No, scaeagles, those wealthy people technically owed a certain percentage of income tax, but paid very little of that via all the methods available to the rich to avoid paying any taxes. Corporations pay no taxes. Rich folks pay very little taxes. They have numerous financial means, loopholes and methods to avoid paying their taxes and that's exactly what they do.


Where are you getting your statistics? What are they based on?

They are from IRS data as posted on the National Tax Payers Union website.

This IS the data. That IS the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those groups. The top 1% DID pay almost 40% of all federal income taxes collected in 2006. Other years are listed as well, and interestingly, the percentage paid by the top has gone up since 2002 (it took a significant dive from 37+% to 34-% from 2000 to 2001, then has steadily creeped up again to the highest percentage ever).

You may think they are not paying a high enough percentage of their income, which is a different debate. This ia about what percentage of federal income tax collected comes from where. The rich pays the VAST majority of federal income taxes.

What would they have paid without the loopholes and tax shelters?

What percentage of their income did they pay compared to what percentage of my income did I pay.

I'm more interested in that then what they paid overall.

If I pay 25% and they pay 2% then they aren't being taxed enough compared to me - even if they paid $1,000,000 and I paid $10,000.

I am not one for tax loopholes. That's a fine conversation to have. Tax loop holes are set up by those who pass tax law, or the congress. While I would love for it to happen, congress isn't going to give up that power any time soon.

However, regardless of loopholes, one cannot possibly say that when the top 1% pays 40% of all federal taxes that they aren't paying their fair share or that the middle class is paying taxes that increase the wealth of the uh...wealthy.

I agree with Betty. What percentage of their income do they actually pay?

I'm not going to throw in my opinion on this one right now (don't have the time), except to point out that the Wall Street Journal editorial and the report from the Tax Foundation skew conservative. While The Tax Foundation calls itself non-partisan, they've been consistently one-sided for decades. While not nearly as sexy or incendiary, I would suggest that folks here check out the comparisons at the Tax Policy Center (from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution) and their blog, TaxVox.

You're not likely to get as many talking points (for either side), but you might see some data that will help you to draw some conclusions on your own.

Why shouldn't they have to pay a similar percentage to everyone else? Because they are rich? Because they already pay so much? Psh. Why shouldn't they be left with 75% of their earnings like I am after taxes? That's still a considerable amount of money. Seems like they are getting special privledges.

What ever happened to that proposal of a flat tax of 10% for everyone? and by everyone I mean everyone - not just those that can't afford to pay for the unforseen loopholes.

From what I saw of McCain's latest proposal, all his tax relief won't affect me at all. But it will certainly affect all those will a lot of money.

I'm not suggesting that those with money be forced to pay more then me - just the same percentage as me.

I don't believe I suggested they shouldn't pay the same percentage as everyone else. I am challanging ISM's assertion that "the tax structure of our nation has ALWAYS been a redistrubution of wealth, from the middle class to the rich. "

As far as what Mousepod pointed out, either the rich paid that percentage or they didn't. I suppose the NTU could be misreporting data from the IRS, but I doubt it.

As a side note, I voted for Forbes in the AZ primary in 2000. He was the biggest proponent for the flat tax that's ever taken the national spotlight.

If they paid $1,000,000 and you paid $10,000, and they didn't receive the benefit of 100x more roads, military protection, etc. Then can you honestly say they deserve to pay even more? I know we use it as a way to even out the burden a bit, but how much is enough?