As many of you know, I often guest on AOL Political Machine blogger Tommy Christopher’s Blog Talk Radio program Unusable Signal. Tommy has been making a claim for a while now that the rich benefit disproportionately from the government. He has made this claim yet again in a blog entitled “I’m Tommy the Elitist”.Therefore he says that they should pay more in taxes, their “fair share”. Not only does Tommy not cite one piece of evidence, there is mounting evidence to the contrary. That is, the rich are punished disproportionately by government.
Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation asks “Why Is $1 Trillion In Distribution Not Enough?”. He reproduces the following chart from an earlier Tax Foundation study.
As you can see, the quintile of income earners only receive $0.32 for every dollar they pay in federal income taxes. On the other hand, the bottom quintile receives a whopping $14.67 for every dollar they pay in federal income taxes.
As I pointed out the other day, those earning under $200,000 pay only 9.7% of their incomes while those earning over $200,000 pay 21.8%, 2.25 times more than those under $200,000.
Who is benefiting from the government disproportionately here? It certainly isn’t the rich.
Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air points to a Tax Founation study of the 2005 federal income tax returns as he takes Tommy to task over this same topic. (If I can find a newer study, I’ll pass that one on.) The rich have been paying their “fair share” and then some. They generated this table (emphasis added):
The top 5% (or the top two income tax brackets) pay 59.67% of the federal tax bill while only earning 35.75% of the AGI. Those numbers represent the top income earners paying 23.92% more than their “fair share”.
Sorry Tommy:
style="border:2px solid #dbd9d6;">
Lets see the same graph
I was previously Tlaloc, and I was banned last year. Sunday, October 26th at 2:13PM EDT (link)in terms of absolute spending rather than in terms of spending per dollar of tax.
What's your point?
Vladimir Sunday, October 26th at 4:10PM EDT (link)On the above graph, any bar greater than $1.00 indicates that that group is a net beneficiary of wealth redistribution.
Less than a buck, it’s your wealth that’s being redistributed.
Now, the current scheme may not go far enough to suit you, but contrary to popular notion, the middle class is apparently a net beneficiary.
The fact remains, as the table shows, the top income earners pay nearly all the tax. And what’s obscene is that no tax cut can ever gain any traction because those who bloviate shoot it down with “It disproportionately benefits the rich!”
Well, duh, guess who pays all the taxes?
There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. - Arthur Schopenhauer
The point being
I was previously Tlaloc, and I was banned last year. Sunday, October 26th at 4:13PM EDT (link)that the left most bar is so high because it’s basically divide by 0 issue. Of course the poorest get a bigger share of government services compard to what they pay- they can paythe least and need the most. The more interesting question is just how much money of government services the wealthy are eating up. That’s what the graph I suggest would show. And my guess is you’d see basically a mirror image of this graph.
Personally so long as income inequality is growing I take that to be strong proof that taxes on the rich are certainly not too high.
So by your opinion, once we are ALL needing
janis Sunday, October 26th at 4:16PM EDT (link)government assistance, then things are hunky-dory?
My opinion
I was previously Tlaloc, and I was banned last year. Sunday, October 26th at 4:28PM EDT (link)is that extreme income disparity is unhealthy for a society in a number of respects. Taxpolicy is one way of addressing it.
"*Extreme* income disparity is unhealthy for a society in a number of respects.", Tamblin?
stang Sunday, October 26th at 4:47PM EDT (link)Extreme envy is the problem.
I leave you to ponder this quote.
Are you not concerned by cardinal sin?
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”
John Locke
Government deciding
David Hinz Sunday, October 26th at 4:55PM EDT (link)what is “extreme” is the problem. “Extreme” income disparity means Michael Jordan had no business receiving $100 million dollars in a year.
“Extreme” income disparity is nobody’s business…
The Minority Report — The HinzSight Report — TMRB.tv — MFOB “Miss Tagart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It’s resentment of another man’s achievement.”
Inequality is not the boogie man
Brian Simpson Monday, October 27th at 11:58AM EDT (link)Ignore inequality. Focus on overall growth. Despite increasing inequality, ordinary Americans are seeing their incomes grow.
When you begin to focus on inequality you will begin to harm that growth. Taking from the “rich” and giving to the middle class and poor will slow the overall growth of the economy. You will have taken care of your boogie man though. The inequality gap will have closed by making the “rich” poorer and not by raising up the middle class and poor.
The Minority Report | Twitter | Facebook | Digg | Politics4All | Missouri Matters | Rebuild the Party
Important principles may and must be inflexible. ~ Abraham Lincoln
No,
I was previously Tlaloc, and I was banned last year. Monday, November 3rd at 3:24PM EST (link)cardinal sin doesn’t concern me since I don’t believe in the concept. But since you do, wasn’t greed (or Avarice if you prefer) another deadly sin?
Tamblin the trouble maker....are you Makin trouble again?
$peciallist Monday, November 3rd at 3:47PM EST (link)T the T….I’m not surprised you don’t “believe in the concept”…
You shouldn't be surprised
I was previously Tlaloc, and I was banned last year. Monday, November 3rd at 4:20PM EST (link)I’ve said before I’m not christian.
What, *exactly* is extreme, then?
bs Monday, November 3rd at 4:27PM EST (link)Give me a number. How much should we be allowed to make, Tamblin? $250K/yr? $100K? Should everyone be making the same thing? What is there to motivate people to improve themselves if you and your
socialistprogressive friends succeed in setting income limits and redistributing wealth to thelazyless fortunate?What exactly is extreme?
Hmmmm???
Decorum is fo’ suckas