Economic Illiterate Obama On Life’s Lottery Winners — Wealth, Job and Income Creators Pay Over 70% of Federal Income Taxes — Obama Wants More — Greedy Progressive Politicians Use Government To Steal Other People’s Money — Videos

Posted on May 14, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Constitution, Corruption, Economics, Education, Employment, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Public Sector, Radio, Railroads, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Speech, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Story 1: Economic Illiterate Obama On Life’s Lottery Winners — Wealth, Job and Income Creators Pay  Over 70% of Federal Income Taxes — Obama Wants More — Greedy Progressive Politicians Use Government To Steal Other People’s Money — Videos

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified?

Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.

See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”

~Frédéric Bastiat

Obama Dismisses Wealthy Americans As ‘Society’s Lottery Winners’

Obama: Tax Hedge Funds More

EAT THE RICH!

IDIOTS – Who pays the most taxes – Franklin vs Marx

Why the Rich Never Pay Taxes

Why The Rich Pay Lower Taxes

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

December 22, 2014
By Kyle Pomerleau,Andrew Lundeen

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2012, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne mainly by the highest income earners.

  • In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.
  • All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.
  • In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
  • The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Taxpayers Reported $9.04 Trillion in Adjusted Gross Income and Paid $1.19 Trillion in Income Taxes in 2012

Taxpayers reported $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) on 136.1 million tax returns in 2012. This represents $725 billion in additional income over 2011 on 500,000 fewer tax returns. While the majority of the income gain went to the top 5 percent of taxpayers (those making $175,817 or more), every income group experienced an increase in income in 2012. Due to the increase in incomes, taxes paid increased by $142 billion to $1.185 trillion in 2012. Taxes paid increased for all income groups.

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent increased to 21.9 percent of total AGI, the highest level since the peak year of 2007 (22.9 percent of total AGI). The share of the income tax burden for the top 1 percent increased to 38.1 percent from 35.1 percent in 2011, also the highest level since the peak in 2007 (39.8 percent).

Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2012

Number of Returns*

AGI ($ millions)

Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

Group’s Share of Total AGI (IRS)

Group’s Share of Income Taxes

Income Split Point

Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers

136,080,353

9,041,744

1,184,978

100.0%

100.0%

Top 1%

1,360,804

1,976,738

451,328

21.9%

38.1%

> $434,682

22.8%

1-5%

5,443,214

1,354,206

247,215

15.0%

20.9%

18.3%

Top 5%

6,804,018

3,330,944

698,543

36.8%

58.9%

> $175,817

21.0%

5-10%

6,804,017

996,955

132,902

11.0%

11.2%

13.3%

Top 10%

13,608,035

4,327,899

831,445

47.9%

70.2%

> $125,195

19.2%

10-25%

20,412,053

1,933,778

192,601

21.4%

16.3%

10.0%

Top 25%

34,020,088

6,261,677

1,024,046

69.3%

86.4%

> $73,354

16.4%

25-50%

34,020,089

1,776,123

128,017

19.6%

10.8%

7.2%

Top 50%

68,040,177

8,037,800

1,152,063

88.9%

97.2%

> $36,055

14.3%

Bottom 50%

68,040,177

1,003,944

32,915

11.1%

2.8%

< $36,055

3.3%

*Does not include dependent filers.

Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97.2 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes; Top 1 Percent Paid 38.1 Percent; and Bottom 90 Percent Paid 29.7 Percent of All Federal Income Taxes

Figure 1 shows the distribution of AGI and income taxes paid by income percentiles in 2012. In 2012, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $36,055) earned 11.1 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $33 billion in taxes, or 2.8 percent of all income taxes in 2012.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $434,682 and above), earned 21.9 percent of all AGI in 2012, but paid 38.1 percent of all federal income taxes.

Combined, the top 1 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs above $434,682) accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent (those with AGIs below $125,195) combined. In 2012, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $451 billion in income taxes, or 38.1 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $353 billion in income taxes, or 29.8 percent of all income taxes paid.

The Top 1 Percent’s Effective Tax Rate Is Nearly Seven Times Higher than the Bottom 50 percent’s

The 2012 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher effective income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers.

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs under $36,055) faced an average effective income tax rate of 3.3 percent. As taxpayer AGI increases, the IRS data shows that average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($125,195 and $175,817) pay an average effective rate of 13.3 percent—four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $434,682 and higher) paid the highest effective income tax rate at 22.8 percent, 6.9 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers. The top 1 percent’s average effective tax rate for 2012 of 22.8 percent was slightly lower than that of 2011 (23.5 percent).

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent, which includes taxpayers with incomes over $2.2 million, actually paid a slightly lower income tax rate than the top 1 percent (21.7 percent versus 22.8 percent). This is due to the fact that very high income taxpayers are more likely to report a greater share of their income as taxable capital gains income. This leads to a slightly lower effective tax rate because capital gains and dividends income faces a lower top income tax rate (23.8 percent) than wage and business income (39.6 percent). It is important to note, however, that capital gains taxes at the individual level are the second layer of tax after the corporate income tax (which is 35 percent).

Appendix

 Table 2. Number of Federal Individual Income Tax Returns Filed 1980–2012 (In thousands)
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 93,239 932 4,662 4,662 9,324 13,986 23,310 23,310 46,619 46,619
1981 94,587 946 4,729 4,729 9,459 14,188 23,647 23,647 47,293 47,293
1982 94,426 944 4,721 4,721 9,443 14,164 23,607 23,607 47,213 47,213
1983 95,331 953 4,767 4,767 9,533 14,300 23,833 23,833 47,665 47,665
1984 98,436 984 4,922 4,922 9,844 14,765 24,609 24,609 49,218 49,219
1985 100,625 1,006 5,031 5,031 10,063 15,094 25,156 25,156 50,313 50,313
1986 102,088 1,021 5,104 5,104 10,209 15,313 25,522 25,522 51,044 51,044
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 106,155 1,062 5,308 5,308 10,615 15,923 26,539 26,539 53,077 53,077
1988 108,873 1,089 5,444 5,444 10,887 16,331 27,218 27,218 54,436 54,436
1989 111,313 1,113 5,566 5,566 11,131 16,697 27,828 27,828 55,656 55,656
1990 112,812 1,128 5,641 5,641 11,281 16,922 28,203 28,203 56,406 56,406
1991 113,804 1,138 5,690 5,690 11,380 17,071 28,451 28,451 56,902 56,902
1992 112,653 1,127 5,633 5,633 11,265 16,898 28,163 28,163 56,326 56,326
1993 113,681 1,137 5,684 5,684 11,368 17,052 28,420 28,420 56,841 56,841
1994 114,990 1,150 5,749 5,749 11,499 17,248 28,747 28,747 57,495 57,495
1995 117,274 1,173 5,864 5,864 11,727 17,591 29,319 29,319 58,637 58,637
1996 119,442 1,194 5,972 5,972 11,944 17,916 29,860 29,860 59,721 59,721
1997 121,503 1,215 6,075 6,075 12,150 18,225 30,376 30,376 60,752 60,752
1998 123,776 1,238 6,189 6,189 12,378 18,566 30,944 30,944 61,888 61,888
1999 126,009 1,260 6,300 6,300 12,601 18,901 31,502 31,502 63,004 63,004
2000 128,227 1,282 6,411 6,411 12,823 19,234 32,057 32,057 64,114 64,114
IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 119,371 119 1,194 5,969 5,969 11,937 17,906 29,843 29,843 59,685 59,685
2002 119,851 120 1,199 5,993 5,993 11,985 17,978 29,963 29,963 59,925 59,925
2003 120,759 121 1,208 6,038 6,038 12,076 18,114 30,190 30,190 60,379 60,379
2004 122,510 123 1,225 6,125 6,125 12,251 18,376 30,627 30,627 61,255 61,255
2005 124,673 125 1,247 6,234 6,234 12,467 18,701 31,168 31,168 62,337 62,337
2006 128,441 128 1,284 6,422 6,422 12,844 19,266 32,110 32,110 64,221 64,221
2007 132,655 133 1,327 6,633 6,633 13,265 19,898 33,164 33,164 66,327 66,327
2008 132,892 133 1,329 6,645 6,645 13,289 19,934 33,223 33,223 66,446 66,446
2009 132,620 133 1,326 6,631 6,631 13,262 19,893 33,155 33,155 66,310 66,310
2010 135,033 135 1,350 6,752 6,752 13,503 20,255 33,758 33,758 67,517 67,517
2011 136,586 137 1,366 6,829 6,829 13,659 20,488 34,146 34,146 68,293 68,293
2012 136,080 136 1,361 6,804 6,804 13,608 20,412 34,020 34,020 68,040 68,040
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 3. Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980–2012 ($Billions)
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 $1,627 $138 $342 $181 $523 $400 $922 $417 $1,339 $288
1981 $1,791 $149 $372 $201 $573 $442 $1,015 $458 $1,473 $318
1982 $1,876 $167 $398 $207 $605 $460 $1,065 $478 $1,544 $332
1983 $1,970 $183 $428 $217 $646 $481 $1,127 $498 $1,625 $344
1984 $2,173 $210 $482 $240 $723 $528 $1,251 $543 $1,794 $379
1985 $2,344 $235 $531 $260 $791 $567 $1,359 $580 $1,939 $405
1986 $2,524 $285 $608 $278 $887 $604 $1,490 $613 $2,104 $421
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $2,814 $347 $722 $316 $1,038 $671 $1,709 $664 $2,374 $440
1988 $3,124 $474 $891 $342 $1,233 $718 $1,951 $707 $2,658 $466
1989 $3,299 $468 $918 $368 $1,287 $768 $2,054 $751 $2,805 $494
1990 $3,451 $483 $953 $385 $1,338 $806 $2,144 $788 $2,933 $519
1991 $3,516 $457 $943 $400 $1,343 $832 $2,175 $809 $2,984 $532
1992 $3,681 $524 $1,031 $413 $1,444 $856 $2,299 $832 $3,131 $549
1993 $3,776 $521 $1,048 $426 $1,474 $883 $2,358 $854 $3,212 $563
1994 $3,961 $547 $1,103 $449 $1,552 $929 $2,481 $890 $3,371 $590
1995 $4,245 $620 $1,223 $482 $1,705 $985 $2,690 $938 $3,628 $617
1996 $4,591 $737 $1,394 $515 $1,909 $1,043 $2,953 $992 $3,944 $646
1997 $5,023 $873 $1,597 $554 $2,151 $1,116 $3,268 $1,060 $4,328 $695
1998 $5,469 $1,010 $1,797 $597 $2,394 $1,196 $3,590 $1,132 $4,721 $748
1999 $5,909 $1,153 $2,012 $641 $2,653 $1,274 $3,927 $1,199 $5,126 $783
2000 $6,424 $1,337 $2,267 $688 $2,955 $1,358 $4,314 $1,276 $5,590 $834
IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $6,116 $492 $1,065 $1,934 $666 $2,600 $1,334 $3,933 $1,302 $5,235 $881
2002 $5,982 $421 $960 $1,812 $660 $2,472 $1,339 $3,812 $1,303 $5,115 $867
2003 $6,157 $466 $1,030 $1,908 $679 $2,587 $1,375 $3,962 $1,325 $5,287 $870
2004 $6,735 $615 $1,279 $2,243 $725 $2,968 $1,455 $4,423 $1,403 $5,826 $908
2005 $7,366 $784 $1,561 $2,623 $778 $3,401 $1,540 $4,940 $1,473 $6,413 $953
2006 $7,970 $895 $1,761 $2,918 $841 $3,760 $1,652 $5,412 $1,568 $6,980 $990
2007 $8,622 $1,030 $1,971 $3,223 $905 $4,128 $1,770 $5,898 $1,673 $7,571 $1,051
2008 $8,206 $826 $1,657 $2,868 $905 $3,773 $1,782 $5,555 $1,673 $7,228 $978
2009 $7,579 $602 $1,305 $2,439 $878 $3,317 $1,740 $5,058 $1,620 $6,678 $900
2010 $8,040 $743 $1,517 $2,716 $915 $3,631 $1,800 $5,431 $1,665 $7,096 $944
2011 $8,317 $737 $1,556 $2,819 $956 $3,775 $1,866 $5,641 $1,716 $7,357 $961
2012 $9,042 $1,017 $1,977 $3,331 $997 $4,328 $1,934 $6,262 $1,776 $8,038 $1,004
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
 Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980–2012 ($Billions)
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 $249 $47 $92 $31 $123 $59 $182 $50 $232 $18
1981 $282 $50 $99 $36 $135 $69 $204 $57 $261 $21
1982 $276 $53 $100 $34 $134 $66 $200 $56 $256 $20
1983 $272 $55 $101 $34 $135 $64 $199 $54 $252 $19
1984 $297 $63 $113 $37 $150 $68 $219 $57 $276 $22
1985 $322 $70 $125 $41 $166 $73 $238 $60 $299 $23
1986 $367 $94 $156 $44 $201 $78 $279 $64 $343 $24
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $369 $92 $160 $46 $205 $79 $284 $63 $347 $22
1988 $413 $114 $188 $48 $236 $85 $321 $68 $389 $24
1989 $433 $109 $190 $51 $241 $93 $334 $73 $408 $25
1990 $447 $112 $195 $52 $248 $97 $344 $77 $421 $26
1991 $448 $111 $194 $56 $250 $96 $347 $77 $424 $25
1992 $476 $131 $218 $58 $276 $97 $374 $78 $452 $24
1993 $503 $146 $238 $60 $298 $101 $399 $80 $479 $24
1994 $535 $154 $254 $64 $318 $108 $425 $84 $509 $25
1995 $588 $178 $288 $70 $357 $115 $473 $88 $561 $27
1996 $658 $213 $335 $76 $411 $124 $535 $95 $630 $28
1997 $727 $241 $377 $82 $460 $134 $594 $102 $696 $31
1998 $788 $274 $425 $88 $513 $139 $652 $103 $755 $33
1999 $877 $317 $486 $97 $583 $150 $733 $109 $842 $35
2000 $981 $367 $554 $106 $660 $164 $824 $118 $942 $38
IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $885 $139 $294 $462 $101 $564 $158 $722 $120 $842 $43
2002 $794 $120 $263 $420 $93 $513 $143 $657 $104 $761 $33
2003 $746 $115 $251 $399 $85 $484 $133 $617 $98 $715 $30
2004 $829 $142 $301 $467 $91 $558 $137 $695 $102 $797 $32
2005 $932 $176 $361 $549 $98 $647 $145 $793 $106 $898 $33
2006 $1,020 $196 $402 $607 $108 $715 $157 $872 $113 $986 $35
2007 $1,112 $221 $443 $666 $117 $783 $170 $953 $122 $1,075 $37
2008 $1,029 $187 $386 $597 $115 $712 $168 $880 $117 $997 $32
2009 $863 $146 $314 $502 $101 $604 $146 $749 $93 $842 $21
2010 $949 $170 $355 $561 $110 $670 $156 $827 $100 $927 $22
2011 $1,043 $168 $366 $589 $123 $712 $181 $893 $120 $1,012 $30
2012 $1,185 $220 $451 $699 $133 $831 $193 $1,024 $128 $1,152 $33
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 5. Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980–2012 (percent of total AGI earned 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% 8.46% 21.01% 11.12% 32.13% 24.57% 56.70% 25.62% 82.32% 17.68%
1981 100% 8.30% 20.78% 11.20% 31.98% 24.69% 56.67% 25.59% 82.25% 17.75%
1982 100% 8.91% 21.23% 11.03% 32.26% 24.53% 56.79% 25.50% 82.29% 17.71%
1983 100% 9.29% 21.74% 11.04% 32.78% 24.44% 57.22% 25.30% 82.52% 17.48%
1984 100% 9.66% 22.19% 11.06% 33.25% 24.31% 57.56% 25.00% 82.56% 17.44%
1985 100% 10.03% 22.67% 11.10% 33.77% 24.21% 57.97% 24.77% 82.74% 17.26%
1986 100% 11.30% 24.11% 11.02% 35.12% 23.92% 59.04% 24.30% 83.34% 16.66%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 100% 12.32% 25.67% 11.23% 36.90% 23.85% 60.75% 23.62% 84.37% 15.63%
1988 100% 15.16% 28.51% 10.94% 39.45% 22.99% 62.44% 22.63% 85.07% 14.93%
1989 100% 14.19% 27.84% 11.16% 39.00% 23.28% 62.28% 22.76% 85.04% 14.96%
1990 100% 14.00% 27.62% 11.15% 38.77% 23.36% 62.13% 22.84% 84.97% 15.03%
1991 100% 12.99% 26.83% 11.37% 38.20% 23.65% 61.85% 23.01% 84.87% 15.13%
1992 100% 14.23% 28.01% 11.21% 39.23% 23.25% 62.47% 22.61% 85.08% 14.92%
1993 100% 13.79% 27.76% 11.29% 39.05% 23.40% 62.45% 22.63% 85.08% 14.92%
1994 100% 13.80% 27.85% 11.34% 39.19% 23.45% 62.64% 22.48% 85.11% 14.89%
1995 100% 14.60% 28.81% 11.35% 40.16% 23.21% 63.37% 22.09% 85.46% 14.54%
1996 100% 16.04% 30.36% 11.23% 41.59% 22.73% 64.32% 21.60% 85.92% 14.08%
1997 100% 17.38% 31.79% 11.03% 42.83% 22.22% 65.05% 21.11% 86.16% 13.84%
1998 100% 18.47% 32.85% 10.92% 43.77% 21.87% 65.63% 20.69% 86.33% 13.67%
1999 100% 19.51% 34.04% 10.85% 44.89% 21.57% 66.46% 20.29% 86.75% 13.25%
2000 100% 20.81% 35.30% 10.71% 46.01% 21.15% 67.15% 19.86% 87.01% 12.99%
IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 100% 8.05% 17.41% 31.61% 10.89% 42.50% 21.80% 64.31% 21.29% 85.60% 14.40%
2002 100% 7.04% 16.05% 30.29% 11.04% 41.33% 22.39% 63.71% 21.79% 85.50% 14.50%
2003 100% 7.56% 16.73% 30.99% 11.03% 42.01% 22.33% 64.34% 21.52% 85.87% 14.13%
2004 100% 9.14% 18.99% 33.31% 10.77% 44.07% 21.60% 65.68% 20.83% 86.51% 13.49%
2005 100% 10.64% 21.19% 35.61% 10.56% 46.17% 20.90% 67.07% 19.99% 87.06% 12.94%
2006 100% 11.23% 22.10% 36.62% 10.56% 47.17% 20.73% 67.91% 19.68% 87.58% 12.42%
2007 100% 11.95% 22.86% 37.39% 10.49% 47.88% 20.53% 68.41% 19.40% 87.81% 12.19%
2008 100% 10.06% 20.19% 34.95% 11.03% 45.98% 21.71% 67.69% 20.39% 88.08% 11.92%
2009 100% 7.94% 17.21% 32.18% 11.59% 43.77% 22.96% 66.74% 21.38% 88.12% 11.88%
2010 100% 9.24% 18.87% 33.78% 11.38% 45.17% 22.38% 67.55% 20.71% 88.26% 11.74%
2011 100% 8.86% 18.70% 33.89% 11.50% 45.39% 22.43% 67.82% 20.63% 88.45% 11.55%
2012 100% 11.25% 21.86% 36.84% 11.03% 47.87% 21.39% 69.25% 19.64% 88.90% 11.10%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 6. Total Income Tax Shares, 1980–2012 (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%
IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 100% 15.68% 33.22% 52.24% 11.44% 63.68% 17.88% 81.56% 13.54% 95.10% 4.90%
2002 100% 15.09% 33.09% 52.86% 11.77% 64.63% 18.04% 82.67% 13.12% 95.79% 4.21%
2003 100% 15.37% 33.69% 53.54% 11.35% 64.89% 17.87% 82.76% 13.17% 95.93% 4.07%
2004 100% 17.12% 36.28% 56.35% 10.96% 67.30% 16.52% 83.82% 12.31% 96.13% 3.87%
2005 100% 18.91% 38.78% 58.93% 10.52% 69.46% 15.61% 85.07% 11.35% 96.41% 3.59%
2006 100% 19.24% 39.36% 59.49% 10.59% 70.08% 15.41% 85.49% 11.10% 96.59% 3.41%
2007 100% 19.84% 39.81% 59.90% 10.51% 70.41% 15.30% 85.71% 10.93% 96.64% 3.36%
2008 100% 18.20% 37.51% 58.06% 11.14% 69.20% 16.37% 85.57% 11.33% 96.90% 3.10%
2009 100% 16.91% 36.34% 58.17% 11.72% 69.89% 16.85% 86.74% 10.80% 97.54% 2.46%
2010 100% 17.88% 37.38% 59.07% 11.55% 70.62% 16.49% 87.11% 10.53% 97.64% 2.36%
2011 100% 16.14% 35.06% 56.49% 11.77% 68.26% 17.36% 85.62% 11.50% 97.11% 2.89%
2012 100% 18.60% 38.09% 58.95% 11.22% 70.17% 16.25% 86.42% 10.80% 97.22% 2.78%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 7. Dollar Cut-Off, 1980–2012 (minimum AGI for tax return to fall into various percentiles; thresholds not adjusted for inflation)
Year Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50%
1980 $80,580 $43,792 $35,070 $23,606 $12,936
1981 $85,428 $47,845 $38,283 $25,655 $14,000
1982 $89,388 $49,284 $39,676 $27,027 $14,539
1983 $93,512 $51,553 $41,222 $27,827 $15,044
1984 $100,889 $55,423 $43,956 $29,360 $15,998
1985 $108,134 $58,883 $46,322 $30,928 $16,688
1986 $118,818 $62,377 $48,656 $32,242 $17,302
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 $139,289 $68,414 $52,921 $33,983 $17,768
1988 $157,136 $72,735 $55,437 $35,398 $18,367
1989 $163,869 $76,933 $58,263 $36,839 $18,993
1990 $167,421 $79,064 $60,287 $38,080 $19,767
1991 $170,139 $81,720 $61,944 $38,929 $20,097
1992 $181,904 $85,103 $64,457 $40,378 $20,803
1993 $185,715 $87,386 $66,077 $41,210 $21,179
1994 $195,726 $91,226 $68,753 $42,742 $21,802
1995 $209,406 $96,221 $72,094 $44,207 $22,344
1996 $227,546 $101,141 $74,986 $45,757 $23,174
1997 $250,736 $108,048 $79,212 $48,173 $24,393
1998 $269,496 $114,729 $83,220 $50,607 $25,491
1999 $293,415 $120,846 $87,682 $52,965 $26,415
2000 $313,469 $128,336 $92,144 $55,225 $27,682
IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 $1,393,718 $306,635 $132,082 $96,151 $59,026 $31,418
2002 $1,245,352 $296,194 $130,750 $95,699 $59,066 $31,299
2003 $1,317,088 $305,939 $133,741 $97,470 $59,896 $31,447
2004 $1,617,918 $339,993 $140,758 $101,838 $62,794 $32,622
2005 $1,938,175 $379,261 $149,216 $106,864 $64,821 $33,484
2006 $2,124,625 $402,603 $157,390 $112,016 $67,291 $34,417
2007 $2,251,017 $426,439 $164,883 $116,396 $69,559 $35,541
2008 $1,867,652 $392,513 $163,512 $116,813 $69,813 $35,340
2009 $1,469,393 $351,968 $157,342 $114,181 $68,216 $34,156
2010 $1,634,386 $369,691 $161,579 $116,623 $69,126 $34,338
2011 $1,717,675 $388,905 $167,728 $120,136 $70,492 $34,823
2012 $2,161,175 $434,682 $175,817 $125,195 $73,354 $36,055
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2012 (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%
IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
2001 14.47% 28.17% 27.60% 23.91% 15.20% 21.68% 11.87% 18.35% 9.20% 16.08% 4.92%
2002 13.28% 28.48% 27.37% 23.17% 14.15% 20.76% 10.70% 17.23% 8.00% 14.87% 3.86%
2003 12.11% 24.60% 24.38% 20.92% 12.46% 18.70% 9.69% 15.57% 7.41% 13.53% 3.49%
2004 12.31% 23.06% 23.52% 20.83% 12.53% 18.80% 9.41% 15.71% 7.27% 13.68% 3.53%
2005 12.65% 22.48% 23.15% 20.93% 12.61% 19.03% 9.45% 16.04% 7.18% 14.01% 3.51%
2006 12.80% 21.94% 22.80% 20.80% 12.84% 19.02% 9.52% 16.12% 7.22% 14.12% 3.51%
2007 12.90% 21.42% 22.46% 20.66% 12.92% 18.96% 9.61% 16.16% 7.27% 14.19% 3.56%
2008 12.54% 22.67% 23.29% 20.83% 12.66% 18.87% 9.45% 15.85% 6.97% 13.79% 3.26%
2009 11.39% 24.28% 24.05% 20.59% 11.53% 18.19% 8.36% 14.81% 5.76% 12.61% 2.35%
2010 11.81% 22.84% 23.39% 20.64% 11.98% 18.46% 8.70% 15.22% 6.01% 13.06% 2.37%
2011 12.54% 22.82% 23.50% 20.89% 12.83% 18.85% 9.70% 15.82% 6.98% 13.76% 3.13%
2012 13.11% 21.67% 22.83% 20.97% 13.33% 19.21% 9.96% 16.35% 7.21% 14.33% 3.28%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.

(1) For data prior to 2001, all tax returns that have a positive AGI are included, even those that do not have a positive income tax liability. For data from 2001 forward, returns with negative AGI are also included, but dependent returns are excluded.

(2) Income tax after credits (the tax measure above) does not account for the refundable portion of EITC. If it were included (as is often the case with other organizations), the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is legally classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.

(3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation’s taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes).

(4) AGI is a fairly narrow income concept and does not include income items like government transfers (except for the portion of Social Security benefits that is taxed), the value of employer-provided health insurance, underreported or unreported income (most notably that of sole proprietors), income derived from municipal bond interest, net imputed rental income, worker’s compensation benefits, and others.

(5) Tax return is the unit of analysis, which is broader than households, especially for those at the bottom end, many of which are dependent returns (prior to 2001). Some dependent returns are included in the figures here prior to 2001, and under other units of analysis (like the Treasury Department’s Family Economic Unit) would likely be paired with their parents’ returns.

(6) These figures represent the legal incidence of the income tax, although most distributional tables (such as those from CBO, Tax Policy Center, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Treasury Department, and JCT) assume that the entire economic incidence of personal income taxes falls on the income earner.


[1] Internal Revenue Service, SOI Tax Stats–Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares,http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-and-Tax-Shares.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-465

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Portrait of An Economic Illiterate and Obama Kool Aid Drinker: Nick Hanauer’s Hoax at TED Conference–Videos

Posted on June 2, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

A TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Rich Man, Poor Man

“If I wanted America to fail” 

Obama’s Capital Gains Tax “Fairness”

Warren Buffett’s Reported Plans to Avoid Taxes and the Buffett Rule

EAT THE RICH!

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government

U.S. Unemployment Rate 1995-2012

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

October 24, 2011

Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 285

Table 1
Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009

  

Number of Returns with Positive AGI

AGI ($ millions)

Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

Group’s Share of Total AGI

Group’s Share of Income Taxes

Income Split Point

Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers 137,982,203 $7,825,389 $865,863 100.0% 100.0% 11.06%
Top 1% 1,379,822 $1,324,572 $318,043 16.9% 36.7%  $343,927.00 24.01%
1-5% 5,519,288 $1,157,918 $189,864 14.8% 22.0% 16.40%
Top 5% 6,899,110 $2,482,490 $507,907 31.7% 58.7%  $154,643.00 20.46%
5-10% 6,899,110 $897,241 $102,249 11.5% 11.8% 11.40%
Top 10% 13,798,220 $3,379,731 $610,156 43.2% 70.5%  $112,124.00 18.05%
10-25% 20,697,331

$1,770,140

$145,747 22.6% 17.0% 8.23%
Top 25% 34,495,551 $5,149,871 $755,903 65.8% 87.3%  $ 66,193.00 14.68%
25-50% 34,495,551 $1,620,303 $90,449 20.7% 11.0% 5.58%
Top 50% 68,991,102 $6,770,174 $846,352 86.5% 97.7%  > $32,396 12.50%
Bottom 50% 68,991,102

$1,055,215

$19,511 13.5% 2.3%  < $32,396 1.85%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

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/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Total Government Spending (Federal, State, Local) as Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

The Real Reason That TED Talk Was ‘Censored’? It’s Shoddy And Dumb

Bruce Upbin, Forbes Staff

“… TED curator Chris Anderson went to his blogto explain why Hanauer’s talk, despite tapping into some timely and pressing issues, wasn’t picked:

…it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.

According to Anderson, when Hanauer found out his talk wasn’t picked, he ”hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story.” …”

“…But what’s worse is that his unemployment line looks nothing like the real thing. I pulled the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (right) and you can see what really happened to unemployment between 1995 and 2009. It refutes Hanauer’s point, if anything. Unemployment didn’t keep going up. It FELL twice (once from  1995-2001 and again from 2003-2007). Sure, it soared in the Great Recession, but did that have anything to do with low taxes on the rich? I went ahead and added the two years since Hanauer’s chart cuts off so you can see how it has come back down. His work is complete junk and dangerously misleading. As my data editor Jon Bruner said, it looks like Hanauer “just took the unemployment rate in 1995 and the unemployment rate in 2009 and drew a random squiggly line between them.” …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2012/05/17/the-real-reason-that-ted-talk-was-censored-its-shoddy-and-dumb/


Millionaire Nick Hanauer and Fox News Neil Cavuto

Young Billionaire Says Wealthy Are Not “Job Creators”

Hanauer: “Romneynomics…Dead Wrong”

“…The Congressional Budget Office gave a pretty dire warning about the economy this week. In a report the FBO warned that the combination of budget cuts set to go into effect next January and an expiration of Bush tax cuts, and the payroll tax and extended unemployment benefits would be a fiscal cliff. And if Congress lets us go off that cliff, they predicted that the economy would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of 2013. But will Congress really do anything about it? Serial Entrepreneur and Venture Capitalist Nick Hanauer weighs in. …”

O’Donnell: Exploding The Laughable Myth That The So-Called “Job Creators” Create Jobs

The Ignorance of Nick Hanauer’s TED Speech

Tim Worstall,

“… Here’s the transcript of the talk. To highlight some points:

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down. …..In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy. …..That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer……Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.

It isn’t actually true that the claimed link is between taxes on the rich and job creation. Rather, that marginal tax rates have an effect on labour supply: raise those marginal rates too high and people will decide to do something else rather than go to work. Appear unpaid on stage at conferences to make a video perhaps. This is the Laffer Curve argument in part. Economic production and thus total taxes raised will be maximised by having marginal tax rates that are not too high.

Yes, sure, this just brings us the shouting match about what is “too high” and what a lovely shouting match that is. But it is a discussion of labour supply and marginal tax rates, not a discussion of job creation.

In the second part Hanauer seems to be complaining that as his consumption doesn’t make up for the fall in other peoples’ consumption there is something wrong with the system. Which is where he begins to go seriously wrong. For we know this, this marginal propensity to consume is an essential part of Keynesian economics and not seriously doubted by any other economists either. It is precisely this which gives us savings which then leads to investment in the economy. Exactly that, that some people do not consume all of their income. Which brings us to the Big Blooper:

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification.

The actual rates can be argued over for sure but the idea that there should be a difference between the tax rate on returns to capital and the returns to labour is not a privilege it’s just plain common good sense.

The first reason is that of course the returns to capital are not taxed at that 15% rate. Near uniquely in the modern world the US charges the corporate income tax on dividends before they are distributed then charges that 15% again upon their receipt as income. Everyone else does one or the other: the company pays the tax (perhaps with additional rate for high earners upon receipt) then distributes or the recipient is taxed and the company pays corporate tax on post dividend distribution profits. So the true dividend tax rate is more like 44% in the US.

Capital gains are also reduced by that corporate income tax so again, the rate is higher than the 15% actually charged to recipients.

But the second point is the more important. These are not taxes on the rich. They are taxes on the return to capital. And it is most assuredly so that it is the investment of capital that creates jobs. Which is why, if we’d like to create jobs we’d really rather like to have lower tax rates on those returns to capital. Indeed, you can find huge swathes of the economics literature (for example, Sir John Mirrlees who got his Nobel in this field) insisting that for this very reason the correct tax rate on the returns to capital is zero.

Because we want people to save, to invest their capital, because this is what creates jobs. These tax rates aren’t limited to the rich either: low income earners with a bit of savings put by pay these same 15% rates. For the very obvious and logical reasons that they are not tax rates for the rich they are tax rates on earnings from capital investment. And we like capital investment, it’s what drives the economy forward and provides jobs. Which is why we should and do tax them less than straight labour income. …”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech/

Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality

“…If you’re plugged into the Internet, chances are you’ve seen a TED talk – the wonky, provocative web videos that have become a sort of nerd franchise. TED.com is where you go to find Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg explaining why the world has too few female leaders, or Twitter cofounder Evan Williams sharing the secret power of listening to users to drive company improvement. The slogan of the nonprofit group behind the site is “Ideas Worth Spreading.”

There’s one idea, though, that TED’s organizers recently decided was too controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes. …”

“…TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer – the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com – to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic – specifically, Hanauer’s contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America’s true “job creators.” …”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Forward Radical Progressive Socialists–Better Not Look Down–More Deadly Than War–Barack Obama–Videos


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Yummy Yummy Yummy–I Got Love in My Tummy–Eat The Rich–Videos

Posted on March 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

OHIO EXPRESS – Yummy Yummy Yummy (1968)

OHIO EXPRESS – Live in Concert “YUMMY YUMMY YUMMY”

EAT THE RICH! 

I’M TALKING TO YOU 

A VOTERS’ GUIDE TO REPUBLICANS 

Aerosmith – Eat The Rich

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos

Posted on September 20, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

EAT THE RICH!

 

Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH

 

President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary

 

Obama the Socialist wants to spread YOUR money around

Obama – Taxes, Capital Gains

 

President Barack Obama, September 19, 2011

“…So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive.  But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit.  That has to be part of the formula.  And any reform should follow another simple principle:  Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires.  That’s pretty straightforward.  It’s hard to argue against that.  Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  There is no justification for it.

It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out.  They should have to defend that unfairness — explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that — paying a higher rate.  They ought to have to answer for it.  And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution. …”

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Married Filing Separate Head of Household
10% Up to $8,500 Up to $17,000 Up to $8,500 Up to $12,150
15% $8,501 – $34,500 $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500 $12,151 – $46,250
25% $34,501 – $83,600 $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $69,675 $46,251 – $119,400
28% $83,601 – $174,400 $139,351 – $212,300 $69,676 – $106,150 $119,401 – $193,350
33% $174,401 – $379,150 $212,301 – $379,150 $106,151 – $189,575 $193,351 – $379,150
35% Over $379,150 Over $379,150 Over $189,575 Over $379,150

In addition to the tax brackets above, you may owe tax under the alternative minimum tax. You can review the 2011 AMT exemption to see if it will apply to you.

Proposed 2012 Tax Rates & Tax Brackets

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Head of Household
10% Up to $8,600 Up to $17,200 Up to $12,250
15% $8,601 – $34,900 $17,201 – $69,800 $12,251 – $46,750
25% $34,901 – $84,500 $69,801 – $140,850 $46,751 – $120,700
28% $84,501 – $195,950 $140,851 – $237,700 $120,701 – $216,800
36% $195,951 – $383,350 $237,701 – $383,350 $216,801 – $383,350
39.6% Over $383,350 Over $383,350 Over $383,350

Married Filing Separate was not included in the release. I’ll update the 2012 federal tax tables for all filing statuses as soon as the information is available.

2012 Tax Rates vs 2011 Tax Rates

Want to compare the proposed 2012 tax brackets to the current year to see the changes?

The biggest changes in the proposal are expanding the 28% bracket and replacing the 33% and 35% brackets with 36% and 39.6% brackets.

http://www.mydollarplan.com/tax-brackets/

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

“…This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1
percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes
and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think
tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15
percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between
$40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in
federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7
percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income
taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or
more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes,
according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal
income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3
percent.

Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and
individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The
top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax
rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above
$379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because
the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and
credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on
revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low-
and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most,
however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. …”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)

Number of Returns with Positive AGI AGI ($ millions) Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% 12.24%
Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%
1-5% 5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70% 17.21%
Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%
5-10% 6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22% 12.44%
Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%
10-25% 20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40% 9.29%
Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%
25-50% 34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96% 6.75%
Top 50% 69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%
Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (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%
Source: IRS
Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2008 (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%
Source: IRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 -127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985 946,344 734,037 -212,308
1986 990,382 769,155 -221,277
1987 1,004,017 854,288 -149,730
1988 1,064,417 854,288 -155,178
1989 1,143,744 991,105 -152,639
1990 1,252,994 1,031,958 -221,036
1991 1,324,226 1,054,988 -269,238
1992 1,381,529 1,091,208 -290,321
1993 1,409,386 1,154,335 -255,051
1994 1,461,753 1,258,566 -203,186
1995 1,515,742 1,351,790 -163,392
1996 1,560,484 1,453,053 -107,431
1997 1,601,116 1,579,232 -21,884
1998 1,652,458 1,721,728 69,270
1999 1,701,842 1,827,452 125,610
2000 1,788,950 2,025,191 236,241
2001 1,862,846 1,991,082 128,236
2002 2,010,894 1,853,136 -157,758
2003 2,159,899 1,782,314 -377,585
2004 2,292,841 1,880,114 -412,727
2005 2,471,957 2,153,611 -318,346
2006 2,655,050 2,406,869 -248,181
2007 2,728,686 2,567,985 -160,701
2008 2,982,544 2,523,991 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 2,104,989 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 2,162,724 -1,293,489
2011 Est. 3,818,819 2,173,700 -1,645,119
2012 Est. 3,728,686 2,627,449 -1,101,237
2013 Est. 3,770,876 3,003,345 -767,531

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

Obama lied, it is Marxist class warfare as the above charts clearly show! Marxist Math!

The Story of Spending

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH

President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary

President Obama on Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government

Background Articles and Videos

What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Cannibal Obama Eats The Rich–A Progressive’s Delight–Yummy, Yummy, Yummy–Videos

Posted on April 15, 2011. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Obama’s Plan to Tax the Rich

EAT THE RICH!

Eat The Rich Part 7

Eat The Rich Part 8

yummy yummy yummy(with lyrics)

Table 1
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008

(Updated October 2010)

  Number of Returns with Positive AGI AGI
($ millions)
Income Taxes Paid
($ millions)
Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% 12.24%
Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%
1-5% 5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70%   17.21%
Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%
5-10% 6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22%   12.44%
Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%
10-25% 20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40%   9.29%
Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%
25-50% 34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96%   6.75%
Top 50% 69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%
Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (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%
Source: IRS        

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Federal income tax rates

1930 – 1960

Historical income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.[3]

Year $20,001 $60,001 $100,001
1930 10% 21% 25%
1932 16% 36% 56%
1934 19% 37% 56%
1936 19% 39% 62%
1938 19% 39% 62%
1940 28% 51% 62%
1942 55% 75% 85%
1944 59% 81% 92%
1946 56% 78% 89%
1948 56% 78% 89%
1950 56% 78% 89%
1952 62% 80% 90%
1954 56% 78% 89%
1956 38% 62% 75%
1958 38% 62% 75%
1960 38% 62% 75%

Year 2008 income brackets and tax rates

Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,025 $0 – $16,050 $0 – $8,025 $0 – $11,450
15% $8,026 – $32,550 $16,051 – $65,100 $8,026 – $32,550 $11,451 – $43,650
25% $32,551 – $78,850 $65,101 – $131,450 $32,551 – $65,725 $43,651 – $112,650
28% $78,851 – $164,550 $131,451 – $200,300 $65,726 – $100,150 $112,651 – $182,400
33% $164,551 – $357,700 $200,301 – $357,700 $100,151 – $178,850 $182,401 – $357,700
35% $357,701+ $357,701+ $178,851+ $357,701+

Year 2009 income brackets and tax rates

Marginal Tax Rate[4] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,350 $0 – $16,700 $0 – $8,350 $0 – $11,950
15% $8,351 – $33,950 $16,701 – $67,900 $8,351 – $33,950 $11,951 – $45,500
25% $33,951 – $82,250 $67,901 – $137,050 $33,951 – $68,525 $45,501 – $117,450
28% $82,251 – $171,550 $137,051 – $208,850 $68,526 – $104,425 $117,451 – $190,200
33% $171,551 – $372,950 $208,851 – $372,950 $104,426 – $186,475 $190,201 – $372,950
35% $372,951+ $372,951+ $186,476+ $372,951+

Year 2010 income brackets and tax rates

Marginal Tax Rate[5] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,375 $0 – $16,750 $0 – $8,375 $0 – $11,950
15% $8,376 – $34,000 $16,751 – $68,000 $8,376 – $34,000 $11,951 – $45,550
25% $34,001 – $82,400 $68,001 – $137,300 $34,001 – $68,650 $45,551 – $117,650
28% $82,401 – $171,850 $137,301 – $209,250 $68,651 – $104,625 $117,651 – $190,550
33% $171,851 – $373,650 $209,251 – $373,650 $104,626 – $186,825 $190,551 – $373,650
35% $373,651+ $373,651+ $186,826+ $373,651+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Year Gross Debt in Billions undeflated[11] as % of GDP Debt Held By Public ($Billions) as % of GDP
1910 2.6 unk. 2.6 unk.
1920 25.9 unk. 25.9 unk.
1928 18.5[12] unk. 18.5 unk.
1930 16.2 unk. 16.2 unk.
1940 50.6 52.4 42.8 44.2
1950 256.8 94.0 219.0 80.2
1960 290.5 56.0 236.8 45.6
1970 380.9 37.6 283.2 28.0
1980 909.0 33.4 711.9 26.1
1990 3,206.3 55.9 2,411.6 42.0
2000 5,628.7 58.0 3,409.8 35.1
2001 5,769.9 57.4 3,319.6 33.0
2002 6,198.4 59.7 3,540.4 34.1
2003 6,760.0 62.6 3,913.4 35.1
2004 7,354.7 63.9 4,295.5 37.3
2005 7,905.3 64.6 4,592.2 37.5
2006 8,451.4 65.0 4,829.0 37.1
2007 8,950.7 65.6 5,035.1 36.9
2008 9,985.8 70.2 5,802.7 40.8
2009 12,311.4 86.1 7,811.1 54.6
2010 (31 Dec) 14,025.2 95.2 (3rd Q) 9,390.5 63.7 (3rd Q)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2010

Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.

The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.

To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.

 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 31, 2011

TABLE I — SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
By the Public         Holdings
Marketable:
Bills…………………………………        1,694,692                     3,809                1,698,501
Notes…………………………………        5,843,938                     3,933                5,847,871
Bonds…………………………………          931,474                     3,815                  935,289
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities…..          640,714                       125                  640,840
Federal Financing Bank  1  ……………..                0                    10,239                   10,239
Total Marketable  a………………………        9,110,819                    21,921 2              9,132,740
Nonmarketable:
Domestic Series………………………..           29,995                         0                   29,995
Foreign Series…………………………            3,786                         0                    3,786
State and Local Government Series………..          181,922                         0                  181,922
United States Savings Securities…………          186,864                         0                  186,864
Government Account Series……………….          136,956                 4,596,057                4,733,014
Hope Bonds 19………………………….                0                       493                      493
Other…………………………………            1,301                         0                    1,301
Total Nonmarketable  b……………………          540,824                 4,596,550                5,137,374
Total Public Debt Outstanding …………….        9,651,643                 4,618,471               14,270,115
TABLE II — STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
Public Debt Outstanding…………………        9,651,643                 4,618,471               14,270,115
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit………..              488                         0                      488
Unamortized Discount  3……………….           20,388                    20,657                   41,046
Federal Financing Bank  1     …………                0                    10,239                   10,239
Hope Bonds 19………………………..                0                       493                      493
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit……….        9,630,767                 4,587,082               14,217,849
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies  4                13                         0                       13
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit ………        9,630,780                 4,587,082               14,217,862
Statutory Debt Limit  5……………………………………………………………          14,294,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit…………………………………………………….              76,138
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
http://www.TreasuryDirect.gov

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds032011.prn

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The Presidential Divider

Obama’s toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt.

“…Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign. 

Joseph Rago and Steve Moore on who will pay more under the White House’s planned tax increases.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Eat The Rich–Videos

Posted on April 14, 2011. Filed under: Art, Blogroll, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, European History, Films, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, Music, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Eat the Rich Part 1

 

Eat the Rich Part 2

 

Eat the Rich Part 3

 

Eat the Rich Part 4

 

Eat the Rich Part 5

 

Eat the Rich Part 6

 

Eat the Rich Part 7

 

Eat the Rich Part 8

 

Eat the Rich Part 9

 

Eat the Rich Part 10

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Speech Of April 13, 2011–Eat The Rich And Killing The American Dream Class Warfare–Cuts National Security Spending and Raise Taxes On The Rich–Produces Massive Deficits, National Debt, and Higher Unemployment For 12 More Years–Progressive Radical Socialist Economic Stagflation–Videos

Posted on April 13, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 24: April 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2): April 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1): April 7, 2011

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

~Thomas Jefferson


President Obama’s Speech on 2012 Budget – April 13, 2011

Rep. Scott: Taxing those at $100,000 and up 100% will not cover deficit

Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won’t work.

Paul Ryan Thrashes Obama’s Speech: “Exploiting People’s Emotions” Is “Demagoguery”!

Ryan: Debt crisis lies within spending, not taxes

House Session 2011-04-14 (16:55:00-17:56:59)

Responsibility to the Poor

Howard Roark makes a case against Barack Obama Individual vs collectivism

Ayn Rand – Individual Rights

Francisco’s Money Speech Part 1

Francisco’s money speech Part 2

The Normal State of Man: Misery & Tyranny

Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews

Who Is John Galt?

Why Did President Obama Invite Paul Ryan To A Front Row Seat To His Speech To Then Insult and Demonize Him?

Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn’t Reduce Spending

Eat The Rich

 

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

 

Boehner: We Can’t Tax The Very People We Expect To Create Jobs


Krauthammer: Obama’s Deficit Speech ‘A Disgrace’, ‘Shallow’, ‘Hyper-partisan’ and ‘Deeply Dishonest’

The Problem

“Extreme Spending”

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending 

 

Partial Solutions 

Senator Rand Paul on balancing the budget

Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan

Shelby Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution

Which Budgets Are Fiscally Responsible?

Which Budgets Are Living Within Ones Means?

Democratic Party Budget Proposals 

S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,819 2,174 -1,645 10,856
2012 3,729 2,627 -1,101 11,881
2013 3,771 3,003 -768 12,784
2014 3,977 3,333 -646 13,562
2015 4,190 3,583 -607 14,301
2016 4,468 3,819 -649 15,064
2017 4,669 4,042 -627 15,795
2018 4,876 4,257 -619 16,513
2019 5,154 4,473 -681 17,284
2020 5,442 4,686 -735 18,103
2021 5,697 4,923 -774 18,967
2012-2021 45,952 38,747 -7,205 n.a.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Republican Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Deficits Debt Held By Public
2011 3,618 2,230 -1,388 10,351
2012 3,529 2,533 -995 11,418
2013 3,559 2,860 -699 12,217
2014 3,586 3,094 -492 12,801
2015 3,671 3,237 -434 13,326
2016 3,858 3,377 -481 13,886
2017 3,998 3,589 -408 14,363
2018 4,123 3,745 -379 14,800
2019 4,352 3,939 -414 15,254
2020 4,544 4,142 -402 15,681
2021 4,739 4,354 -385 16,071
2012-2021 39,958 34,870 -5,088 n.a.

 

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

f

Tea Party Solution

Tea Party Budget Proposals

S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues Surpluses Debt Held By Public
2012 2,500 2,500 0 10,900
2013 2,800 2,800 0 10,900
2014 3,000 3,000 0 10,900
2015 3,200 3,200 0 10,900
2016 3,300 3,300 0 10,900
2017 3,400 3,500 100 10,800
2018 3,500 3,700 200 10,600
2019 3,600 3,900 300 10,300
2020 3,700 4,000 300 10,000
2021 3,800 4,300 500 9,500
2012-2021 32,800 34,200 1,400 n.a.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

The FairTax: It’s Time

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

  • Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
  • Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
  • Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
  • Allows American products to compete fairly
  • Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
  • Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
  • Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
  • Abolishes the IRS

Table 1
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008

(Updated October 2010)

Number of Returns with Positive AGI AGI
($ millions)
Income Taxes Paid
($ millions)
Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% 12.24%
Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%
1-5% 5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70% 17.21%
Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%
5-10% 6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22% 12.44%
Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%
10-25% 20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40% 9.29%
Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%
25-50% 34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96% 6.75%
Top 50% 69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%
Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (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%
Source: IRS

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Federal income tax rates

1930 – 1960

Historical income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.[3]

Year $20,001 $60,001 $100,001
1930 10% 21% 25%
1932 16% 36% 56%
1934 19% 37% 56%
1936 19% 39% 62%
1938 19% 39% 62%
1940 28% 51% 62%
1942 55% 75% 85%
1944 59% 81% 92%
1946 56% 78% 89%
1948 56% 78% 89%
1950 56% 78% 89%
1952 62% 80% 90%
1954 56% 78% 89%
1956 38% 62% 75%
1958 38% 62% 75%
1960 38% 62% 75%

Year 2008 income brackets and tax rates

Marginal Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,025 $0 – $16,050 $0 – $8,025 $0 – $11,450
15% $8,026 – $32,550 $16,051 – $65,100 $8,026 – $32,550 $11,451 – $43,650
25% $32,551 – $78,850 $65,101 – $131,450 $32,551 – $65,725 $43,651 – $112,650
28% $78,851 – $164,550 $131,451 – $200,300 $65,726 – $100,150 $112,651 – $182,400
33% $164,551 – $357,700 $200,301 – $357,700 $100,151 – $178,850 $182,401 – $357,700
35% $357,701+ $357,701+ $178,851+ $357,701+

Year 2009 income brackets and tax rates

Marginal Tax Rate[4] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,350 $0 – $16,700 $0 – $8,350 $0 – $11,950
15% $8,351 – $33,950 $16,701 – $67,900 $8,351 – $33,950 $11,951 – $45,500
25% $33,951 – $82,250 $67,901 – $137,050 $33,951 – $68,525 $45,501 – $117,450
28% $82,251 – $171,550 $137,051 – $208,850 $68,526 – $104,425 $117,451 – $190,200
33% $171,551 – $372,950 $208,851 – $372,950 $104,426 – $186,475 $190,201 – $372,950
35% $372,951+ $372,951+ $186,476+ $372,951+

Year 2010 income brackets and tax rates

Marginal Tax Rate[5] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household
10% $0 – $8,375 $0 – $16,750 $0 – $8,375 $0 – $11,950
15% $8,376 – $34,000 $16,751 – $68,000 $8,376 – $34,000 $11,951 – $45,550
25% $34,001 – $82,400 $68,001 – $137,300 $34,001 – $68,650 $45,551 – $117,650
28% $82,401 – $171,850 $137,301 – $209,250 $68,651 – $104,625 $117,651 – $190,550
33% $171,851 – $373,650 $209,251 – $373,650 $104,626 – $186,825 $190,551 – $373,650
35% $373,651+ $373,651+ $186,826+ $373,651+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Year Gross Debt in Billions undeflated[11] as % of GDP Debt Held By Public ($Billions) as % of GDP
1910 2.6 unk. 2.6 unk.
1920 25.9 unk. 25.9 unk.
1928 18.5[12] unk. 18.5 unk.
1930 16.2 unk. 16.2 unk.
1940 50.6 52.4 42.8 44.2
1950 256.8 94.0 219.0 80.2
1960 290.5 56.0 236.8 45.6
1970 380.9 37.6 283.2 28.0
1980 909.0 33.4 711.9 26.1
1990 3,206.3 55.9 2,411.6 42.0
2000 5,628.7 58.0 3,409.8 35.1
2001 5,769.9 57.4 3,319.6 33.0
2002 6,198.4 59.7 3,540.4 34.1
2003 6,760.0 62.6 3,913.4 35.1
2004 7,354.7 63.9 4,295.5 37.3
2005 7,905.3 64.6 4,592.2 37.5
2006 8,451.4 65.0 4,829.0 37.1
2007 8,950.7 65.6 5,035.1 36.9
2008 9,985.8 70.2 5,802.7 40.8
2009 12,311.4 86.1 7,811.1 54.6
2010 (31 Dec) 14,025.2 95.2 (3rd Q) 9,390.5 63.7 (3rd Q)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2010

Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.

The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.

To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.

 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 31, 2011

TABLE I — SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
By the Public         Holdings
Marketable:
Bills…………………………………        1,694,692                     3,809                1,698,501
Notes…………………………………        5,843,938                     3,933                5,847,871
Bonds…………………………………          931,474                     3,815                  935,289
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities…..          640,714                       125                  640,840
Federal Financing Bank  1  ……………..                0                    10,239                   10,239
Total Marketable  a………………………        9,110,819                    21,921 2              9,132,740
Nonmarketable:
Domestic Series………………………..           29,995                         0                   29,995
Foreign Series…………………………            3,786                         0                    3,786
State and Local Government Series………..          181,922                         0                  181,922
United States Savings Securities…………          186,864                         0                  186,864
Government Account Series……………….          136,956                 4,596,057                4,733,014
Hope Bonds 19………………………….                0                       493                      493
Other…………………………………            1,301                         0                    1,301
Total Nonmarketable  b……………………          540,824                 4,596,550                5,137,374
Total Public Debt Outstanding …………….        9,651,643                 4,618,471               14,270,115
TABLE II — STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title                                         Debt Held             Intragovernmental         Totals
By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
Public Debt Outstanding…………………        9,651,643                 4,618,471               14,270,115
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit………..              488                         0                      488
Unamortized Discount  3……………….           20,388                    20,657                   41,046
Federal Financing Bank  1     …………                0                    10,239                   10,239
Hope Bonds 19………………………..                0                       493                      493
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit……….        9,630,767                 4,587,082               14,217,849
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies  4                13                         0                       13
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit ………        9,630,780                 4,587,082               14,217,862
Statutory Debt Limit  5……………………………………………………………          14,294,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit…………………………………………………….              76,138
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
http://www.TreasuryDirect.gov

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds032011.prn

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The Presidential Divider

Obama’s toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt.

“…Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign. 

Joseph Rago and Steve Moore on who will pay more under the White House’s planned tax increases.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Sam Vaknin Analyzes Barack Obama–Videos

Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann And Rand Paul–Stop Spending Money You Don’t Have!–Balance The Budget–Tea Party Budget Gets It Right–Videos

Republican Party Establishment Ruling Class Betrays The Tea Party Movement and American People With A Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution With A Deficit of $995 Billion And Budgets Not Balanced In Next Ten Years–Replace Republican Party Leadership–Videos

Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos

Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!

The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos

The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...