Walter E. Williams: Income inequality:
"The poverty report gives vice-presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards a little fodder for his 'Two Americas' stump speech. That's the one where he says, '(There's) one America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.' This is demagoguery and unadulterated dishonesty that can only appeal to the misinformed and ignorant.
'When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, there are roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of the U.S. population -- outside of the federal income tax system.'
Who does pay federal income taxes? The top 20 percent of income earners pay 80 percent, and the top 50 percent pay 96.5 percent of total federal income taxes. Given these figures about who does and does not pay federal income taxes, what are we to make of John Edwards' stump speech? He's right in one sense. One group of Americans -- those at the top -- work and pay virtually all federal income taxes, and another group -- those at the bottom -- work and pay little or no federal income taxes."
I love how when you find out about the facts behind what the Kerry campaign has been telling you, you consistently find out that you've just been lied to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
And how about the stat that, as of 1998, the wealthiest 20% of Americans have 83.4% of the country's total net worth while the bottom 60% have 4.7%? (Source: Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt, The State of Working America, 2000-2001, p. 260)
And what has America's progressive tax system, you know - the one which you think is unfairly burdening the wealthy, done to the wealthiest Americans over the past 40 years? That top 20% has seen their share of the country's net worth increase from 81% in 1962 to 83.4% in '98. I wish I had more recent stats, because with Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy (especially with the cut in capital gains taxes and the so-called "death tax") I'm sure that number has increased significantly.
So now what is Bush trying to do for his second term? Install a flat tax which will shift that tax burden onto the segments of the population that can LEAST afford it - the middle class down to the poor. There has even been talk about going to a consumption tax, where income wouldn't be taxed at all, but instead a very high sales tax. Now let's think about this for a minute. Would this be good for the economy? Would it spur growth? If I get to keep my entire paycheck I'll have more money. But if everything I buy is taxed while everything I save isn't, that's a huge motivation for me to save my money rather than spend it -- not good for the economy. Unless of course I'm making so little that I have to spend my entire paycheck on basic necessities like food, shelter, and the like. So I'll be spending a greater percentage of my income in taxes than everyone who makes more money than me. Hmmmm. I believe that is called a "regressive" tax and is something that hasn't been in place since the Dark Ages.
The progressive tax system was set up so that those who could most afford to pay for government programs, did so.
I do appreciate your saying in your blog description that you encourage debate to further our understanding of issues. All too often I surround myself with like-minded people who say the same things to each other in perpetual agreement. I look forward to your response.
Ryan, I welcome the opportunity to respond and hope that we can gain understanding and insight from one another.
Post a Comment