# the Rich ... the Poor ...and taxes



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

This is from Rush's site
------------------------------------------------------------

The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes

(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)

October 4, 2005

This is the latest data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, 
their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003 
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay: 
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - updated when each year's numbers come out, of course. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!

The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

October 10, 2003

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from CY 2003...

(The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1985 - 2003) 
{Requires EXCEL to View}

• Rush's Coverage of the Previous IRS Data: here

Read the Article...

(AP: Obscure minimum tax will affect 36 million by 2010)


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Response From Oblivion ... in a PM

Yep, typical Rush, facts, but as always happens with him, an incomplete story telling the truth, but not the whole truth. Did you notice in the entire article he is comparing 2002 to 2003 after the Bush tax cuts of 2001? Where in his bombast is there anything comparing 1985 to 2003 AND adjusted for inflation? Yes, you can go to the IRS site, and just as easily contradict his article, but as usual, he presents only the facts that support his argument not the entire truth. BTW, if you think I am b*tching, I belong to that top 10% that is paying the majority of the taxes and still remain opposed to the tax cuts of 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can someone please make some sense here ... Aside form this apparently coming for a person who is, shall we say, "less than fond of Rush" ... I'm not sure I know that the point of the PM is.

Is there an assumption that taxing the economy will not harm the economy???

If not ... then let's have the Government take it all and simply call it a Socialist/Communist Republic. On second thought that didn't get the USSR too far did it.

Are we arguing that Government Revenue has not increased since the tax cuts???? Just as it did in the past for Presidents Kennedy and Reagan?????

Is there an assumption that taxes should be lowered in huge amounts for those who pay ZERO Taxes??? ... Or very little in Taxes???

Obviously tax cuts can/should only apply to those who pay taxes ... Are we of a mind set that even if we know it helps the economy we must forbid tax cuts if it helps those who have worked to make the economy robust?????

Is it smarter to suck the "status quoe" dry or Invigorate the economy, then watch every one (including the government) become wealthier?????

Just some thoughts from where I sit


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The reason it is a PM and not an open response to the board is because someone would ask them for facts to back up their claim.......... and they have none. I'm easily lost in these kind of conversations but did I read it wrong or did your link in another thread http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm pretty much back up what Limbaugh said?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Gohon ... that link is something I put on another thread in response to a comment of "How Bad" the economy is ... (attempt to rebut the comment actually).

I guess I'd just like to see someone come up with some rational for those sorts of comments from the PM ...

Aside form the natural, flows off the tongue smooth and easily response of ...

"But they are Rich as Hell, they can afford it."

Allowing the rich to build the economy with their money via owning businesses and employing wage earners ... OR &#8230; buying expensive Luxury Items such as Homes, Yachts, and Cars ... even nice Vacations and Dinners ... thereby insuring the employment of those who produce and serve.

However, it seems there are those who believe it better to have the government confiscate cash from the rich (almost as some sort of punishment for excelling), stifle the economy in the process &#8230; and then redistribute the confiscated cash to folks who did nothing to create it (seemingly as a reward for being a un-ambitious) and thereby diminishing the persons ambition even more.

OK ... my rant is over ... for now


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

That was my point.....if you took the time to look at the charts provided in your link you could see when the recession started and when it ended which clearly showed which way the economy was headed. You could also see when the tax cuts (that nasty thing given only to the rich) took effect and what the results were.

I remember a time when being rich was a goal to strive for. People that were rich were looked up to and admired........ someone you listened to when they spoke. Now days it seems they are looked down upon as someone to be avoided. Throw me in that briar patch.........


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN Gohon :beer:

DecoyDummy and ALL his family members could take all the money in taxes that they paid in then deduct all services recieved and he would still owe on the differance VS Bill Gates


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I guess my point is ... (and not to imply I'm rich here) but if I were and earn a lot of cash, I'd still pay taxes on all I earn ... If I am taxed less and I spend the difference on things that create additional taxpayers via their gainful employment because of a the more robust economy ... Everyone makes out better even the U.S. Treasury.

Bottom line is No Money confiscated by Government creates new wealth it only redistributes what has already been created.

This bit about painting the rich as tyrants is exagerated due to the "Buying of Votes" by Liberal (verging on Socialist) Politicians.

If one wants to reference "Corrupt People" ... they exist at every economic level of Society and they should be shunned without regard to economic status.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

:beer:


----------

