Correction: half of the gains in income went to the top .25%. It may very well be that they also have half of total income. But there is a difference between the gain in income and income itself.

Right, of course. I don't know why I misrepresented the article. I'll fix pronto.

In response to the question above (and glad you fixed the revenues/revenue gain issue) taxpayers with incomes of $1 million or more reported 13.8% of all income in 2005 or about one-seventh of the total, up from 12.8% in 2000, when the group was much smaller (240,000 taxpayers in 2000 versus 303,000 in 20005 in the $1m plus income catgeory..

There is a reason the rich get richer. They are smarter than tha average person. They work harder and take larger risks. No risk no return. Try no to think of it as a conspiracy but a chance to get educated and motivated and take the oppertunity that they did to make them rich

Well that's a bit of a generalization, here's another: rich people are selfish bastards that don't give anything back to society.

And what percentage of the countries taxes do those people pay? More than the poor people.

Naturally, rich people are rich for a reason (intelligence and wit) and get richer because of those reasons. Most of the tax money comes from rich people (although that is unfair taxation) so what is the big problem? What does the author want to do? Take away money from people who earned it?

Of course these folks are also paying most of the taxes . . .

The Taxpaying Minority
By ARI FLEISCHER
April 16, 2007 - WSJ

If the tax forms you're filing this year show Uncle Sam entitled to any income tax, you increasingly stand alone. The income tax system is so bad, and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40% of the country's households -- more than 44 million adults -- pay no income taxes at all. Not a penny.

Think of it this way. After dropping off your tax forms at the Post Office, you find 100 people standing on the sidewalk. Forty of them will be excused from paying income taxes thanks to Congress. Twenty of them, the middle class, will pay barely a thing. The 40 people who remain, the upper middle class and the wealthy, will pay nearly all of the income taxes.

Look at that crowd again and find the richest person there. That individual will pay 37% of all the income taxes owed by those 100 people. The 10 richest people in the crowd will pay 71% of the income-tax bill. The 40 most successful people will pay 99% of everyone's income taxes. Yet for some lawmakers in Washington, these taxpayers aren't paying enough. Our tax system comes up short in a lot of areas. It doesn't foster economic growth. It isn't very simple. And it certainly isn't fair. The one place where it does excel is at redistributing income.

According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40%) pay 99.1% of all income taxes, the taxes that support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for example, fund the federal portion of transportation, education, environmental and welfare spending.

Those who made more than $87,300 in 2004, the top 10%, paid 70.8% of all income taxes, an increase from their share of 48.1% in 1979. Think about it. Ten percent pay seven out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising.

And those super-rich one percenters? Their share of the nation's income has risen, but their tax burden has risen even faster.

In 1979, the first year of the study, these affluent individuals made 9.3% of the nation's income and they paid 18.3% of the country's income tax. In 2004, these fortunate few made 16.3% of the nation's income but their share of the income tax burden leaped to 36.7%. Think about that. One percent take in less than 17% of the country's income, but pay almost 37% of the country's income tax.

As for the middle class, CBO reports they make 13.9% of the nation's income and their share of the nation's income tax dropped to 4.7%. In 1979, they made 15.8% of the nation's income and paid 10.7% of the nation's income tax.

The combination of across the board marginal income tax rate cuts and repeated expansions of the earned income tax credit (EITC) for lower-income Americans has created this situation in which fewer people are responsible for paying more and more of the income tax. When President Bush in 2001 cut the lowest tax rate to 10% from 15%, several million additional workers were excused from paying any income tax. Raising top rates, as Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton did in 1990 and 1993, also shifted the burden to a smaller group of Americans.

The EITC program redistributes money from those who pay income taxes to 22 million families and individuals with incomes less than $36,348. These workers not only don't have to pay any income tax, they're given a government check as a subsidy to help make ends meet. The EITC is also designed to relieve them of the cost of paying for their share of Social Security and Medicare.

If Republicans, including their presidential candidates, wonder why their calls for tax relief don't resonate like they used to, it's because there aren't that many income taxpayers left. They've been taken off the rolls.

As for the Democrats, they historically have raised taxes and redistributed income as a core philosophy. It doesn't matter to them how much money some people pay -- the argument is that the wealthy can always pay more. According to this point of view, it's immaterial that the tax code is highly progressive; it can always be made more progressive. While raising taxes on the few to benefit the many might be a political winner, it's an increasingly risky policy to pursue.

If, as now happens, 60% of the people in our democracy can force 40% to pay the bills, what's to stop 65% from making 35% pay it all? Since no one wants to pay taxes, what's to stop 90% of people in a democracy from making 10% pay it all? Or why not let 99% of the country off the hook, as long as the remaining 1% picks up the tab?

The problem is that there is a tipping point after which piling taxes onto the rich will leave the government unable to meet its obligations. And perhaps we're already reaching that point, where most people won't have a serious stake in what the government does because they don't pay for it. They want services and benefits, but they don't pay the price. That's a formula for runaway spending and no accountability. In other words, a system that looks a lot like the one we already have.

This can't last forever. When government revenues derive mostly from the wealthy, the fortunes of a few determine the fate of us all. Surpluses and deficits will be driven less by the economic strength of the country, and more by the gains made by the rich in hedge funds, mutual funds, equities and stock options. Like a spinning top that twirls on a narrow point, the top will stay up so long as it continues to go round. Once it slows down it falls, and the government's main source of tax revenue will plunge with it.

What a Catch-22. Members of Congress who want to fund antipoverty programs will have to hope the rich get richer, because the wealthy will need to make more to pay for all the federal programs.

The usual rebuttal made by those who support raising top rates is that lower income Americans pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and therefore need "relief." Of course they pay these taxes. But then, they alone get a good return on their money.

Top earners, on the other hand, pay payroll taxes so their money can be redistributed to others. According to the CBO study, the top 20% of workers, those with incomes over $64,300, pay 44.2% of the payroll tax while the bottom 20%, those who make less than $17,300, pay 4.2%. In return, when it's time to retire, lower-income workers typically receive more in Social Security benefits than they paid in, while the wealthy, who paid the most in taxes, simply can't live long enough to get back what they paid. For much of the middle class and the wealthy, Social Security isn't a retirement program -- it's another program that redistributes their income.

As for Medicare, it doesn't matter that the rich paid far more in taxes; all recipients receive the same benefits. Think of it this way. If Medicare were a car, its price for a low-income worker would be $145 and its price for a millionaire would be $14,500, even though it's the very same car.

Here's why. A taxpayer who makes $1 million a year pays $14,500 in Medicare taxes while a worker who makes $10,000 a year pays $145. But when they retire and visit their doctors or go to the hospital, Medicare reimburses both an equal amount of money. That's a pretty big redistribution of income and a pretty good deal for the low-income worker.

At the end of the day, everyone in this county is in it together. We have an obligation to help the neediest among us and the wealthy should pay more. But a system in which almost half the country pays no income taxes and 40% pay all the income tax has gone too far. Instead of raising taxes and punishing the successful by making them pay even more, it's time to junk the current system and start anew with a code that fosters economic growth for all, not increased redistribution of income for some.

Can I just say: I love the blogosphere. In the span of just five comments, we have a reader correct the author (me), we have the subject of the post provide supplementary material, and we have two vastly different points of view presented in equally interesting fashion.

Group hug, everybody.

"Realistic" sounds like the typical opressor with a "strong business network" which makes life easy for him. There are many talented people who can't get access to capital for big ideas.

But people like "Realistic" have a mistaken belief that it is their smarts not their network. Just look around you. Usually the smartest and most hardworking end up working for somebody with connections and average intellect who put the "business operation together".

J stein, cut the "Limbaugh Facts" - what you said is complete lies.

Check the congress's own website: there's more sales tax income than from income tax.

There's *many* taxes, not just the income tax.

Yo, Realistic: you're silly.
Rich get richer because they're smarter? Work harder? Trust funders get richer off of the interest on money they never worked for.
It's our oligarchically-supported plutocracy that allows for the elite class to remain elite: It's institutionalized in America: corporate welfare, tax-breaks for the rich, the free-market economy, et cetera.
Sure the occassional bootstrapper makes it to the top tier, but the myth that anyone can become rich through hard work (and risks or whatever) is a fallasy that placates the poor from protesting the rich with the dream that they too could one day be rich.
There is a finite amount of precious recources in the world, and an exponentially-expanding population.
Does that mean anything to you?

@ realistic and jo,
IQ and wealth do not go hand in hand...
http://www.financialadvice.co.uk/news/10/savings/5586/Wealth-and-intelligence-do-not-go-hand-in-hand.html#

Here;s another reason, they inheritted everything, and neither them, their parents, nor their kids will ever have to do anything ever again.. ding ding.. you jerk off.

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with using your network and hiring smart people in order to better your situation financially. There are many different types of smarts, some people are smart networkers, some are smart in math, others in the medical field.

You can't really compare these different fields but the smart thing for anyone with half a brain to do is hire the right person for the right job. You have to use your network that you've built or if you're lucky enough, you've acquired through family business contacts in order to get anywhere in the business world. Isnt this why there is a CEO running each public company for the thousands of share holders that actually own the company, theres no way these people could be running the company themselves so they enter that specific network and invest their money. Same idea with your personal investments. Hate to say it but life is a game and our bank accounts are the score cards.

Devil said - At the end of the day, everyone in this county is in it together. We have an obligation to help the neediest among us and the wealthy should pay more.

That’s YOUR guilt not mine. I’m not “in anything together” with anybody, unless I know them (maybe). That’s the definition of libertarian; basic human meanness towards outsiders. As I don’t have an imaginary friend, is there a REASON that I - as one of the wealthier ones - should have an “obligation to help”? Now, perhaps, if you said “you should help and the neediest will then grovel in your presence - to show their gratitude”, I could understand. What do I get out of this?

Besides, this IS America, where we celebrate DIVERSITY, and “wealth” is “diverse”, right?

I don't understand why a flat percentage tax across the board hasn't picked up any popularity. I see all these "IF 10% IS ENOUGH FOR GOD..." bumper stickers all the time. Is there a reason why this isn't implemented? Is it realistically unfair? Or even take income tax off the board and implement a uniform sales tax that EVERYONE has to pay, even corporations. Everyone has to buy things, after all...

There is a finite amount of precious recources in the world, and an exponentially-expanding population.
Does that mean anything to you?

Get Real, I took commie 101, as well.. I recognize the rhetoric. Your argument that wealth is based entirely on resources is ridiculous. People and ideas can create wealth.. new wealth.. wealth that does not suck from finite precious resources.

Jezz Bill, the answer is right in your question – “implement a uniform sales tax that EVERYONE has to pay”. The key word here is EVERYONE. The purpose of government is to give an advantage to the insiders who OWN the politicians. There’s no POINT – or fun even - in having a government (or owning a politician) if EVERYBODY is treated THE SAME. It defies comprehension that the assholes who – through out history – have run everything in the world would suddenly want “a uniform sales tax that EVERYONE has to pay”.

The rich are richer in part because the tax breaks went to them.

Not because they are smarter are work harder.

Doubt many of them really work at all.

GetReal (and any one else complaining about the "rich"):

So the vast majority of the rich are rich because their parents are rich? First, that's a fallacy as there are tons of entrepreneurs alive today who made it from nothing. A friend of mine grew up in a trailer in WV. He and his wife were struggling to make ends meet for a long time. He was doing the wrong thing. He switched careers and after a lot of hard work, now runs a multi-million dollar business. He's not super-rich but he's certainly well off and completely self-made.

Of course, what is wrong with trust funders? Are you jealous that they were born into wealth and you weren't? We Americans need to remember something. Money doesn't buy happiness. Your life is what you make of it. Everybody just needs to chill and enjoy what they have while they have it. Compared to many countries, ALL Americans are rich to some degree.

Got a question for you, John:
Exactly what orifice did you pull this out of?
"That’s the definition of libertarian; basic human meanness towards outsiders."

Try this definition:
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are *not* libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
-L. Neil Smith-

Too complicated to understand? Then try this one:
"Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don't hit your sister."
-Dr. Kenneth Bisson-

Sound like "basic human meanness to outsiders" to you?

But Mark, tax breaks only allow the wealthy to KEEP more what THEY ALREADY HAVE.

What you Socialist (liberals, progressives, leftists, whatever…) need is a REASON for the wealthy to pay more taxes. Without an imaginary friend dispensing guilt, what would BE the MOTIVE to “help other Americans”. Using my case as just an example, why would I want to help dumb-ass white-trash who voted for a moron frat-boy and don’t have health insurance. Wouldn’t I be better off if they all died?

Sound like a religion to me. I'm talking about the REAL libertarians. The ones who vote Republican. The "survival of the fittest" ones? Know any?

"The "survival of the fittest" ones?"

Sounds like Nature to me.
I suppose you despise Nature like you seem to despise every one and every thing else...

So, other than criticizing every one and every thing, what's YOUR plan to improve the world, John? Or have you no interest in doing that? Only in trying to make yourself feel like a winner by convincing yourself that everyone else is a loser?

The rich are richer because their daddies were rich, ala George W. Bush.

"Survival of the fittest" is a commonly used phrase by the middle-trash (who I work with, daily) which means the following: When the gov’ment stops giving “everything” to “those people” then we’ll see “who survives”. See: Get it? If you Socialist (liberals, leftists, progressives, whatever…) actually talked to the 50% of the population who vote Republican (many who are fine FINE libertarians – “survival of the fittest” types – regardless of what your libertarian priest publish) you’d know these “code phrases”. You’d also know WHY they vote Republican. All they want is the Republicans to “stop favoritism” so “those people” don’t get “all these advantages” and then “survival of the fittest” would show how “wrong those liberals” were with “all that civil-rights stuff”. See: Get it? Of course, I now find it amusing their kids are getting their asses shot off by these same Republicans.

I'm too old to have fantasies anymore, btw, especially about “making the world better”. However, I do want you Socialist (liberals, leftists, Progressives, whatever..) to balance things out a-bit for the next 10 years. Beyond that, I don’t care.

Perhaps you Libertarian believers have lost control of YOUR god too? It sure seems the Christian Left let Jesus get captured by the other side.

"GetReal" you are correct. Keep at it. We need honest people that actually realize what's going on in our society. Most rich people suck! Everyone needs to watch the movie "Zeitgeist". It's free on Google Video and other websites.

So John, have you trash-talked enough about all the people-who-aren't-John to make yourself feel better about the-person-who-is-John this evening?
Or do you feel the need to call other people "trash" a while longer..?

I recommend reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and watching "The Money Masters" on Google video to expand your minds.

"Average income" is a useless statistic. If Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter, the "average" annual income of everybody in the room is in the millions.

I'd be far more interested in hearing about the mean income levels (i.e., the point at which half of the population is making more and half is making less) over the past few years, but I suspect those numbers would be even more depressing.

Be smart, unionize:
http://www.techsunite.org

And when the filthy rich complain about having to pay $100/hr to get someone else to do their hard work for them, just explain to them that it has nothing to do with collusion, you just have a special kind of smart that can't be acquired at Harvard.

Jezz Chloe - I'm NOT arguing that the rich start out on 3rd base, have every advantage, own the system, and are getting richer. I asked, why would a “rich” American give a rat's-ass about another “poor” American (assuming he doesn't have an imaginary friend to dispense guilt)? We’re all supposed to be celebrating diversity nowadays. This guys “rich” this guys “poor”, we’re NOT all in this together, there's no imaginary friend. So, why - WHY - would “the rich” care?

I suspect the "filthy rich" would be chatting with their new workers in the Malaysia before I had a chance to say anything at all about why they owed me $100/hr.

Crito – you are a riot. Have you EVER met of group of more individualistic “survival of the fittest” uncaring asshole in your LIFE than computer geeks? Come one, we think we’re gods. We don’t need no stinkin’ unions!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

The jobs are already going to India and Malaysia. Not unionizing won't stop that.

http://www.washtech.org

Crito sez: "The jobs are already going to India and Malaysia. Not unionizing won't stop that."

And unionizing WILL?
Or, unionizing will convince the people who still DO prefer to provide jobs in the US, now faced with paying $100/hr, that they are smart to stick with it HERE?
Why not just put a bullet in my own head?

"Hate to say it but life is a game and our bank accounts are the score cards." ugh

another revealing conversation that quickly goes from heated to just plain ugly - i hope the tatters of this link somehow survive our inevitable demise to one day demonstrate to a superior race in the distant future that human beings INDEED evolved from apes and abruptly returned within ages to the trees.

its all very simple: we know what team you play for by which side of the argument you support. and its a swell game of rhetoric too, if youre into that sorta thing - except theres no sense in justifying economics to either 'side' when nobodys wiling to acknowledge the absence of a universal code of ethics or really even a shred of our supposed highest values in the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.

keep telling yourselves its all worth it, those weekday mornings will get easier for you, those dirty people on the corners soon to blur into the traffic. yes you will be remembered yes your life is meaningful yes yes yes orgasm in your egos you future [deleted]ing bird food

@ JD
"Your argument that wealth is based entirely on resources is ridiculous. People and ideas can create wealth.. new wealth.. wealth that does not suck from finite precious resources."
B.S.
You're a moron.

The rich also pay more taxes, the top 25% pay 90% of the nations federal taxes. You ever think of that?

No doubt the rich pay more taxes because of their vast wealth and, suppose the 40+% story is true [which I'm more than willing to entertain] and a lot of people just don't pay any taxes and just reap the benefit, the following is also true: because of the fact that a lot of jobs don't pay a living wage or have barely kept up with inflation, these people just don't make enough money to pay taxes.

It would be a totally different story if people were paid a living wage, instead of the institutionalised poverty that is now the staple of the country. There is the concept of 'the working poor', they work full-time yet they don't make enough money to cover their costs. The real problem is that labor is not considered to be valuable. Jobs are outsourced and those jobs that remain make so little money that there's nothing left to tax. The wages themselves -are- the tax.
Because the super high income earners pull so much of the money towards themselves they should also expect to pay more taxes. If the working class isn't allowed to make more money, they shouldn't be expected to share more of the tax burden.

For about 10 years the minimum wage has remained the same. The same, for 10 years! How much income increase has the top .25% made in that time? They have made sure that their 'expertise' and 'talent' was paid for in full, while the working people who want to put in an honest day's work for an honest living got nothing, or pennies on the Dollar at best. Minimum income earners don't have a say in how much the minimum income is. The minimum income level is NEVER decided by someone who has to actually live off of it. Think about that. The question the policy makers should answer is this: 'if -you- had to live off of the minimum income, how much would you want it to be?'. I bet it would be a heck of a lot more than the pittance it is today.
"Increasing the minimum wage will ruin the economy" is a bogus argument. It wasn't true in the 19th century, and it isn't true now. Low income earners are not going to hoard their money, they're going to spend it. The real farce is 'trickle down' economy. Give the very rich even more money and they'll create jobs. For the Chinese, yes. They'll send us some poisoned crap in return. But at least it'll be cheap.

It's true that the very rich pay most of the taxes, but that's not because they are so smart and mentally agile that they should be making 50,000 times more than the lowest income earner. They're not all as smart as they'd like you to believe "Hey, I'm the super duper hedge fund manager. I create leveraged investment instruments by bundling converted bonds in very shrewd ways. Of course, the bonds are based on banks giving loans to people they know can never pay them back, but look how smart I am. I work for Bear Sterns, I -have to be- smart, no?" The real reason is that the top income earners don't allow the low-income earners to make more money.
If there was greater balance in what a low-income earner made, the tax burden would shift in the direction of the lower incomes.

It's quite disingenious to complain about the high tax burden on the super rich. If they insist on having all the money [or as much as they can possibly amass among them] they should also pay all the taxes. It's that simple. It's easy to complain about all the taxes they have to pay, but the people at the bottom of the ladder can barely make ends meet. That's something the rich never experience: how hard it is to have to make do without the means to provide food, shelter, clothes and health care to a family when money is tight, and money is always tight.

Move over, super rich. Let other people have some more money for a change. Nobody is that good that he should make a billion dollars. Even Bill Gates, who is admittedly a very smart person, used strong arm tactics on a lot of people to get to the top. All big philanthropists steamrolled over the little guy on the way to the top. It's very easy to get there when the rules apply to everybody else but not to you.

And if you don't want other people to make a decent living over the poverty line, don't whine about paying a bit of taxes. You've got nothing to whine about.

Most rich people are total idiots and are born into it. Yes occasionally you get the hard working average Joe who with a slight hint of luck and a pinch of intelligence can become rich. But fact of the mater is, with rich icons like Paris and Nicole drinking every night and having sex with every dog they meet, the image of rich people wont ever change.

Personally, I dislike the idea of a universal sales tax as much as I dislike income tax and here's why.

There are quite a few people out there that are barely scraping by as it is. A universal sales tax will simply cause the cost of their basic needs to increase. They can't sacrifice paying rent or buying food, obviously.

Now as for income tax, a flat tax would almost be the same as a universal sales tax. A progressive tax scale, like we have now, does have the benefit of taxing those who can afford it better. IE: buying a Honda instead of a BMW.

However, I can't help but to feel that there are better options to finance the government and to help poor folk.

One idea, I like, is to provide a minimum income for every citizen regardless of other income. My only modification is to add a sliding scale based on your own adherence to the law, to provide incentive, depending on the severity of a conviction, it would result in a docking of benefits for a certain period of time, and restricting it to bona fide citizens. Basically, replacing social security expanding it to all with a few changes. Some of the benefits would be perhaps: Lower crime, addicts would be supplied with money to kill themselves off with drugs, and thus reduce their impact on society; Lazy and ostensibly inefficient workers would be self eliminated from jobs, thus driving up wages and productivity; If everyone was getting the same amount it could help flatten out the disparity in mean cost of living from region to region; It could be used to consolidate a huge number of social programs, helping to reduce their overhead; and more.

The biggest impossibility I see is ascertaining the number of those who would work and pay for it via taxes vs those who would rely purely on the guaranteed income to determine the cost. Secondly, how does one calculate the cost to society vs the benefit? IE, how much does everyone save overall in our already prevalent overhead costs like shrinkage, fraudulent insurance claims, theft prevention and extra policing? How do you calculate the benefits like probable increases in things like new businesses or even in happiness and life satisfaction?

I wonder.

It's sad how people can dodge any economic debate by whining about taxes. Nobody can agree on tax statistics - in the digg forum one guy says the top 1% pay 36%, the next guy says 96%. No real sources. (The act is getting old.)

People who "create" wealth help everyone by expanding the economic pie. People born with wealth do one of two things: create more wealth (a good thing) or spend ridiculous amounts of wealth (redistribute through consumerism).

Redistributing through taxes creates inefficiencies and imposes the morals of the majority onto the general population... not to mention it creates a society of unproductive dependents, which I believe is worse than "rich selfishness".

Easy fix: let's cut military spending and utilize the current surplus in social security and medicare to give people who have relied on the welfare state their money. Let people opt out of medicare, social security, etc. Tax a flat rate to everyone until all debts are paid. Shut down the IRS. Impose a "consumption tax" to pay for the limited government spending... should only need 5-6% if we cut spending by 75%. Easy, right?

John,
It's not about an imaginary friend in the sky dispensing guilt. Your argument doesn't make sense simply because we are social animals and our survival depends on having a somewhat cohesive society. Redistribution of income is important because it serves to strengthen this cohesion.

Look at it this way, taxation is payment for a service, a bit like insurance. Living in a modern nation-state means you benefit from the protection and services that this state provides and you naturally have to pay for these services.

Also, if you are rich, you have more to lose if this system breaks down, so just like an insurance premium is higher if you're insuring a more valuable item, you pay more if you are rich.

By the way, I think income tax is unfair, there should be some sort of total wealth tax, but income tax and sales tax are the cheapest to collect and that is why they are prevalent.

test

Edward:

No real sources?

"the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office"

"The Wall Street journal"

The point made about the fact that the WSJ article only quantifies income tax is valid. But as far as income tax goes, these seem like "real sources" to me.

> There is a reason the rich get richer. They are smarter than the average person. They work harder and take larger risks.

> Naturally, rich people are rich for a reason (intelligence and wit) and get richer because of those reasons.

Actually, the smartest people are scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. They are also much harder working than any of the rich. They take far less vacation and work much longer hours. Yet, none of them are rich. Don't tell us, Paris Hilton, who charges clubs $200,000 to appear for 20 minutes, is smarter than the average physicist. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/perks_of_privilege.html)

The rich do not earn more money than the middle class because of intelligence or hard work. In fact, they don't even earn more money. They acquire more money. There's a big difference. The rich do nothing to earn the money they acquire. They do not produce anything. The do not contribute to the real GDP of our nation. In fact, they lower our GDP by outsourcing our production to China and India.

The rich gather their fortunes simply by controlling the economic machinery of our country and siphoning off a significant percentage of the wealth. Capitalism does not reward productivity, but rather control. Once a group has control over the system, no one can compete against them or gain control from them. Ultimately, the system reaches a stable state where productivity is greatly reduced and the benefits of the remaining productivity are directed towards a few individuals.

> Twenty of them, the middle class, will pay barely a thing. The 40 people who remain, the upper middle class and the wealthy, will pay nearly all of the income taxes.

> Congressional Budget Office, those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40%) pay 99.1% of all income taxes

"At a Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser speech before 400 movers and shakers, Buffett denounced our tax system. According to Buffett, he pays taxes at a lower tax rate than does his $60,000-a-year secretary, 17.7 percent and 30 percent, respectively." (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56514)

Clearly, the rich are paying a lesser percentage of their income tax. If they are paying more taxes overall, it is only because they are siphoning vast resources from society.

The solution to this problem is to mandate by federal law that the total pretax income of any executive can not exceed four times the income of the medium employee, temp worker, or contractor in his company. This will force executives, who are motivated purely by greed, to increase the wealth of their employees. The only sustainable way to do this is to increase both productivity and the even distribution of the wealth created by the productivity. To put it in simple terms... Use the greed of the executives to motive them to increase the wealth of the middle class by linking the executive's wealth with the middle class's.

""At a Hillary Rodham Clinton fundraiser speech before 400 movers and shakers, Buffett denounced our tax system. According to Buffett, he pays taxes at a lower tax rate than does his $60,000-a-year secretary, 17.7 percent and 30 percent, respectively." (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56514)"

The only problem with paying a higher percentage on less money is that it will deceive people. If the secretary makes $60,000 and pays 30%, I believe Buffett would have to make a little over $100K to equal her $18,000 in taxes. Now you take an income from the stratosphere of $1 Million and your 17.7% becomes, well, a lot more than $18,000. And because of this system we should WANT the rich to get richer. More money ultimately means more money in taxes.

Good post and lots of good comments. I myself don't harbor any resentment toward rich people. For one thing, I have never been employed by a poor person (they can't afford to employ me). One thing the liberals don't seem to understand is that if you increase taxes on the wealthy, they are not going to change their lifestyle, they will just lay off a few poor people and work the rest a little harder.

Why don't we just fix it the way poor people have always fixed it?

PUNISH the Rich!
Sack the castle, hang the rich from the walls and make off with their valuables?
Then the poor will be substantially less poor for about 5 minutes.

The Wine Cellar is MINE, so hands off if you know what's BAD for you!!

Rich people do help poor people. Example Bill Gates.

The wailing and grinding of teeth over who pays what makes me ill! How about following the constitution and repealing any law which mandates a federal income tax? How about abolishing the IRS? the Department of Education? the Department of Homeland Security? the Department of Agriculture? Congressman Ron Paul is proposing all of the above and hopes to win in 2008; too bad we live in a nation of souls totally dependent on Washington, D.C. for sustenance.
I believe any income tax is unconstitutional; The FEDS can't help and won't. Mark Bakkum Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Speaking of Bill Gates -- that an interesting one. Bill helps people ?

Curious, I set up a few hours and followed the trail of donations.

After that few hours, it seems that Bill's donations are more like investments. They can be linked to his various businesses (pharmacy, biotech, etc). While giving him seriously good name (look Ma, Bill is not a predatory businessman - he gives billions)
Double returns on investment.

I think this is one topic that would become a very interesting article. How about that MotherJones ?

Speaking of Bill Gates -- that an interesting one. Bill helps people ?

Curious, I set up a few hours and followed the trail of donations.

After that few hours, it seems that Bill's donations are more like investments. They can be linked to his various businesses (pharmacy, biotech, etc). While giving him seriously good name (look Ma, Bill is not a predatory businessman - he gives billions)
Double returns on investment.

I think this is one topic that would become a very interesting article. How about that MotherJones ?

Speaking of Bill Gates -- that an interesting one. Bill helps people ?

Curious, I set up a few hours and followed the trail of donations.

After that few hours, it seems that Bill's donations are more like investments. They can be linked to his various businesses (pharmacy, biotech, etc). While giving him seriously good name (look Ma, Bill is not a predatory businessman - he gives billions)
Double returns on investment.

I think this is one topic that would become a very interesting article. How about that MotherJones ?

Speaking of Bill Gates -- that an interesting one. Bill helps people ?

Curious, I set up a few hours and followed the trail of donations.

After that few hours, it seems that Bill's donations are more like investments. They can be linked to his various businesses (pharmacy, biotech, etc). While giving him seriously good name (look Ma, Bill is not a predatory businessman - he gives billions)
Double returns on investment.

I think this is one topic that would become a very interesting article. How about that MotherJones ?

Speaking of Bill Gates -- that an interesting one. Bill helps people ?

Curious, I set up a few hours and followed the trail of donations.

After that few hours, it seems that Bill's donations are more like investments. They can be linked to his various businesses (pharmacy, biotech, etc). While giving him seriously good name (look Ma, Bill is not a predatory businessman - he gives billions)
Double returns on investment.

I think this is one topic that would become a very interesting article. How about that MotherJones ?