Archive for April 16th, 2012
Eat The Rich–Obama’s Big Distraction And Big Lie: The Buffett Rule Tax and The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share–Class Warfare Progressive Propaganda–Videos
Buffett Rule Rebuffed
EAT THE RICH!
Weekly Address: Passing the Buffett Rule So That Everyone Pays Their Fair Share
Priebus: Buffett Tax A Shiny Object That Would Raise Just 11 Hours Of Revenue
Steve Hayes – Buffet Tax meaningless
Gene Sperling on the Buffett Rule
Interview – The Buffett Tax: Anything But “Fair”
Real News: Buffett Rule Tax Reform
GBR: Lies from Warren Buffett
Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy
Mark Levin – The Warren Buffett-Bill Gates “Tax Us More!”
The Buffett Rule is BS pt1
The Buffett Rule is BS pt2
Debunking Warren Buffett and other tax myths
Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Tax Year 2009
|
Percentiles Ranked by AGI |
AGI Threshold on Percentiles |
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid |
|
Top 1% |
$343,927 |
36.73 |
|
Top 5% |
$154,643 |
58.66 |
|
Top 10% |
$112,124 |
70.47 |
|
Top 25% |
$66,193 |
87.30 |
|
Top 50% |
$32,396 |
97.75 |
|
Bottom 50% |
<$32,396 |
2.25 |
|
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income |
||
Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
|
Year |
Total |
Top 0.1% |
Top 1% |
Top 5% |
Between 5% & 10% |
Top 10% |
Between 10% & 25% |
Top 25% |
Between 25% & 50% |
Top 50% |
Bottom 50% |
| 1980 |
100% |
19.05% |
36.84% |
12.44% |
49.28% |
23.74% |
73.02% |
19.93% |
92.95% |
7.05% |
|
| 1981 |
100% |
17.58% |
35.06% |
12.90% |
47.96% |
24.33% |
72.29% |
20.26% |
92.55% |
7.45% |
|
| 1982 |
100% |
19.03% |
36.13% |
12.45% |
48.59% |
23.91% |
72.50% |
20.15% |
92.65% |
7.35% |
|
| 1983 |
100% |
20.32% |
37.26% |
12.44% |
49.71% |
23.39% |
73.10% |
19.73% |
92.83% |
7.17% |
|
| 1984 |
100% |
21.12% |
37.98% |
12.58% |
50.56% |
22.92% |
73.49% |
19.16% |
92.65% |
7.35% |
|
| 1985 |
100% |
21.81% |
38.78% |
12.67% |
51.46% |
22.60% |
74.06% |
18.77% |
92.83% |
7.17% |
|
| 1986 |
100% |
25.75% |
42.57% |
12.12% |
54.69% |
21.33% |
76.02% |
17.52% |
93.54% |
6.46% |
|
|
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable |
|||||||||||
| 1987 |
100% |
24.81% |
43.26% |
12.35% |
55.61% |
21.31% |
76.92% |
17.02% |
93.93% |
6.07% |
|
| 1988 |
100% |
27.58% |
45.62% |
11.66% |
57.28% |
20.57% |
77.84% |
16.44% |
94.28% |
5.72% |
|
| 1989 |
100% |
25.24% |
43.94% |
11.85% |
55.78% |
21.44% |
77.22% |
16.94% |
94.17% |
5.83% |
|
| 1990 |
100% |
25.13% |
43.64% |
11.73% |
55.36% |
21.66% |
77.02% |
17.16% |
94.19% |
5.81% |
|
| 1991 |
100% |
24.82% |
43.38% |
12.45% |
55.82% |
21.46% |
77.29% |
17.23% |
94.52% |
5.48% |
|
| 1992 |
100% |
27.54% |
45.88% |
12.12% |
58.01% |
20.47% |
78.48% |
16.46% |
94.94% |
5.06% |
|
| 1993 |
100% |
29.01% |
47.36% |
11.88% |
59.24% |
20.03% |
79.27% |
15.92% |
95.19% |
4.81% |
|
| 1994 |
100% |
28.86% |
47.52% |
11.93% |
59.45% |
20.10% |
79.55% |
15.68% |
95.23% |
4.77% |
|
| 1995 |
100% |
30.26% |
48.91% |
11.84% |
60.75% |
19.62% |
80.36% |
15.03% |
95.39% |
4.61% |
|
| 1996 |
100% |
32.31% |
50.97% |
11.54% |
62.51% |
18.80% |
81.32% |
14.36% |
95.68% |
4.32% |
|
| 1997 |
100% |
33.17% |
51.87% |
11.33% |
63.20% |
18.47% |
81.67% |
14.05% |
95.72% |
4.28% |
|
| 1998 |
100% |
34.75% |
53.84% |
11.20% |
65.04% |
17.65% |
82.69% |
13.10% |
95.79% |
4.21% |
|
| 1999 |
100% |
36.18% |
55.45% |
11.00% |
66.45% |
17.09% |
83.54% |
12.46% |
96.00% |
4.00% |
|
| 2000 |
100% |
37.42% |
56.47% |
10.86% |
67.33% |
16.68% |
84.01% |
12.08% |
96.09% |
3.91% |
|
| 2001 |
100% |
16.06% |
33.89% |
53.25% |
11.64% |
64.89% |
18.01% |
82.90% |
13.13% |
96.03% |
3.97% |
| 2002 |
100% |
15.43% |
33.71% |
53.80% |
11.94% |
65.73% |
18.16% |
83.90% |
12.60% |
96.50% |
3.50% |
| 2003 |
100% |
15.68% |
34.27% |
54.36% |
11.48% |
65.84% |
18.04% |
83.88% |
12.65% |
96.54% |
3.46% |
| 2004 |
100% |
17.44% |
36.89% |
57.13% |
11.07% |
68.19% |
16.67% |
84.86% |
11.85% |
96.70% |
3.30% |
| 2005 |
100% |
19.26% |
39.38% |
59.67% |
10.63% |
70.30% |
15.69% |
85.99% |
10.94% |
96.93% |
3.07% |
| 2006 |
100% |
19.56% |
39.89% |
60.14% |
10.65% |
70.79% |
15.47% |
86.27% |
10.75% |
97.01% |
2.99% |
| 2007 |
100% |
20.19% |
40.41% |
60.61% |
10.59% |
71.20% |
15.37% |
86.57% |
10.54% |
97.11% |
2.89% |
| 2008 |
100% |
18.47% |
38.02% |
58.72% |
11.22% |
69.94% |
16.40% |
86.34% |
10.96% |
97.30% |
2.70% |
| 2009 |
100% |
17.11% |
36.73% |
58.66% |
11.81% |
70.47% |
16.83% |
87.30% |
10.45% |
97.75% |
2.25% |
Source: Internal Revenue Service
http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2009 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)
|
Year |
Total |
Top 0.1% |
Top 1% |
Top 5% |
Between 5% & 10% |
Top 10% |
Between 10% & 25% |
Top 25% |
Between 25% & 50% |
Top 50% |
Bottom 50% |
| 1980 |
15.31% |
34.47% |
26.85% |
17.13% |
23.49% |
14.80% |
19.72% |
11.91% |
17.29% |
6.10% |
|
| 1981 |
15.76% |
33.37% |
26.59% |
18.16% |
23.64% |
15.53% |
20.11% |
12.48% |
17.73% |
6.62% |
|
| 1982 |
14.72% |
31.43% |
25.05% |
16.61% |
22.17% |
14.35% |
18.79% |
11.63% |
16.57% |
6.10% |
|
| 1983 |
13.79% |
30.18% |
23.64% |
15.54% |
20.91% |
13.20% |
17.62% |
10.76% |
15.52% |
5.66% |
|
| 1984 |
13.68% |
29.92% |
23.42% |
15.57% |
20.81% |
12.90% |
17.47% |
10.48% |
15.35% |
5.77% |
|
| 1985 |
13.73% |
29.86% |
23.50% |
15.69% |
20.93% |
12.83% |
17.55% |
10.41% |
15.41% |
5.70% |
|
| 1986 |
14.54% |
33.13% |
25.68% |
15.99% |
22.64% |
12.97% |
18.72% |
10.48% |
16.32% |
5.63% |
|
|
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable |
|||||||||||
| 1987 |
13.12% |
26.41% |
22.10% |
14.43% |
19.77% |
11.71% |
16.61% |
9.45% |
14.60% |
5.09% |
|
| 1988 |
13.21% |
24.04% |
21.14% |
14.07% |
19.18% |
11.82% |
16.47% |
9.60% |
14.64% |
5.06% |
|
| 1989 |
13.12% |
23.34% |
20.71% |
13.93% |
18.77% |
12.08% |
16.27% |
9.77% |
14.53% |
5.11% |
|
| 1990 |
12.95% |
23.25% |
20.46% |
13.63% |
18.50% |
12.01% |
16.06% |
9.73% |
14.36% |
5.01% |
|
| 1991 |
12.75% |
24.37% |
20.62% |
13.96% |
18.63% |
11.57% |
15.93% |
9.55% |
14.20% |
4.62% |
|
| 1992 |
12.94% |
25.05% |
21.19% |
13.99% |
19.13% |
11.39% |
16.25% |
9.42% |
14.44% |
4.39% |
|
| 1993 |
13.32% |
28.01% |
22.71% |
14.01% |
20.20% |
11.40% |
16.90% |
9.37% |
14.90% |
4.29% |
|
| 1994 |
13.50% |
28.23% |
23.04% |
14.20% |
20.48% |
11.57% |
17.15% |
9.42% |
15.11% |
4.32% |
|
| 1995 |
13.86% |
28.73% |
23.53% |
14.46% |
20.97% |
11.71% |
17.58% |
9.43% |
15.47% |
4.39% |
|
| 1996 |
14.34% |
28.87% |
24.07% |
14.74% |
21.55% |
11.86% |
18.12% |
9.53% |
15.96% |
4.40% |
|
| 1997 |
14.48% |
27.64% |
23.62% |
14.87% |
21.36% |
12.04% |
18.18% |
9.63% |
16.09% |
4.48% |
|
| 1998 |
14.42% |
27.12% |
23.63% |
14.79% |
21.42% |
11.63% |
18.16% |
9.12% |
16.00% |
4.44% |
|
| 1999 |
14.85% |
27.53% |
24.18% |
15.06% |
21.98% |
11.76% |
18.66% |
9.12% |
16.43% |
4.48% |
|
| 2000 |
15.26% |
27.45% |
24.42% |
15.48% |
22.34% |
12.04% |
19.09% |
9.28% |
16.86% |
4.60% |
|
| 2001 |
14.23% |
28.20% |
27.50% |
23.68% |
14.89% |
21.41% |
11.58% |
18.08% |
8.91% |
15.85% |
4.09% |
| 2002 |
13.03% |
28.49% |
27.25% |
22.95% |
13.87% |
20.51% |
10.47% |
16.99% |
7.67% |
14.66% |
3.21% |
| 2003 |
11.90% |
24.64% |
24.31% |
20.74% |
12.22% |
18.49% |
9.54% |
15.38% |
7.12% |
13.35% |
2.95% |
| 2004 |
12.10% |
23.09% |
23.49% |
20.67% |
12.28% |
18.60% |
9.26% |
15.53% |
7.01% |
13.51% |
2.97% |
| 2005 |
12.45% |
22.52% |
23.13% |
20.78% |
12.37% |
18.84% |
9.27% |
15.86% |
6.93% |
13.84% |
2.98% |
| 2006 |
12.60% |
21.98% |
22.79% |
20.68% |
12.60% |
18.86% |
9.36% |
15.95% |
7.01% |
13.98% |
3.01% |
| 2007 |
12.68% |
21.46% |
22.45% |
20.53% |
12.66% |
18.79% |
9.43% |
15.98% |
7.01% |
14.03% |
2.99% |
| 2008 |
12.24% |
22.70% |
23.27% |
20.70% |
12.44% |
18.71% |
9.29% |
15.68% |
6.75% |
13.65% |
2.59% |
| 2009 |
11.06% |
24.28% |
24.01% |
20.46% |
11.36% |
18.05% |
8.25% |
14.68% |
5.56% |
12.50% |
1.85% |
Source: Internal Revenue Service
http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
Obama Pushes ‘Buffett Rule’ in Florida
Obama’s Capital Gains Tax “Fairness”
Obama Presses ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax Pitch
RED ALERT: Buffett Rule Is Criminal Scam!
Obama Pushes “Buffett Rule” and Calls for More Romney Tax Returns
Dan Mitchell Debating the Buffett Rule on CNBC
Obama is yet again pushing the “Buffett Rule” while lying about taxes
Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished
Indexing the Capital Gains Tax to Protect Taxpayers from Inflation
End Capital Gains and Dividends Tax
Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich
Warren Buffett’s Reported Plans to Avoid Taxes and the Buffett Rule
Obama: ‘Buffett Rule’ Would Raise Taxes for Rich
Warren Buffett’s Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary’s
Warren Buffett, Secretary Debbie Bosanek Discuss Tax Rate Inequality in
Opinion: The Buffett Tax Folly
Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax
Ron Paul_ End the IRS & Abolish the Income Tax forever
Buffett Rule Fails in Senate, 51-45
By Josh Barro,
“…the so-called Buffett Rule (imposing a minimum 30 percent federal income tax rate on those making at least $2 million per year) came up for a vote in the Senate and was defeated. There were 51 votes in favor and 45 opposed, but 60 votes were required for cloture and so the proposal could not proceed.
The vote was nearly along party lines, with Susan Collins (Maine) the only Republican to vote yes and Mark Pryor (Arkansas) the only Democrat to vote no. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also broke with his party and opposed the proposal, though he wasn’t in Washington D.C. today and so didn’t actually cast a vote. Lieberman said “I am opposed to the Buffett Rule because it would double to 30 percent the capital gains tax on one group of investors”—a statement that reflects the fact that the Buffett Rule debate is fundamentally a debate about whether we should have a preferential tax rate for capital gains. …”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/buffett-rule-fails-in-senate-51-45/
Dems Lay Trap for GOP with Buffett Rule
By KIM DIXON and PATRICK TEMPLE-WEST, Reuters
“….President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are laying a political trap for Republicans to be sprung on Monday when the U.S. Senate is slated to vote on the proposed “Buffett Rule,” which would slap a minimum tax on the highest-income Americans. With polls showing strong public support for the rule, Democrats plan to bring it up for a procedural vote in the Senate. Republicans are solidly against it and the proposal is not expected to garner enough votes to move forward.
Even if it does advance in the Senate, it is not expected to be taken up in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. Democrats control the Senate, but just barely. Despite the proposal’s poor outlook, Democrats hope that the Senate vote and the debate around it will help them politically ahead of the November 6 elections by casting the Republicans and their presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney, himself a multi-millionaire, as the party of the wealthy.
Republicans have attacked the Buffett Rule as a diversion from the weak economy. They also argue that raising taxes on the rich would hit small businesses and discourage their growth. Here is a Q+A on the legislation and the issues behind it.
What Is the Buffett Rule?
Named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who backs it, the rule would require individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million, or $500,000 for married individuals filing separately, to pay at least 30 percent in taxes. Democrats have been careful to stress that the tax would not apply to people with $1 million or more in assets, who comprise a much larger slice of the U.S. population than those with annual incomes of $1 million or more. About 433,000 U.S. households earn more than $1 million a year. That is only about 0.3 percent of all taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group. The bill being voted on in the Senate, sponsored by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, would impose the 30-percent tax on adjusted gross income after a modified deduction for charitable giving and certain other tax credits. …”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/16/Dems-Lay-Trap-for-GOP-with-Buffett-Rule.aspx#page1
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Obama’s War On Babies: Obama’s Pro-Eugenics Genocidial Racist Record–Killing Black, Hispanics and Poor White Babies–More Than 3,000 Murdered Daily!–Billions Saved In Education, Entitlements, Medical Care, Welfare, Police and Prisons Government Spending–The Radical Progressive Socialist Agenda For America–Videos
President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation
Planned Parenthood – Houston, Texas
Largest freestanding abortion facility in the Western Hemisphere
“This six-story building is 78,000 square feet, and the ambulatory surgical center will take up the entire third floor,” the group added. “This is where unborn babies up to 25 weeks will be aborted. This is more than half way through a woman’s pregnancy.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/06/state-4699/
The Black Genocide (Maafa21)
Mark Crutcher on Alex Jones: “Planned Parenthood, the racist, eugenics front”
Genocide: Worse Than War | Full-length documentary | PBS
“By the most fundamental measure — the number of people killed — the perpetrators of mass murder since the beginning of the twentieth century have taken the lives of more people than have died in military conflict. So genocide is worse than war,” reiterates Goldhagen. “This is a little-known fact that should be a central focus of international politics, because once you know it, the world, international politics, and what we need to do all begin to look substantially different from how they are typically conceived.”
WORSE THAN WAR documents Goldhagen¹s travels, teachings, and interviews in nine countries around the world, bringing viewers on an unprecedented journey of insight and analysis. In a film that is highly cinematic and evocative throughout, he speaks with victims, perpetrators, witnesses, politicians, diplomats, historians, humanitarian aid workers, and journalists, all with the purpose of explaining and understanding the critical features of genocide and how to finally stop it.
ABORTION: The Silent Scream
Obama SUPPORTS Black Genocide. The Cover-Up!
Obama: Babies are a “punishment”
Barack Obama Promises to Sign FOCA
“…Last year before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama told pro-abortion activists: “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
FOCA would establish the right to abortion as a fundamental right (like the right to free speech) and wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide.
It will eradicate state and federal abortion laws that the majority of Americans support and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future. …”
Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood
OBAMA SUPPORTED INFANTICIDE IN 02 AS SENATOR…
Obama And Infanticide – Part 1 – 45 Minutes / Documentary Video / Why Was There The Need For The Born
Obama And Infanticide – Part 2 – 23 Minutes / Documentary Video / The Evidence Against Obama / Illinois
Abortion Inc: Promoting Black Genocide in US?
BLACK GENOCIDE — The Negro Project — Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr.
Planned Parenthood has been successful in achieving Sanger’s Negro Project goals. More than 54 million babies have been aborted since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States according to numberofabortions.com website. The two leading sources of information about abortions are the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, once part of Planned Parenthood.
Since 1973 more than 15 million black, 10 million Hispanic and 20 million white babies have been aborted. Across America Planned Parenthood clinics have aborted more than 6 million babies since 1973. Planned Parenthood’s primary target market has always been the poor, especially blacks and Hispanics. Minority babies are disproportionately targets for abortion.
Credit: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
Notes: “Other” includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and those of mixed race. These numbers add to 101% because of a small overlap among the Hispanic, black and other categories.
Credit: Guttmacher Institute, 2008, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 1/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 2/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 3/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 4/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 5/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 6/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 7/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 8/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 9/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 10/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 11/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 12/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 13/13)
Pronk Palisades 
You must be logged in to post a comment.