That was 2008. What is it now that the economy is in the toilet? The rich aren't the ones having their jobs shipped overseas, and their houses foreclosed.

And what percentage of all income do that top 1% represent? If they made 38% of the profit in the economy, then they should be paying 38% of the taxes (my guess is that, if you include ALL of their income, that they account for well over 38% of the total US income).

A related question - what percentage of their intake does that 38% represent?

In 2008 the top 1% of income earners reported 20% of income and paid 38% of taxes. Top 5% reported 35% of income and paid 59% of income taxes.

Since much of the bottom 50% of income earners is mostly exempt from income taxes that makes sense it would be skewed that way.

Of course, this is just federal adjusted gross income (which does tend to skew things to the benefit of the wealthier since they have more ways to adjust their income downward).

But federal income tax is progressive, while sales taxes and payroll taxes tend to be regressive and the picture would change (though I don't know how much) if total tax burden were used.

Now the problem really is what constitutes "fair share." Personally, I don't care that I'm taxed at a higher rate than most people I know.

Which is what I was getting at with "ALL of their income." All of these numbers tend to obscure the fact that higher income earners have sources of incoming money that do not fall under "income" and can be sheltered from tax.

Yep. Which is why single-line stats are a terrible way to look at things.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I heard an interesting idea today. For every American job their company ships (or has shipped) overseas, a CEO's tax rate goes up .01%. Watch how fast those jobs come flying back to America!

"Facts to a Liberal are like Kryptonite to Superman."

- Larry Elder (no relation)

JWBear's idea might feel good emotionally but it could never be implemented and if it did would, I expect, have the opposite impact desired (that is keeping jobs out of America and further pushing the companies themselves to relocate out of the United States)

Not to mention the definitional problem of precisely identifying what is a job that "moved" out of the country (I assume that this is what is meant by "overseas" and not that Mexico is ok). Some are obvious, but many are not.

If I fire 300 people in a U.S. call center and open an Indian one with 100 people, how many jobs moved? My friend recently moved permanently from Seattle to France while keeping the same job, did that move overseas? The CEO ultimately responsible for Budweiser is a Brazilian who lives in Belgium. How are we going to punish him when he moves a bottling plant from Arizona into Mexico since he likely doesn't pay U.S. income taxes? Etc.

Yes, out of the country. Mexico and Canada count.

100

No. An American still holds the job.

Foriegn owned companies should no longer be considered "American", and have heavy tarrifs imposed. If you want to operate a company in America, it needs to be owned and operated by Americans. A bit jingoistic, I know, but it's time we start thinking of your own people first.