 25 percent you’re now paying 83.5 percent of the income taxes.  In 1975 you paid 72 percent.   How about the top half?  Your share is now at 96 percent.  The bottom half pays 4 percent.

Guessing game.  Of all the segments I mentioned above, which segment saw their share of the total income taxes paid actually go down in the last 25 years?  You’re right.  Only one segment.  The bottom 50 percent.

Another question.  Which segment listed above has an income share that exceeds their share of the income taxes paid?  Again, only one.  The bottom 50 percent. 

When these figures first came out in 1975 liberal Democrats in congress denied them. They refused to believe the figures could be correct.  They demanded that the Congressional Research Service develop the correct figures.  After their own study was done, they found the figures were true. 

These figures never fail to amaze those who actually see them.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this country don’t listen to talk radio and don’t study Treasury publications.  So, since these figures certainly aren’t going to be featured on ABC News or Entertainment Tonight --- most people will never know.

Bottom line?  The evil, hated rich most certainly are paying “their fare share” of the taxes and are richly deserving of a tax cut.  Just try to say it ain’t so.

Nealz Nuze - Copyright 2001 by Neal Boortz.  All rights reserved. Permission repost or reproduce is granted so long as a link is provided to Nealz Nuze and this copyright notice is included.

-- Okie D (okiedan@oklahoma.net), January 17, 2002

Answers

Okie Dan, my man; I think your jab about " For those of you who attended government schools, that’s over one-third."

I am a recent graduate of what you call a "government school", which I have always been quite content to call a "public school". I graduated from this school system in 1963, and received a National Merit Scholarship award, mainly because I scored way over the 99th percentile in math (for you non-government school graduates, let me explain that that means I scored better than you did, most likely)

While it's true that there are a lot of problems with out education system, here in the us of a, the schools are not totally to blame. There are a lot of good, dedicated teachers in these schools (still).

Sure, there are a lot of losers in the system, just like any system. But I suggest that a lot of the blame for the dummies coming out of our education system has as much to do with the home environment as it does with the school environment.

I also suggest that the very computer you're sitting at, with all the support systems you are using - in fact , even the electricity which powers it, all of these were developed over the years by scientists and engineers, most of whom were educated at a "government" school. The education is there for you, and anyone else. You've got to meet the teachers half way, though, by doing the required studying. NO one can "educate" you; you have to educate yourself.

"Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this country don’t listen to talk radio" HUH? Do you think "talk radio" is the holy grail, or something?

As far as you statistics saying that the "rich" pay more than their share of taxes, there are statistics, and there are statistics.

What portion of the total wealth of this country do you suppose the top 1% of these folks own? I can't give you the exact number right now (for one thing, there IS and can never be, and exact number), but the figures I've read put it in the 55% area.

So if they own 55% of our wealth, what's wrong with them paying 36.2% of the income taxes? (to say "36.2% " is false accuracy, by the way)

I personally would not get any heartburn if I had to pay a major portion of my income to support our way of life here in the usa, if I were worth a few BILLION dollars, as the top richies are. Let's see, here's the scenario:

"Honey, have you paid the taxes yet?"

"No, darling, I'm going to go on talk radio, and try to get all the sheeple out their to take pity on us; maybe they can raise a big enough stink that those stupid Congressmen we bought will finally do what we're paying them for, and lower our tax rate. I mean, it's so hard to come up with all that tax money. After all, if we were to actually pay this, we'd be in the poor house."

(Poor things, it would be really tough to be worth only, say, Nine hundred million dollars, rather than a Billion or two; you'd have to cancel your trip to the moon, or maybe even your fleet of clones you want to buy each other for christmas, so you can have a five hundred year's supply of body parts.

How to live on less than a billion dollars?

I must be listening to the WRONG radio talk shows!

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 18, 2002.

I just had to go visit Nealz News. Now I know what kind of mind wrote, and or published, the piece on taxation.

A quote:

"The governor also wants doctors to be required by law to report all cases of infectious disease such as Smallpox.  Presumably the doctors will also be required to report the name of the patient.

You do know, don’t you, that this was never required with AIDS.  You know why, don’t you.  AIDS is a disease with a strong political constituency.  Smallpox is not. "

How startlingly stupid that conclusion is! Has it not ocurred to the author that the reason for the difference in reporting may have more to do with public health than conspiracy theory?

Has it not ocurred that smallpox is spread by casual contact, or by sneezing, or by coughing? Has it not ocurred that AIDS is not?

Duh. Don't get me started!

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 18, 2002.

But Joe, you are thinking of the sociaty as a whole. While us Libertarians think of the Individual first. What good is the Sociaty if you have 1,500,000 to 50,000,000 people that arent happy? But if you had a county where everyone had the right to do as they pleased, as long as it doesnt hurt others or infrenges on their right, wouldnt that make sociaty a better place?

And one more thing, Joe, Income tax is suposed to tax what you have earned in a given year. Not what you have acumulted ove a lifetime. I say just have a flat 5% tax for everyone. And all those traffic tickets, the money should be used to pay for road upkeep. Hmmm, and NASA, while I love space and Mars and all of these things they have been doing, bet if they didnt get all this Gov. money the ouldnt have lost those two Mars Probes.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 18, 2002.

Thanks for all the replies. NASA, much like the rest of the government, should be run like a private business out to make a profit. That doesn't mean the government needs to be bigger, like a huge corporation, it needs to be streamlined and made more efficent.

Let me ask this question, since we are on the subject of taxation:

How many hands does your tax money have to pass through before it is even put into use? How much gets skimmed off as it passes through all these hands?

-- Okie Dan (okiedan@oklahoma.net), January 19, 2002.

Dan, that's a good question. NOt only government, but also many large cheritable organisations, have enormous overhead costs.

This is one reason why I am willing to at least consider a flat tax. It would seem to eliminate a lot of boo-ratic paper shuffling.

Tator, you're still looking at life through "libertarian" colored glasses. It's not that simple.

-- joj (jump@off.c), January 25, 2002.

Mr. Tator, the problem is that there are a lot of people who take the Individual First philosophy to the extreme, namely ME FIRST. Like it or not, individuals do not live in a vacuum. The actions of one individual potentially affects the welfare of another individual, either positively or negatively. If they did not, there would be no need for laws. As for the case of 50,000,000 people in a society being unhappy, this unfortunately has been the status quo for most of this world's history. In virtually every case in such societies, the misery suffered by the vast majority of people have stemmed from the actions of about 1% of the populace. The people in that one percent, are, of course, almost invariably belong to the ME FIRST camp.

While individual liberties are important, the well being of one's fellow humans must also be considered. You'll never know when you might need help. What goes around, comes around.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

As for the subject of the taxes, the Rich bear (or at least supposed to bear) a greater tax burden than everyone else because THEY CAN AFFORD TO DO SO. An example: The effect of a one percent tax increase to a billionaire simply means he'll have to put off buying that new BMW for about a week. On the other hand, that one percent tax increase imposed on say, a lowly grocery store clerk could have the end result of having the hapless clerk winding up homeless and hungry.

Here's a line from Robin Hood Prince of Thieves that kinda illustrates this point:

Robin - I cannot part with this ring, it is sacred to me.

Little John - It is sacred to us too, matey. That there ring can feed our families for a bloomin' month.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

Oops, I forgot, it was a medallion, not a ring. My bad.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

OK. Lets say that a person like me pays 10% in taxes and a person like Bill Gates pays 50%. If they lowered the taxes by 5% that would make me pay 5% and Bill 45%. I technically I pay 50% less and Bill only pays 10% less. Now I know he is rich and all but when the Republicans give the Rich a bigger tax break, they (the rich) still aint getting as good of one as us. They would have to lower theirs 25% to our 5% for it to be equal. I'm not defending the rich. I'm just using basic math here.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 26, 2002.

For that to be effective, their is going to have to be a MASSIVE redistribution of wealth in this country. Otherwise the alternatives will be either have millions of citizens plunged into financial ruin, or to have a government so impoverished as to be utterly ineffectual. Also, you seem to be of the mind that people like Bill Gates somehow earned their billions fairly through hard work and dedication. In most cases, that could not be farther from truth. Does the term "Robber Baron" mean anything to you?

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

Bill seems to be doing something right. I think Joe s the only one here who has a Mac. I have MSN TV. Lots of Windows based PC users on Greenspun. There are other choises. Dont tell me their aint. Joe will tell you that he is really pleased with his Apple Comp.

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 26, 2002.

You seem to think Mr. Gates is some sort of God or Saint. He's not. He's as ruthless, manipulative, treacherous, and conniving as any of the 19th century Robber Barons. Damn straight he's doing something right, as far as his goal of monopolizing the computer software industry is concerned. Yes, there ARE alternatives, but Mr. Gates sure doesn't want you to know about them. Gates' tactic is to make everything in cyberspace as proprietary as possible to Microsoft. Meaning, his goal is making sure that you're not able to do jack- diddly-squat without any of his company's products. The tactics range from forcing third-party developers to make software to run EXCLUSIVELY on Windows, to requiring computer manufacturs to make sure the only operating systems their machines support is, of course, Windows. It's a common tactic used by aggressive companies, and Gates is a genius at employing that tactic.

-- Nexar (Icant@tellyou.com), January 26, 2002.

Yes. Youre right. Youre a Gamer, right? Ever notice that PC games mostly say somthing like Win 98 or Higher Requiered?

-- Michael Tator (Razzor-D@WebTV.net), January 27, 2002.