Applied Social Justice
Before the White House, before meeting Joe the Plumber, before even running for the US Senate, this is what Barack Obama had to say about the redistribution of wealth.
“But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. ...one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”
Evidently, a homeless fellow down in Tampa decided it was high time that a theory left the ivory tower and took a road trip. Conducting his own “community organizing activities on the ground,” by robbing a bank teller at the local Wachovia, 27 year-old Elmer McGuirt then hopped on a city bus and handed out the largesse to surprised passengers. The police contacted the bus driver, who feigned mechanical problems and stopped the bus long enough for them to cuff this amateur merchant of hope and change and take him to the pokey. I suspect the government will throw the book at him. They don't want the competition, though what he did certainly comports with the spirit of the left, if not exactly the letter of the law. Maybe he can be co-opted. Make him Ambassador of Audacity or something.
Meanwhile, back in the big leagues, the confiscation of wealth on a grand scale continues unabated. In a wonderfully interactive chart, the Heritage Foundation shows that the top 1 percent of wage earners in 2008 paid 38 percent of income taxes, while the top ten percent paid 70 percent of income taxes. And the bottom 50 percent? They paid 3 percent. Looking at the budget overall, Heritage found that a full 58 percent went to entitlement programs, with 19 percent going to defense (the one area our commander in chief wants to cut). Keep in mind that these are 2008 numbers, before things went completely off the rails with President Hope and Change. Gawd only knows what the numbers look like now. But the lesson is this: Hold up a local Wachovia, and you'll end up sleeping in a public building. Hold up a substantial part of the population, and you may get a public building named after you.
- Comment (3)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Applied Social Justice
"...shows that the top 1 percent of wage earners in 2008 paid 38 percent of income taxes, while the top ten percent paid 70 percent of income taxes. And the bottom 50 percent? They paid 3 percent..."
Here's the problem I have with that kind of information - it's incomplete, and thus it doesn't tell us anything relevant.
So the top 1 percent pay 38 percent of income taxes. Is that a problem, if they're earning 48 percent of the taxable income? Is that a problem, if they're earning 28 percent of taxable income? (The "top 1 percent" are not earning 1 percent of taxable income. It's the top-earning "1 percent" of US households.)
Telling us how much they pay without telling us how much they earn is telling us nothing.
This kind of incomplete tax/income information has been bandied about for years. I wish someone would do it right, and I expect better from the Heritage Foundation.
Re: Applied Social Justice
Though I'm in the middle of celebrating the fact that Osama bin Laden is taking his celesital dirt nap, I wanted to answer your question while it was still fresh. The Tax Foundation has put together some good research on the topic, including detailed statistics. To your specific question, the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of income taxes while earning 20 percent of income. The problem, as I see it at least, rises when these people are told they are not shouldering enough of the tax burden.
But enough of that for now. I'm going to fire up a cigar to celebrate the fact that our warriors got that weird-bearded SOB. Ooorah!
Oct '10
Re: Applied Social Justice
Excellent. Thanks, Dave. In that case, paying 38% of the taxes on 20% of the income IS a problem!
On a related note I saw an analysis by the Kiplinger people about the top 400 tax returns (measured by AGI) from 2007 (the most recent year this info is available). To be in the top 400 you have to have AGI of $183 million. They paid 2.05% of federal income taxes on 1.95% of federal taxable income. While those numbers are close enough to be a wash, it suggests that the real disparity between share of income earned and share of tax burden falls lower on the income scale, away from the super-rich and more on those who are comfortable but not "wealthy" by any stretch.