The Bobcat Nation

Here are some numbers from the IRS on who actually pays federal income taxes. These are 2003 numbers that were released in October 2005 by the IRS.

Top 5% of the wage earners pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.54% of the taxes.

Here's the link
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

Just to be fair and put $ amounts with the percentages for those who don't want to open the excel spreadsheet(and since the percentages alone are essentially meaningless).

Adjusted gross income floor in parenthesis.
Top 5% of the wage earners (above $130,080) pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners (above $94,891) pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners (above $29,019) pay 96.54% of the taxes.

With that extra info in mind, this just isn't that staggering of a statistic. When you consider taxes are a percentage of the income, of course the 50% making below $29,000 per year aren't going to be carrying much of the tax burden, it is ridiculous to think they would.

But 5% of the country is picking up over 50% of the tab?!? That is burdening them with a lot of the taxes. I think this is a little out of whack. Also this is a great reason why the rich get the tax breaks. If you are paying a majority of the taxes you should get the break first.

There is a great article about this situation, check it out at:
http://clem.mscd.edu/~mayest/Personal/T ... _Fable.htm

I can't find the original story, but this gets the point across.

kmax wrote:Just to be fair and put $ amounts with the percentages for those who don't want to open the excel spreadsheet(and since the percentages alone are essentially meaningless).

Adjusted gross income floor in parenthesis.
Top 5% of the wage earners (above $130,080) pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners (above $94,891) pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners (above $29,019) pay 96.54% of the taxes.

With that extra info in mind, this just isn't that staggering of a statistic. When you consider taxes are a percentage of the income, of course the 50% making below $29,000 per year aren't going to be carrying much of the tax burden, it is ridiculous to think they would.

You don't think it's significant that the top 10% of all wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes? They are carrying most of the load for the other 90%. I think it's very significant because these people are characterized as being greedy rich people who are stealing from the poor when a "tax cut for the rich" is proposed.

Note: I'm not in the 10% catagory by the way.

kmax wrote:Just to be fair and put $ amounts with the percentages for those who don't want to open the excel spreadsheet(and since the percentages alone are essentially meaningless).

Adjusted gross income floor in parenthesis.
Top 5% of the wage earners (above $130,080) pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners (above $94,891) pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners (above $29,019) pay 96.54% of the taxes.

With that extra info in mind, this just isn't that staggering of a statistic. When you consider taxes are a percentage of the income, of course the 50% making below $29,000 per year aren't going to be carrying much of the tax burden, it is ridiculous to think they would.

So UM grads don't pay taxes?!?! That's a bunch of baloney. I'm going to stop tipping the pizza guy.

Stevicat wrote:

kmax wrote:Just to be fair and put $ amounts with the percentages for those who don't want to open the excel spreadsheet(and since the percentages alone are essentially meaningless).

Adjusted gross income floor in parenthesis.
Top 5% of the wage earners (above $130,080) pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners (above $94,891) pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners (above $29,019) pay 96.54% of the taxes.

With that extra info in mind, this just isn't that staggering of a statistic. When you consider taxes are a percentage of the income, of course the 50% making below $29,000 per year aren't going to be carrying much of the tax burden, it is ridiculous to think they would.

You don't think it's significant that the top 10% of all wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes? They are carrying most of the load for the other 90%. I think it's very significant because these people are characterized as being greedy rich people who are stealing from the poor when a "tax cut for the rich" is proposed.

Note: I'm not in the 10% catagory by the way.

I agree with you on the idea that this is significant in the way of showing that the argument that the rich shouldn't get the first tax breaks is way out of whack. Do I think it is significant in the vein of "this is wrong" that the top 10% pays that much of the tax load? No I do not. Again, we are talking about percentages here. Even if we went to a straight percentage of income for all and didn't have different tax brackets, the rich would still be carrying the majority of the tax burdern. It is a simple matter of numbers here and I just don't see it as a big deal.

Here is an interesting comparison:

President Top1% 2%-5% 6%-10% 11%-25% 26% - 50% Bot. 50%
Clinton 93 - 00 33.41% 18.86% 11.36% 18.28% 13.79% 4.30%
Bush 01 - 03 33.95% 19.82% 11.69% 18.07% 12.81% 3.66%
Change .53% .97% .32% -.21% -.98% -.63%

So basically the richest (AGI greater than $57k) in America were better off under Clinton, and the poorest AGI <$57l) are better off under Bush after the tax cuts.

Surprising that to be in the top 25% in income you only needed an AGI of $57k

kmax wrote:

Stevicat wrote:

kmax wrote:Just to be fair and put $ amounts with the percentages for those who don't want to open the excel spreadsheet(and since the percentages alone are essentially meaningless).

Adjusted gross income floor in parenthesis.
Top 5% of the wage earners (above $130,080) pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners (above $94,891) pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners (above $29,019) pay 96.54% of the taxes.

With that extra info in mind, this just isn't that staggering of a statistic. When you consider taxes are a percentage of the income, of course the 50% making below $29,000 per year aren't going to be carrying much of the tax burden, it is ridiculous to think they would.

You don't think it's significant that the top 10% of all wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes? They are carrying most of the load for the other 90%. I think it's very significant because these people are characterized as being greedy rich people who are stealing from the poor when a "tax cut for the rich" is proposed.

Note: I'm not in the 10% catagory by the way.

I agree with you on the idea that this is significant in the way of showing that the argument that the rich shouldn't get the first tax breaks is way out of whack. Do I think it is significant in the vein of "this is wrong" that the top 10% pays that much of the tax load? No I do not. Again, we are talking about percentages here. Even if we went to a straight percentage of income for all and didn't have different tax brackets, the rich would still be carrying the majority of the tax burdern. It is a simple matter of numbers here and I just don't see it as a big deal.

I agree with you. My point is the negative characterization of the top 10%when talking about tax cuts and who deserves them. They will always carry most of the load and I'm not saying they shouldn't. The lower 90% should be thanking the top 10% for carrying the load, not ripping them for being rich. I don't see the appreciation in the media or the left for these people.

Stevicat wrote:

kmax wrote:

Stevicat wrote:

kmax wrote:Just to be fair and put $ amounts with the percentages for those who don't want to open the excel spreadsheet(and since the percentages alone are essentially meaningless).

Adjusted gross income floor in parenthesis.
Top 5% of the wage earners (above $130,080) pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners (above $94,891) pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners (above $29,019) pay 96.54% of the taxes.

With that extra info in mind, this just isn't that staggering of a statistic. When you consider taxes are a percentage of the income, of course the 50% making below $29,000 per year aren't going to be carrying much of the tax burden, it is ridiculous to think they would.

You don't think it's significant that the top 10% of all wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes? They are carrying most of the load for the other 90%. I think it's very significant because these people are characterized as being greedy rich people who are stealing from the poor when a "tax cut for the rich" is proposed.

Note: I'm not in the 10% catagory by the way.

I agree with you on the idea that this is significant in the way of showing that the argument that the rich shouldn't get the first tax breaks is way out of whack. Do I think it is significant in the vein of "this is wrong" that the top 10% pays that much of the tax load? No I do not. Again, we are talking about percentages here. Even if we went to a straight percentage of income for all and didn't have different tax brackets, the rich would still be carrying the majority of the tax burdern. It is a simple matter of numbers here and I just don't see it as a big deal.

I agree with you. My point is the negative characterization of the top 10%when talking about tax cuts and who deserves them. They will always carry most of the load and I'm not saying they shouldn't. The lower 90% should be thanking the top 10% for carrying the load, not ripping them for being rich. I don't see the appreciation in the media or the left for these people.

My apologies for the misunderstandings.

To grizbeer. While your analysis is interesting, I think taking the stats from the first year each President took office is somewhat misleading. At that point, they haven't implemented any of their ideals and it is still the previous president. Take a look at 1999 for Clinton's #'s and I think it will be a different picture.

Stevicat wrote:Here are some numbers from the IRS on who actually pays federal income taxes. These are 2003 numbers that were released in October 2005 by the IRS.

Top 5% of the wage earners pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.54% of the taxes.

Here's the link
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

I have to be honest; when people post this information it really pisses me off. It is so one sided! Look at the houses, cars, property, stocks, businesses these top 5 & 10% have! Are you kidding! Do they really need 5 homes or drive a $100K car? A person in the bottom 50% sure the hell does not have more than one home or drive a car that is worth more than $30K! The reason the riches people are taxed the most is because they HAVE THE MOST! These same top 10% also own 90% of the property in the United States? Is that fair? Our government and media have brainwashed so many people that we think a person in the 60th percentile can actually make it to the top 5 percentile through hard work. Well that is bs. The U.S. is a caste system. How many people on BN make significantly more than their parents? My guess is not many. I guess we should take half of the income of a household that makes $40K a year. That would make the tax burden on Tom Cruise less, and then we all wouldn’t loose as much sleep at night. I am really glad people are concerned for Paris Hilton because she pays more taxes than 95% of the rest of America, but I will never pity the riches people in America.

Recalling my poli-si, I think the prof said that it takes about 24 months for a President's policy to actually show up in statistics.

G.W.Bush wrote:

Stevicat wrote:Here are some numbers from the IRS on who actually pays federal income taxes. These are 2003 numbers that were released in October 2005 by the IRS.

Top 5% of the wage earners pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.54% of the taxes.

Here's the link
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

I have to be honest; when people post this information it really pisses me off. It is so one sided! Look at the houses, cars, property, stocks, businesses these top 5 & 10% have! Are you kidding! Do they really need 5 homes or drive a $100K car? A person in the bottom 50% sure the hell does not have more than one home or drive a car that is worth more than $30K! The reason the riches people are taxed the most is because they HAVE THE MOST! These same top 10% also own 90% of the property in the United States? Is that fair? Our government and media have brainwashed so many people that we think a person in the 60th percentile can actually make it to the top 5 percentile through hard work. Well that is bs. The U.S. is a caste system. How many people on BN make significantly more than their parents? My guess is not many. I guess we should take half of the income of a household that makes $40K a year. That would make the tax burden on Tom Cruise less, and then we all wouldn’t loose as much sleep at night. I am really glad people are concerned for Paris Hilton because she pays more taxes than 95% of the rest of America, but I will never pity the riches people in America.

GW, I think you initial reaction was the same as mine, read Stevi and I's latter exchanges and I think you will find he agrees with you for the most part and that is what he intended by posting it.

Bleedinbluengold wrote:Recalling my poli-si, I think the prof said that it takes about 24 months for a President's policy to actually show up in statistics.

Thanks Bleedin, wasn't sure of the exact amount of time, but that was exactly the point I was trying to make.

G.W.Bush wrote:Are you kidding! Do they really need 5 homes or drive a $100K car? A person in the bottom 50% sure the hell does not have more than one home or drive a car that is worth more than $30K!

These same top 10% also own 90% of the property in the United States? Is that fair?

Are you kidding me? No one needs 5 homes or a $100K car, but if they have earned enough to enjoy those things, who cares? Let them enjoy some of the fruits of their labor.

Can you prove that the top 10% owns 90% of the property in the US. I don't believe that is accurrate at all.

I think the point from all this is that when tax breaks are handed down we need to realize the rich should get a larger portion of the tax break as they are the ones paying the taxes. I don't think anyone is purposing a flat tax so we all pay the same amount, that wouldn't make sense. Just remember that when you hear the news say that the wealthy are getting a tax break there is a reason for it, they are the ones paying the taxes!

READ THIS PLEASE! http://clem.mscd.edu/~mayest/Personal/T ... _Fable.htm

rtb wrote:Can you prove that the top 10% owns 90% of the property in the US. I don't believe that is accurrate at all.

I don't want to put words in GW's mouth, but I think he meant "property" as in assets, not just real property. I agree that the top 10% probably doesn't own 90% of the land in the U.S., but if by "property" you mean to include investments, stocks & bonds, and other assets, then I wouldn't find it all that shocking of a statistic.

kmax wrote: To grizbeer. While your analysis is interesting, I think taking the stats from the first year each President took office is somewhat misleading. At that point, they haven't implemented any of their ideals and it is still the previous president. Take a look at 1999 for Clinton's #'s and I think it will be a different picture.

I agree with you it would be misleading - I used the average over their entire term for which data was given - Clinton 1993 - 2000, Bush 2001 - 2003.

grizbeer wrote:

kmax wrote: To grizbeer. While your analysis is interesting, I think taking the stats from the first year each President took office is somewhat misleading. At that point, they haven't implemented any of their ideals and it is still the previous president. Take a look at 1999 for Clinton's #'s and I think it will be a different picture.

I agree with you it would be misleading - I used the average over their entire term for which data was given - Clinton 1993 - 2000, Bush 2001 - 2003.

Gotcha, I misunderstood then and thought the "Clinton 93" and "Bush 01" was showing that year's stats, not just when they took office. Will be interesting to see if that holds true when all of the data from Bush's full 8 years are available.

kmax wrote:Adjusted gross income floor in parenthesis.
Top 5% of the wage earners (above $130,080) pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners (above $94,891) pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners (above $29,019) pay 96.54% of the taxes.

I agree that the most surprising thing to me is how low an income puts you into the top 5, 10 or 50%. I would be happier if the income levels to reach those percentages was higher.

I suspect (Grizlaw?) that to have a half decent apartment and just get by in some place like New York, you need to be in the top 10-20%. This probably also shows why there are so many two income households.

catbooster wrote:I suspect (Grizlaw?) that to have a half decent apartment and just get by in some place like New York, you need to be in the top 10-20%. This probably also shows why there are so many two income households.

In New York, it really depends on what you're willing to tolerate in terms of your living situation. If you're willing to (1) commute from either the suburbs or Brooklyn/Queens, or (2) have a roommate (or both), then you can survive fairly well here on a relatively modest income. I have friends with average-paying jobs here who commute 1/2 hour on the train to Manhattan every day, live in nice apartments (or "nice enough" places), and who live fairly nice lifestyles.

If you want to live in a non-dangerous part of Manhattan, though, and you don't want to have a roommate, then yeah, you need to be making well above an "average" income. Studio apartments in Manhattan start at about $1,500 / month, and my one-bedroom is costing me $2,250 (and it's not extravagant...good location, though).

--GL

G.W.Bush wrote:

Stevicat wrote:Here are some numbers from the IRS on who actually pays federal income taxes. These are 2003 numbers that were released in October 2005 by the IRS.

Top 5% of the wage earners pay 54.36% of the taxes.
Top 10% of the wage earners pay 65.84% of the taxes.
Top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.54% of the taxes.

Here's the link
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls

I have to be honest; when people post this information it really pisses me off. It is so one sided! Look at the houses, cars, property, stocks, businesses these top 5 & 10% have! Are you kidding! Do they really need 5 homes or drive a $100K car? A person in the bottom 50% sure the hell does not have more than one home or drive a car that is worth more than $30K! The reason the riches people are taxed the most is because they HAVE THE MOST! These same top 10% also own 90% of the property in the United States? Is that fair? Our government and media have brainwashed so many people that we think a person in the 60th percentile can actually make it to the top 5 percentile through hard work. Well that is bs. The U.S. is a caste system. How many people on BN make significantly more than their parents? My guess is not many. I guess we should take half of the income of a household that makes $40K a year. That would make the tax burden on Tom Cruise less, and then we all wouldn’t loose as much sleep at night. I am really glad people are concerned for Paris Hilton because she pays more taxes than 95% of the rest of America, but I will never pity the riches people in America.

Individually, we both did make more than our parents. Right out of college. How does that fit your "caste system"?

When I quit working, we dropped from the upper 5% to right below the upper 10%. I drive a used mini van with 90,000 miles. We have one house, and it cost less than $100,000. My husband drives a used pickup.

Sure are living that high life you described, aren't we? We have a very good life, but we've worked hard for it. Nothing was handed to us, we both worked through college, and are still paying off student loans.

ChiOCat wrote:Individually, we both did make more than our parents. Right out of college. How does that fit your "caste system"?

When I quit working, we dropped from the upper 5% to right below the upper 10%. I drive a used mini van with 90,000 miles. We have one house, and it cost less than $100,000. My husband drives a used pickup.

Sure are living that high life you described, aren't we? We have a very good life, but we've worked hard for it. Nothing was handed to us, we both worked through college, and are still paying off student loans.

I already said that Americans are brainwashed thinking there is no caste system, and no doubt you are one of those brainwashed. A couple of posts on BN is not going to break that hold on you. America is a great country, the best in the world, but opportunities are not the same for all Americans. I for one do not believe my children will have the same opportunities as John Kerry’s children will. Of course I could be delusional like you and pretend that they will…

You honestly think that you are in the top 5-10% of the richest Americans? If you were you most certainly would not have any student loans. You realize that the top 5-10% have a net worth over $100 million. Is your husband at Microsoft?