The US Has The Richest "Poor" In The World

[JeffWartman]

We also have most of the richest rich people in the world. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening.

Perhaps you would prefer a Marxist society in which the different classes are made equal by making everyone poor?

In every society, there are those who have and those who don't. If you go back to the basic teachings of Jesus (which many conservatively allegedly subscribe to), it is the duty of those who have to help those who don't.

It is appalling that people believe it is acceptable for the government to force me to give them money so they can "help" poor people. You've been doing it since 1964 -- how successful has the welfare state been in getting rid of poverty?

Fact of the matter is, government assistance is keeping poor people poor by making them dependent on the welfare state. If you REALLY want to help poor people, you'd make business investment easier in this country so that jobs will be created.

 

[red states rule]

Credit this text to Mr. Neal Boortz.


Visit him at http://www.boortz.com/.


This is his research and he found the truth.


WHO PAYS WHAT?

DESTROYING THE MYTH OF THE "DECADE OF GREED."

The left just loves to refer to the Reagan years as the "Decade of Greed." The implication is that higher income types got away with absolute murder during the '80's when it comes to paying income taxes. Well, let's take a look at some statics from the Internal Revenue Service to see just what the various income levels were paying in income tax in 1981, and what they were paying in 1991.

1983 -- THE BEGINNING OF THE DECADE OF GREED -- THE YEAR THE REAGAN TAX BREAKS TOOK EFFECT.

Here we find the top 1% of all income earners in the United States paying a total of 20.3% of all of the personal income taxes collected by the IRS. The top 10% were paying 49.7% of all income taxes, and the top 50% was paying 92.8%. The bottom 50% of all income earners were payign only 7.2% of all income taxes.

1993 -- THE DECADE OF GREED ENDS! CLINTON RAISES TAXES TO THE EVIL RICH WILL PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!

Ten years later, in 1993, we find the top 1% of all income earners paying 28.7% of all income taxes collected! Wow! Those rich SOB's really got away with murder, didn't they? The top 10% saw their share of total income taxes collected go from 49.7% to 58.8%. The greedy so-and-so's. The top 50% saw their share rise to 95.2% of all taxes, while the bottom 50% saw their share drop from 7.2% to 4.8%.

IT'S 1998 --- HOW ARE THE EXPLOITERS OF THE POOR DOING NOW?

The September 23, 1998 issue of The Wall Street Journal has the new numbers for us. The share of the taxes being paid by the top 1% has gone up again! For the year 1966 they are approaching 33%.

YEAH .. BUT THOSE RICH BASTARDS ARE EARNING SO MUCH THEY STILL WEREN'T PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE

OK, fine. What would you consider a fair share? If the top 10% was earning 70% of all the income but only paying 58% of the taxes, that wouldn't be fair, would it? Well ... let's see what the figures show.

In 1993, at the end of the Decade of Greed, the top 1% were paying 28.7% of all taxes. They earned only 13.8% of all earned income. Oops! sounds like they are paying a bit more than their fair share, doesn't it? What about the top 10%? They were paying 58.5% of the income taxes but earning only 39% of the income. The top 50%? Paying 95.2% of the taxes, earning 85% of the income. The bottom 50%? Earning only 15% of the income but paying just 4.8% of the income taxes.

Update ... In 1996 the share of the income earned by the top 1% reached 16%. Remember: They're paying one third of all the taxes. So ... who is getting away with not paying their fair share? Looks like the bottom 50% to me ... not the evil, hated, mean, nasty, wicked rich.

These figures came from The Tax Foundation and IRS Statistics, 1983 through 1993. You go and do your own research and verify them! Then tell me just what the hell Bill Clinton was talking about when he said that the rich need to pay "their fair share."

---------

There are about 199 million voters in this country. Seventy million of these voters have absolutely no federal income tax liability at all. Do the math. This means that 35 percent of voters are entirely out of the federal income tax picture. I think a good argument could be made that these people shouldn't be voting at all.

OK ... We've taken care of 35% of the voters. I'm sure you can see that these net tax consumers are hardly going to be voting Libertarian or Republican.

The next group of voters are the 129 million (out of the 199 million total) who actually pay federal income taxes. Roberts divides the voters who actually pay taxes into the top 25 percent and the bottom 75 percent. About 97 million voters make up the bottom 75 percent of income earners who actually pay some federal taxes. This 75 percent pays a whopping 17 percent of all federal income taxes collected. So, let's add this 97 million voters who pay about 17 percent of the federal income taxes to the 70 million voters who pay nothing. That adds up to 167 million voters out of a total of 199 million. More math --- this means that 84 percent of all voters amount for 17 percent of all income taxes paid.

Now we go to the remaining voters. The 32 million we have left. These are the higher income earners. The high achievers. These 32 million Americans pay 83 percent of all federal income taxes collected. They account for 16 percent of the voters.

Come on, folks. Do you have to be hit with a truck here? Sixteen percent of the voters in this country are paying 83 percent of the federal income taxes. The Democrats and leftists don't need their votes. They need their money for their big government, welfare state spending programs. When Ted Kennedy called for a tax increase last week who do you think he was talking about ? That 16 percent, that's who. The 16 percent of Americans who are paying 83 percent of the taxes. And where did Kennedy want to spend the money? On the other 84 percent of voters, that's where.

It's foolproof, my friends. If you have 1000 voters who are going to cast votes on your future --- and if you can take money away from 160 of those voters to be used to buy votes from the other 840 ... you have it made. Election assured.

We're at the edge, folks. We're rapidly approaching the point where the ballot box is no longer going to work for the high-achievers in this country. At that point there are two viable options: Open revolt, or simply withholding your labor. What's it going to be?

Wake up. We're being fattened for the kill.

http://www.federalbudget.com/whopays.html

 

[supermarine]

would you perfer a poll tax? That way if you make a hundred bucks a day you pay $10, and if you make a million bucks a day you also pay $10.

You prove our point by showing that if the top 1% pay 20% of the taxes. That must mean that they also possess a big part of the income. Last i saw, since the tax cuts the differences in tax brackets weren't that far apart. (20% difference)
That must mean that the top 1% also possess around 15-25% of the income in this country in order to be paying 20% of the taxes.

 

[red states rule]

would you perfer a poll tax? That way if you make a hundred bucks a day you pay $10, and if you make a million bucks a day you also pay $10.

You prove our point by showing that if the top 1% pay 20% of the taxes. That must mean that they also possess a big part of the income. Last i saw, since the tax cuts the differences in tax brackets weren't that far apart. (20% difference)
That must mean that the top 1% also possess around 15-25% of the income in this country in order to be paying 20% of the taxes.

No, the top 1% pay 35% of all Federal income taxes while they earn only about 20% of all income

It gets worse

The top 5% earns 35% of the pie, while paying 54% of taxes. The top 10% earns 46.% while paying 65% of taxes; the top 25% earns 67.%, and pays 84% of federal income taxes. and the top 50% earns 87% of all the income while paying 96% of federal income taxes

 

[Vintij]

"So you define 'struggling' at 30k per year, based on what 'family'? "

Based on familys in california, new york, washington, florida. All the major citys, not the tiny towns where 30k a year is rich. Im talking on a major scale here.

On average over 35k - 55k is middle class...putting 30k in "lower class"

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

Theres your proof

"How do you get from minimum wage, even at $10 per hour to 30k? So, which families live on minimum wage? Whoops, not possible. Then again, it's not 'families' that are minimum wage earners, right?"

I never said 10 an hour has anything to do with 30k. I said 10 an hour should be the bare minimum for a single person or two people running a family. Combined for 20 an hour with 2 salarys should be enough to survive in america. 7.25 can not get you a decent aprt. anywhere. And if you find somewhere with walls and a bathroom, please share it.

"Oh geez. First, define middle class. Second, provide links to
poor will never be middle class, the middle class will never be high class, and the high class will never be poor"

I defined middle class already, secondly. Number one, statistically poor people are more likely to drop out of high school, leading to a minimum wage job. If you dont understand that education has a direct impact on the economy.....look around you (those with no education stay poor or get lucky, those with some education stay middle class, those with the most education, will never be poor unless they gamble, i never knew an educated healthy man who was poor) Thats what i meant when i divided the classes. So like i said education is the key.

If we had high schools that focused on specific skills, while still teaching general education, we could lower the drop out rate and better prepare these kids for the work force and for college and trade school. Your childrens curriculum is general ed, which is great...but do you know what your kids really want to do, do you know what they are good at? There would be art high schools, engineering high schools, music high schools, acting, writting, athletics.....They would excell students in certain subjects and skills....All while still giving the proper general education that all high schools give.....Thus leading to a lower drop out rate, thus leading to more kids in college, and finally leading the more people earning more money in the work force. Do you finally get it or do i have to spoon feed it again?!?!? Thats MY opinion. Its an evolution of the way people think, its long term....not short term fix. Thats what republicans LOOOOVE to do, try to fix something for the short term, if it fails then leave it to someone else. That will never get us anywhere. And to think, bush ran on this huge education ordeal, and never did anything to improve anyones education. Throwing money at schools to make them look nicer, does not mean better education.

 

[red states rule]

America Has the World's Richest Poor People

By Robert Rector

-----------------------------------------

Mr. Rector is senior policy analyst for welfare and poverty issues at the Heritage Foundation



The Census Bureau's poverty report is simply inaccurate: It overstates the extent of poverty in the U.S. and understates the real income of most Americans. While a number of errors contribute to the report's inaccuracy, the most critical is that the census dramatically undercounts the true economic resources or annual income received by the American public.

The magnitude of the Census Bureau's economic undercount can be revealed by comparing census figures with the Commerce Department's National Income and Product Accounts, which measure the gross domestic product. In 1996, Commerce Department figures showed that the aggregate "personal income" of Americans (including personal payments of Social Security taxes) was $6.8 trillion. By contrast, aggregate personal income, according to the Census Bureau's official income definition, was only $4.8 trillion.

Thus the Census Bureau missed $2 trillion in annual income, or roughly $20,000 for each U.S. household. The unreported $2 trillion exceeds the entire economies of all but a handful of nations in the world. It is true that much of this missing income belongs to the middle class and the rich, but a large slice is received by low income families as well. Most notably, official Census income figures fail to report more than a half trillion dollars in government assistance to low income and elderly households.

For decades, both conventional wisdom and the Census Bureau have told us that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." This is untrue. The material conditions of lower-income Americans have improved dramatically over time. Most "poor" Americans today are better housed and better fed and own more personal property than average Americans throughout much of this century. In fact, living conditions in our nation as a whole have improved so much that our society can no longer clearly remember what it meant to be poor or even middle class in earlier generations.

But higher material living standards should not be regarded as a victory for the War on Poverty. Living conditions were improving dramatically, and poverty was dropping sharply, long before that war was declared. The principal effect of the War on Poverty has been not to raise incomes but to displace work and earnings with dependence on government. By rewarding dysfunctional and self-destructive behavior, the modern welfare state has contributed to the growth of a new "behavioral poverty" exemplified by illegitimacy, crime, school failure and drug abuse.

By exaggerating the extent of material deprivation and by distracting attention from the more important behavioral problems afflicting low-income communities, the census poverty report does society and the poor a disservice.
http://www.stevenxue.com/ref_37.htm