FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

[me]

Happened to run across this from the AP:

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press – 14 hours ago 
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, 'But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

[The Troll]

  Again defending the Millionaire's and the Billionaires.  Again stupid thinking.  Wake up Honey Poo. 

[me]

  Again defending the Millionaire's and the Billionaires.  Again stupid thinking.  Wake up Honey Poo. 

All I did was post the article.

[The Troll]

All I did was post the article.

  You're still defending the super rich.  I sure don't understand someone who says that she worked really hard at jobs that didn't  pay all that well, but will go out of their way to defend the rich who doesn't give a damn about you "ME".   

[me]

I really hope you wake up one of these days Troll.

[The Troll]

I really hope you wake up one of these days Troll.

   "Me" if it means that I have to get down on my knees and kiss the ring and kiss the ass of the super rich and the super rich and predatory capitalist corporations you and I will long gone from this earth.  There is no way I will give up my freedom to these greedy and selfish SOBs.  on that statement.  Sweet Poo.   

[Henry Hawk]

Troll, why is it, that when Reagan CUT TAXES on the wealthy from 70% to 28% that the federal revenue doubled?...it went from 1/2 a trillion to almost a trillion!

If it was up to you, you would return those rates on the wealty, and it would completely shut our economy down.

This is not rocket science.............what we need is JOBS...the best way to create them is to get these weathy folks to INVEST BACK into the USA, by cutting corp rates lower than other countries and giving incentives to spend their money, instead of tryng to take it away from them by force.

why is it so simple yet so hard for many to understand?....it is THAT freaking simple.

Winston Churchill once said that "for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." 

That is exactly what Obama and the democrats are trying to do.  Where in the hell is the common sense?...it has left the building.

That is why we need the likes of a Chris Christie to take over the reins....

[Exterminator]

Troll, why is it, that when Reagan CUT TAXES on the wealthy from 70% to 28% that the federal revenue doubled?...it went from 1/2 a trillion to almost a trillion!

Lie; as a percentage of GDP, federal revenues declined under Reagan.  He did, however, more than double the annual deficit; maybe that's what you're thinking of.

[Henry Hawk]

Lie; as a percentage of GDP, federal revenues declined under Reagan.  He did, however, more than double the annual deficit; maybe that's what you're thinking of.

Here is another chart that show the federal revenue over the years following those tax cuts.....

what I stated was the federal revenue grew....

Do you believe it would have been MORE productive had Reagan left those tax rates as they were?.....seriously?

[Exterminator]

Here is another chart that show the federal revenue over the years following those tax cuts.....

what I stated was the federal revenue grew....

To simple people like you who don't understand the importance of context, I'm sure that's meaningful.  You're trying to imply that the increases in revenue were because of the tax cuts and that is categorically false.

Do you believe it would have been MORE productive had Reagan left those tax rates as they were?.....seriously?

It would have been about the same; Bush Sr. and Clinton both raised taxes and the economy continued to expand.

[Henry Hawk]

To simple people like you who don't understand the importance of context, I'm sure that's meaningful.  You're trying to imply that the increases in revenue were because of the tax cuts and that is categorically false.

It would have been about the same; Bush Sr. and Clinton both raised taxes and the economy continued to expand.

you think 70% is a fair rate for the wealthy?

[Exterminator]

you think 70% is a fair rate for the wealthy?

Actually, I don't care what they pay.  Are you suggesting that someone would forego an additional $10 million in income if they only got to take home $3 million of it?  Your hero, Reagan, lowered it to 50%; is that fair?

But since you brought it up, let's explore your little 70% tax rate fallacy; shall we?  First and foremost, it is important to note that not all of a person's income is taxed at that rate, only the income that exceeds the threshold for the highest tax bracket is.  I'm not sure if you're being intentionally misleading or if you simply don't know any better but income below that threshold is taxed at the same rate everyone else pays.  When Reagan took office, the threshold for the top bracket was $212,000.00; under him, the threshold for the top bracket was $106,000.00.  Are people making $106,000.00 wealthy?  As wealthy as people making $10 million?  How about $50 million?

Now let's address your suggestion that there's a causal relationship between the health of the economy and the tax rate for the top tax bracket.  In the years preceding the Great Depression, the threshold for the top bracket was $100,000.00, the tax rate was 24-25% and the economy collapsed.  In the 1950's, the threshold was $400,000.00, the rate was over 90% and the country saw unprecedented growth!  History doesn't seem to support your claims...at all.

[The Troll]

Troll, why is it, that when Reagan CUT TAXES on the wealthy from 70% to 28% that the federal revenue doubled?...it went from 1/2 a trillion to almost a trillion!

If it was up to you, you would return those rates on the wealty, and it would completely shut our economy down.

This is not rocket science.............what we need is JOBS...the best way to create them is to get these weathy folks to INVEST BACK into the USA, by cutting corp rates lower than other countries and giving incentives to spend their money, instead of tryng to take it away from them by force.

why is it so simple yet so hard for many to understand?....it is THAT freaking simple.

Winston Churchill once said that "for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." 

That is exactly what Obama and the democrats are trying to do.  Where in the hell is the common sense?...it has left the building.

That is why we need the likes of a Chris Christie to take over the reins....

  Mr. Hawk I have two questions for you.  Why is it that after old Alzheimer's brain Ronald Reagan left office he had the highest deficit in the history of the America up to that time?  What do you have to say about that.  Tax cuts my ass. 

  OK Mr. Hawk I want you to give just one answer, it sure won't be to hard.  Name me just one thing a law, one government plan that the Republican Party has done or signed for the betterment of the working men or women and the poor of this country.  I don't think you can name me one and I don't think cutting taxes is one of them. 

  Now don't run off and take your bat and ball and hide.  I want an answer from you Mr. Hawk. 

  It seems to me that the Tea/Republican Party want to destroy unions, unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Davis - Bacon act, Fair Labor Act that covers minimum wage, 8 hour work day, EPA, OSHA, Collective Labor Law and the Child Labor Labor Laws.  This is just a few of the laws that the Tea/Republican Party wants to kill.             

[Exterminator]

Guess you'll have to wait until tomorrow.  Henry is apparently only able to post about how worthless union workers are for wasting time on the clock when he's on the clock.

[The Troll]

Guess you'll have to wait until tomorrow.  Henry is apparently only able to post about how worthless union workers are for wasting time on the clock when he's on the clock.

  Hee, hee hee Ex.  You don't know how many times I have want to say that he was posting on his company's time.  Thank you, you got him good.                      UAW workers waste company time.