posted 07-10-2012 03:29 PM                  

Wealthy Americans earn about 50 percent of all income but pay nearly 70 percent of the federal tax burden, according to the latest analysis Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office — though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the past few years.

CBO looked at 2007 through 2009 — the latest years data are available, but enough to include the early effects of the last recession — and found the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid just three-tenths of a percent of the total federal tax burden, while the richest 20 percent paid 67.9 percent of taxes.

The top 1 percent, whom President Obama has made a target during the presidential campaign, earned 13.4 percent of all pre-tax income but paid 22.3 percent of taxes in 2009, CBO said. When tax burden is figured in, the top 1 percent took in only 11.5 percent of income.

But the richest 1 percent’s share of the total tax burden did drop 4.4 percentage points from 2007 to 2009 — a figure likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s calls for them to pay more by letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire.

The big losers over the past few years were the rest of the well-off — those in the 60th percent to 99th percent of earnings — who saw their tax burdens go up.

“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said. “Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”

In terms of actual earnings, the top 1 percent suffered the most in the recession, with their average earnings dropping from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. The lowest 20 percent saw their incomes drop from $23,900 to $23,500 during that time.

CBO included a wide range of measures of income including wages, employer-paid health insurance premiums and capital gains.

CBO said the top 1 percent earned an average of 1.9 million in pre-tax income in 2009, while the top 20 percent as a whole averaged $273,000. The fourth quintile averaged $98,400, the middle quintile averaged $67,600, the second quintile averaged $45,600, and the lowest quintile averaged $23,900 in income.

Mr. Obama has called for households making $250,000 a year or more to pay higher income tax rates, though he has proposed extending the Bush-era rates for those making less.

Republicans have countered that they want a one-year extension of all current rates in order to have breathing space to tackle a broader overhaul of the tax code.

CBO, the non-partisan agency that serves as Congress’ official scorekeeper, said the current tax code is progressive chiefly because of the income tax structure. On average, the lowest 40 percent of earners actually get money back through the income tax code because of refundable tax credits.

Actual changes to the tax code between 2007 and 2009 benefited the lowest earners, CBO said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/10/cbo-rich-pay-outsized-share-taxes/

posted 07-10-2012 04:17 PM                  

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

posted 07-10-2012 05:18 PM                  

The fact remains that **government has uncontrolled wasteful spending, excess government jobs, excess government control, excess government programs, etc that need to be stopped and cut immediately. Sure,,many will suffer, but maybe they will get the message and get off their lazy butts also.....

posted 07-10-2012 05:43 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al's Prowler:
There's always this http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/07/10/why-denise-rich-gave-up-u-s-citizenship/ .

---

Yep, Denise Rich was a huge Democratic supporter. I guess they will no longer be getting her support. I guess her actions speak volumes about what she thinks of Obama's plans to tax the rich. I wonder how many if any will follow her example?

Ex-husband's presidential pardon

posted 07-11-2012 07:25 AM                  

contrary to what our vice president says.....paying...or in this case...overpaying taxes...is not patriotic...its stupid to pay more than would otherwise be legally due!

i have rental properties in part to help minimize taxes...people with kids have deductions to minimize taxes....sooooo what? since when is legally seeking to reduce taxes deemed unpatriotic?

posted 07-11-2012 04:22 PM                  

By Matt K. Lewis

Matt K. Lewis is a senior contributor to The Daily Caller and is editor of the book: "The Quotable Rogue: The Ideals of Sarah Palin In Her Own Words." Matt has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and C-SPAN -- and his work has been cited by major publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. Matt is from Myersville, MD and currently resides in Alexandria, VA. Follow Matt K. Lewis on Twitter @mattklewis.

July 11, 2012
Nancy Pelosi made between $1-5 million on Asian investments in 2011

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/nancy-pelosi-made-between-1-5-million-on-asian-investments-in-2011/#ixzz20LqFjv36

On the heels of The Weekly Standard’s report yesterday that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz — a vocal critic of Mitt Romney‘s investing practices, had herself dabbled in the foreign markets — we can add Nancy Pelosi to the list of prominent Democrats to profit from overseas investments.

According to Pelosi’s 2011 financial disclosure statement, the Democratic House Minority Leader received between $1 million and $5 million in partnership income from ”Matthews International Capital Management LLC,” a group that emphasizes that it has a “A Singular Focus on Investing in Asia.” A quick trip to the company website reveals a featured post extolling the virtues of outsourcing.

“Designed in California, Made in Manila” sounds like an excellent title for a smear ad to be run the by the Barack Obama campaign. Instead, it appears to be Nancy Pelosi’s investment strategy.

Pelosi is also a small investor in the embattled “Moduslink Global,” one of the “outsourcing pioneers” that Mitt Romney has been criticized for associating with while at Bain Capital.

It’s not surprising that a wealthy politician would invest globally (nor should it be considered problematic). This is interesting because of the attacks on Mitt Romney’s investments — because Obama purportedly believes in the virtues of “insourcing” and anti-globalization. (Obama appears to be running on a protectionist platform that went out of style with Canadian tuxedos)

Obama sure can preach the economic nationalism, but it doesn’t appear his fellow leaders and surrogates are buying the message.

If they aren’t, why should other Americans?

posted 07-12-2012 12:19 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by attyedhall:
i dont understand what the issue is with having a legal bank account....offshore.....in eruope...in australia...or whereever?

---

The issue is that it costs us $100 billion in lost taxes that you and I have to make up. It's like $410 per/person. Besides, the money these "job creators" have over there could be used here to create jobs.

posted 07-12-2012 06:51 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by heynow14:
The issue is that it costs us $100 billion in lost taxes that you and I have to make up. It's like $410 per/person. Besides, the money these "job creators" have over there could be used here to create jobs.

---

that simply does not make sense. are you seriously suggesting that legally taking advantage of a deduction that results in minimizing a persons taxes....IS A COST TO THE GOVERNMENT?
if so, then deducting mortgage interest is a cost to the government....so is taking the deduction for children.....medical expenses....depreciation on a business expense....

these are legal deductions......and as such are not a cost....in any sense of the word.

posted 07-13-2012 07:18 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by heynow14:
In the sense that you and I are the government there is a cost. Tax breaks, deductions mean the revenue has to be made up elsewhere or you run deficits with interest penalties that we all end up paying for. Hiding money off shore so it cannot be taxed while legal, is lost revenue. One would think that a person who wants to be a champion for America and all it stands for, would invest in America.

---

"you and I are the government"?

clearly you and I use much different dictionarys..

posted 07-13-2012 09:43 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by heynow14:
In the sense that you and I are the government there is a cost. Tax breaks, deductions mean the revenue has to be made up elsewhere or you run deficits with interest penalties that we all end up paying for. Hiding money off shore so it cannot be taxed while legal, is lost revenue. One would think that a person who wants to be a champion for America and all it stands for, would invest in America.

---

posted 07-13-2012 01:15 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by heynow14:
One would think that a person who wants to be a champion for America and all it stands for, would invest in America.

---