[Vision2020] Who pays US income tax?

Jeff Harkins jeffh at moscow.com
Tue Dec 28 10:18:52 PST 2010


  Paul raises some good points, but unfortunately, it is not all that 
clear cut.  A few years ago, when a luxury excise tax was imposed on 
yacht purchasers (as a way of raising taxes on the "rich", the rich 
simply sailed off shore and purchased French, Dutch, German, English etc 
yachts.  The unintended consequence was that many who earned their 
living making yachts for "rich guys" no longer had customers.  The 
depression that hit the yacht building industry in the US was sustained 
for many years.

There would likely be a similar effect for manufacturers of gold plated 
faucets.  Rich or poor alike,  there is a point at which each of us 
draws a line and says no more.

Perhaps think about the problem this way:  if you tax people, you 
provide government with resources for government to spend - that is 
until you tax them so much that they no longer spend or they shift their 
spending to a lower transaction cost market.  Then not only have you 
lost the marginal tax revenue, but you have lost the means of generating 
income that could be taxed

The mess we are in now cannot possibly be rectified by increasing taxes 
alone - it is going to require sacrifice from all levels.  Cuts in 
government services are the tip of the iceburg.  Take a close look at 
the local budgets, the state budgets, the federal budgets - the data are 
clear  - we must spend less!  And we are all going to sacrifice.

Frankly, we are lucky here in ID.  Yes, we could have taxed more and 
spent more - and where would we be?  We would have a fiscal mess similar 
to WA, CA, NV, OR.

At least, the hole we have dug for ourselves here is manageable - we 
have stopped digging and have actually made some progress at getting the 
hole filled.  But it is going to take time and it is going to be 
unpleasant.

On 12/28/2010 9:41 AM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
> Doesn't that seem reasonable? There is some number, dependent upon 
> where you live and how many dependents you have, that if you make more 
> than than number you can afford the basics needed to survive 
> comfortably. Not too comfortably, but you at least have money for 
> food, clothing, a place to live, some means of transportation to get 
> to and from your job, and (if you're lucky) some money to put aside 
> for emergencies. Shifting more of the tax burden to these people is 
> (in my opinion) not a valid option because you are asking people to 
> give up on a necessity to pay more taxes.
>
> The more you make, the more you should be able to afford in taxes, 
> percentage-wise. That's because that minimum number referenced above 
> becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of your income. The rest is 
> left to the tax-payer for what are basically luxury goods or 
> investments. The more you make, the less you are actually able to 
> spend your money on reasonable things. No one wants a million DVDs, so 
> you buy luxury yachts and gold-plated faucets. From a national 
> perspective, some of that money could be better spent on 
> infrastructure. So if you have to increase taxes, why not increase the 
> amount most for those people who have the most non-essential income to 
> take?
>
> Paul
>
> Jeff Harkins wrote:
>> Data from the US Treasury Department might surprise some of you:
>>
>> http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
>>
>> Here are some highlights -
>>
>> # The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual 
>> income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 
>> percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 
>> this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
>>
>> # Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay 
>> virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, 
>> taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual 
>> income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 
>> percent of the total.
>>
>> Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with 
>> shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher 
>> income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax 
>> cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 
>> child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for 
>> lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for 
>> higher-income taxpayers will rise.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the 
>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                  
>> http://www.fsr.net                                 
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>
>



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list