What most American’s don’t understand is that it is only the RICH who pay our Federal taxes. The top 1% pay more than a third of our Federal Income taxes and almost one forth of the total income the government takes (counting business income). They pay 34.27% of the total Federal Income tax. In other words, one person in 100 pays enough tax to make up for more than 33 others.
The Bottom 40% of American earnings $36,300 typically paid no income tax and received money back from the Government. Compare that with the top 50% of Americans who pay 96.54% of all Income Tax? That means that half of Americans contribute less than 3.5% of our Federal Income Tax. Do you think we need tax breaks for the “poor” or those paying far less than their share?
I’ll break down the percentages that have come strait from the IRS. Check it out for yourself at: http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/2003taxshares.pdf
The top 50% earns $29,019(avg) and pays 96.54% of the Income Tax total
The top 25% earns $57,343(avg) and pays 83.88% of the Income Tax total
The top 10% earns $94,891(avg) and pays 65.84% of the Income Tax total
The top 5% earns $130,080(avg) and pays 54.36% of the Income Tax total
The top 1% earns $295,495(avg) and pays 34.27% of the Income Tax total
I have heard many propose the idea of a flat tax, and that would mean the greatest tax break for the rich that has ever been created. I suggest proponents think about what they are asking. The reason congress wouldn’t pass a flat tax is because either the bottom 50% would be asked to pay an incredible 50% of the tax burden and thus be truly bankrupt or the flat tax would drop the income the Federal Government too much for the handouts it promises the same poor.
At the time of this writing, Oprah Winfrey has been getting incredible publicity for donating $40 million to build a school in South Africa for impoverished girls. I applaud her generosity and service to giving people a chance in life. But why doesn’t she give millions to the American poor?
Well, she used to. According to a recent Newsweek article, she got tired going to junior highs and high schools in impoverished areas and asking the students for what they want. Did the students want… better education, more college preparatory training or scholarships, better student to teacher ratios, more athletic training, work placement, or even better books and manuals.
No, Winfrey said, "I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools, I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there. If you ask the kids in the inner city schools what they want or need, they'll say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school."
So here we find that the rich have decided to not fund the poor of America because the ideological differences are too great. With so many Government handouts and government provisions of most of the necessities of life, this has sapped the ambition and drive right out of our youth. They come to expect all the necessities of life to be provided to them for the rest of their life. And there is never any insight given to them that things will ever change.
Without this insight that they will be rewarded for their service and labors then people will refuse to invest in them. I hear more people saying there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. I would say there is an ideological gap between the rich and poor and the focus of the ideology is entitlements.
In other words, shall we in America have socialism or commercialism? They do not work together. If half our nation puts out little in service or labors to receive the lesser half of income, pays less than 4% in taxes then they would be typically under the ideology that they are to receive the benefit of taxation from those who invest their future by risking their fortunes and labors to meet the needs of other consumers.
The obvious view is that the more risk, investment and service to others, the more financially compensated (as well as emotionally, spiritually, and relationally) business people are. Yet, the more rewarded for their efforts, the more the government taxes them.
Now I believe most people would agree that the CEO making a million-a-year should get charged a higher percentage than the minimum-wage earner at McDonalds. Yet, when the economy is good, why not give a tax break to those who are serving our economy that they may be encouraged to continue their pursuits.
A time shall come soon when our economic outlook shall be bleak (coming depression) and the greatest struggle between socialist ideology and commercialism shall be fought. When there is little money to be found… how shall we seek it?
Shall we tax ever greater those who produce – to continue to pay entitlements to the poorer, or shall we look within to become ever greater producers who will have to produce twice as much to get a little ahead?
Shall we change our ideology to make our time most effective in producing, or shall we seek the comforts of welfare, social security, Medicare, socialized medicine and the many other gimmies our country entitles others too.
I know what Oprah Winfrey will do, she'll find others to invest in who will produce in the future - even if she looks globally because Amercians are ideologically distracted.
I hope you make the right decision for your own life.