Voting To Get Other People’s Stuff


The bottom 45% of income earners pay exactly 0 federal income tax. Zero. Zilch. And for our illegal friends, nada.

That kind of pisses me off.

Here we have the Demagogue-in-Chief going around telling everybody that the rich don’t pay their fair share and they are successful on the backs of the poor.

Except this is a bald-faced lie.

The top 5% of income earners pay 59% of all federal income taxes.  Look at this from the National Taxpayers Union:

Tax Revenue By Income Bracket

So, what the hell is Obama talking about?

I have no idea.

Either he actually believes that the top 5% should pay MORE than 59% of income taxes, in which case he is at at best a full-on socialist. Or he knows that the top income earners are already getting soaked, but claims they’re not paying their fair share, which makes him a liar.

So the leftists promise people a bunch of stuff. Programs, food stamps, housing, cash for clunkers, and on and on. Then, they heap the income taxes on top earners, while removing low income workers from the tax roles.

The result?

Nearly 50% of the people vote and have no stake in the game.

Maybe people would be less likely to want government programs if they actually had to pay for them?

Do you think people who pay nothing in income tax should be allowed to vote?

Share

Comments

  1. Andy Barreras says:

    Thanks for illustrating this point nicely, Harry. I just don’t understand how the left can justify the top 50 percent of earner paying almost 98 percent of taxes as “fair”. But the demagoguery is what really gets me. Case in point: Warren Buffett. This guy is the perfect example of the left’s favorite cherry picking technique. He props himself up as the quintessential example of the super-wealthy billionaire that pays little or no income tax. But if you’re smart enough to get past the empty rhetoric, here’s what you will really find. What Buffet is referring to is not his income tax rate, it’s the capital gain’s tax paid on the income earned form (long term) securities trading. Since that is where the vast majority of his income is derived, that forms the basis of his argument. However, there are few key points to consider: 1) The low tax rate he is referring to applies only to long term gains. Any earning derived from short term gains are taxed at twice that rate. 2) For most people in the US, even the top 1% earners don’t derive the majority of their earnings solely from capital gains. Most people earnings are a mix of salary, bonuses and investments. So at the end of the day, Buffet does not represent the top 1%, only a fraction of the 1% – that is, the top earners in the US whose income is derived mostly from the stock market. 3) Raising the capital gains tax rate would adversely affect millions of hard working Americans most of which are not the top 1% of earners. Is this a fair tactic for the purposes of simply punishing the fraction if the 1%? 4) Many of the people who complain about the supposedly low tax rate of the rich are either a) part of the lower 50 percent that pay no taxes at all. If that’s the case, what are they complaining about in the first place? b) they are part of the 1% who pretend that they are not (insert “Michael Moore” here) or c) are part of the 1% who don’t pay their taxes (insert long list of Hollywood liberals here.)

  2. Scott Greene says:

    The current Income Tax system has been falling apart for years.

    Even CPA’s and tax preparers do not understand the Income Tax system, as evidenced by the different answers you get to the same questions about how to report various income transactions.
    Just look at the enormous amount of tax court cases where people pay money to argue with their government over what is deductible, what is not deductible, what can be carried forward, what can be carried back, what are the facts and circumstances surrounding the income and/or deductions, etc. etc.

    If this 75,000 page income tax code was clear and understandable, there would be very little arguments over much of anything!

    So instead of people spending their time making money, they end up spending time and money figuring out how to comply with the government’s bookkeeping requirements, which change every single year!

    The current Income Tax system is a horrid mess and hurts everyone.

  3. Well said, Scott. I can tell you first hand, as a small business owner, that the tax system is a disaster. My wife and I spend hours and hours, not to mention the cost of our accountants, working on our taxes every year.

    What’s funny (well, not funny) is that the same clowns that go around demagoguing the issue are the ones who wrote the 75,000 pages in the first place!

    Here’s a radical idea: How about everyone pays 5% of their earned income?

    If you asked one of our founders if they thought that to be fair, what do you think they’d have said?

  4. As always, Andy, you make a great case. We often talk about demagoguery here…and you hit the nail on the head. Make me wonder… do you think people fall for it? How much of the time?

    Clearly in the 2008 election, people fell for it. I mean, Obama told us exactly what he was going to do and people voted for him anyway.

    Today, Obama put out this ridiculous budget. He claims $4 Trillion in debt reduction in 10 years. But Jeff Sessions, the Chairman of the Budget Committee was on Fox this morning saying that in 10 years, we’ll add another $11 trillion onto the debt to top out at an estimated $26 Trillion.

    So…is Obama lying?

    Of course he is. He’s calling the reduction in growth “savings.”

    Liar.

    This from the guy who put on $5 Trillion in debt in 3 years.

    Anyway…I digress. (I get so mad at this stuff!)

    The point is, that these politicians tell bald-faced lies, so brazenly that I think a good number of people believe it.

    Bolstered by the demagogues in Hollywood that you mention, Andy, and people end up voting themselves into subjugation.

    Sigh……

  5. Steve Bakich says:

    What is the revenue if the bottom 50% paid just 5% taxes?

  6. This is also just a chart or federal income tax and not all taxes. And before you jump to conclusions, in 2007 for example the top ten percent paid 55 percent of taxes overall but they also made 42 percent of the total income compare that to 50 percent of taxes and 37.5 percent of income in 2001 http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/ . So they aren’t losing more money they are actually making a larger percentage. As for the debt that everyone keeps placing on Obama’s shoulders, a lot of that is from the previous wars and tax cuts. And the deficit will continue to grow with raising taxes on some or all groups (I am for all groups). And as for the almost 50 percent paying no taxes that is just a spin, a lot of people don’t pay income taxes because they don’t have an income or they make less than 20,000 or they are college students or military in combat zones. And you also haev to look at your own taxes, what kind of deductions are you getting? You may be closer to that zero income tax sin than you think.

  7. Tyrone,

    Thanks for visiting… Couple things for you…

    First, when half the people pay no federal income tax – it’s a problem. They vote for any pol who will give them stuff – OTHER people’s money. This is not spin, it’s fact. So people who pay no fed income taxes don’t make much money…okay, fine. So what? These are the people who take the most in terms of government handouts. And it just so happens that a government handout can’t happen without first TAKING money from some other citizen who DOES pay taxes.

    As for the debt… If you read enough of these pages, you’ll see that I have been consistent and very critical of ALL big spenders in government. But Obama has taken big spending to an absurd level. We’re over $16 Trillion in debt. $1.5 Trillion deficits each year he’s been in office.

    ALso – you blame debt on tax cuts? This tells me that you have fallen prey to the liberal media and their world view. Tell me, Tyrone, since when is an American keeping the money that they rightfully earn considered a government expenditure?

    If you can explain how keeping your own money is a government expenditure, I’ll vote for Obama.

  8. 50 percent not paying taxes includes 10 percent retorted folks that voted for Romney
    Also 1percent of the top 1 percent paid no taxes.
    I am proud to pay my fair share of taxes.
    Romney paid 13.9 percent while I paid 23 percent.
    I would agree with simpler tax code with less loop holes.
    A lot of prominant economists even think we could go to a purely consumption tax system then drug dealers and illegals would pay their fair share.

  9. Eddie – you clearly do not understand the tax code – not surprising since it’s estimated to be some 10,000,000 words covering 70,000+ pages.

    Mitt Romney paid a lower effective rate because he is paying taxes on dividends. The dividend rate is much lower than the top marginal tax rates (I’ll leave it to you to use the dictionary if you do not know what these words mean).

    Dividend taxes are paid on investments. Investments are made with earned income. We all pay taxes on earned income and do so at the marginal tax rat that applies. The investment income that Romney is paying taxes on has already been taxed once; the dividend tax is the federal government double dipping.

    The leftist tripe that 10 percent includes retired people and disabled people and all the other disempowered groups you like to come up with is just distracting nonsense. The bottom line is that the wealthy pay the enormous share of taxes already.

    It is curious to me that at once you imply wrongdoing by Romney for paying (double) taxes on dividend income, but then imply that a consumption tax is the way to go.

    Regardless, Eddie, you have fallen victim to the language of the leftist demagogue. We left “fair share” long ago. Back in the early twentieth century when the progressive income tax was first implemented. The system we have is a cornerstone of Marxism.

Speak Your Mind

*