Congressional and Leftist lies

Walter Williams's picture

An important component of the leftist class warfare agenda is to condemn President Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. This claim is careless, ignorant or dishonest on at least two counts.

First there’s the constitutional issue. Article I, Section 8 reads, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ...” That means the president has no taxing authority.

Presidents can propose or veto taxes and Congress can override vetoes. The bottom line is that all taxing authority rests with the U.S. Congress. The next time you hear someone condemn or praise Bush’s tax cuts, ask them whether the Constitution has been amended to give the president taxing authority.

But what about those tax cuts for the rich? Are the rich now sharing a smaller burden of the federal income tax because their fair share of the burden has been shifted to the poor?

The most recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics can give us some guidance. In 2005, the top 1 percent of income earners, those with an annual adjusted gross income of $365,000 and higher, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes; in 1999, they paid 36 percent.

In 2005, the top 5 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $145,000 and higher, paid 60 percent of all federal taxes; in 1999, it was 55 percent. The top 10 percent, earning income over $103,000, paid 70 percent. The top 25 percent, with income of over $62,000, paid 86 percent, and the top 50 percent, earning $31,000 and higher, paid 97 percent of all federal taxes.

What about any argument suggesting that the burden of taxes have been shifted to the poor? The bottom 50 percent, earning $30,000 or less, paid 3 percent of total federal income taxes. In 1999, they paid 4 percent. Congressmen know all of this, but they attempt to hoodwink the average American who doesn’t.

The fact that there are so many American earners who have little or no financial stake in our country poses a serious political problem.

The Tax Foundation estimates that 41 percent of whites, 56 percent of blacks, 59 percent of American Indian and Aleut Eskimo and 40 percent Asian and Pacific Islanders had no 2004 federal income tax liability.

The study concluded, “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 — who are outside of the federal income tax system.”

These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. In other words, if you have little or no financial stake in America, what do you care about the cost of massive federal spending programs?

Similarly, what do you care about tax cuts if you’re paying little or no taxes? In fact, you might be openly hostile toward tax cuts out of fear that they might lead to reductions in handout programs from which you benefit.

Survey polls have confirmed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350 billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes.

Whether you’re for or against President Bush matters little, but what do you think of politicians and their media dupes winning you over with lies about the rich not paying their fair share? And, by the way, $145,000 or even $345,000 a year hardly qualifies one as rich. It’s not even yacht money.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

login to post comments | Walter Williams's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 10:18pm.

According to Mr. Williams' math, the wealthy have had an increased tax burden as a whole under the current GOP instated tax cuts. Let's examine this:

According to Walter:

"The most recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics can give us some guidance. In 2005, the top 1 percent of income earners, those with an annual adjusted gross income of $365,000 and higher, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes; in 1999, they paid 36 percent."

Walter is using an interesting slight of hand here to make you think the wealthy are paying more. He is counting dollars and not percentages. In other words, even though Warren Buffet pays 17% of taxable income to the IRS compared to his secretary's 33%, he does pay more money. And this is the Walter Williams' math. Using Williams' formula, if Buffet's secretary was taxed at 90% of her taxable income, she would still be paying the IRS less money than Warren Buffet taxed at 5% of his taxable income. If the rich are truly getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, who would be paying the higher dollar amount of taxes? BEWARE THE WALTER WILLIAM'S MATH!!!!

Even more interesting is this:

"An important component of the leftist class warfare agenda is to condemn President Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. This claim is careless, ignorant or dishonest on at least two counts."

Mr. Williams wants us to believe that "leftists" e.g. democrats are careless, ignorant, and dishonest.

Let's attack this head on: The honest and noble subject of the Williams article, George W. Bush, claimed last week that the newly elected democratic majority is spending money like teens with new credit cards. Here come some FACTS: Non-negociable FACTS.

Fact 1: The person with the single highest number of earmarks and highest dollar amount of earmarks is GEORGE W. BUSH. 580 earmarks worth $15 billion. Two earmarks in particular were his wife's $24 million librarian program and his father's "100 points of light" just to name two of the 580.

Fact 2: Democrats cut the dollar amount of earmarks to less than $20 billion compared to the republican majority's $30 billion.

Fact 3: The republican minority, even though a minority party, still have a higher dollar amount of pork in funding bills than the majority democratic party.

I'm sure Walter was going to mention this in his next column, but I thought I'd throw this in just in case he forgets.

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Sun, 11/18/2007 - 10:01am.

You and Warren send more money to the IRS. 'Charwie' 'Whangale' too.

How much more than your burden did you send in 2006 Kevin? (None)

Surely you didn't deduct your mortgage interest did you? (Yes, you did.)

The problem with liberalism is the deeply embedded hypocrisy that stems from guilt.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sun, 11/18/2007 - 11:17am.

I notice you didn't bother to address the ball on this easy chip shot for a fiscal conservative. Why have your boys cut taxes and financed a war for the first time in our nation's history? Rhetoriica won't answer those questions. Let's see what you've got for me, the self-appointed knower of all things. Right now I think I know your party has left you with NO AMMO for this argument; tapped, empty like Lake Lanier.

Kevin "Hack" King


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 7:39am.

So, you want to teach economics and taxation and mathematics now. And I thought that Dr. Williams was the one with M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. Puzzled

Please cite your sources, especially the ones that prove Dr. Williams's "slight [sic -- sleight] of hand" deceptions.

Warren Buffet (who has held fundraisers for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- since you mentioned Hannity's support for Giuliani), as well as all other "oppressed" elites (you, John Edwards, Bill & Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc.), is free to "contribute" all of his wealth to the government. I won't complain at all. Laughing out loud

Whining to get media attention, Buffet ("The Real Warren Buffett") and all of the other "tax the filthy rich" protesters can put their money where their mouth is and start writing the checks. But we both know that that won't happen. Sad

So, how is it "fair" that the top 10% of income earners, earning income over $103,000, paid 70% of all federal taxes? That means that 90% pay only 30% of the taxes.

Since the top 25% pay 86% of the taxes, then 75% (or 3/4/) of income earners pay only 14%. 50% pay 97% of all federal taxes; i.e., 50% of income earners pay only 3% of the taxes. How is that their "fair share"? Puzzled

___________________________

"Warren's World"

Buffett makes the extraordinary claim that he and his receptionist currently both pay the same 30 percent of their very different incomes to the federal government. This is pretty much impossible unless receptionists in Omaha are paid more than the CEOs of the companies they work for. Buffett takes a salary of $100,000 from Berkshire Hathaway (according to the company's most recent proxy statement) — and assuming that his receptionist makes the same amount, then her average federal tax rate would be something like 16 percent, according to the IRS's online calculator. Adding the 6.2 percent payroll tax paid by her employer, we get to about 22 percent. Her salary would have to be about $250,000 to get up to the 30 percent Buffett claims. Can I have her job? Eye-wink

Okay, let's give Buffett a pass on that one, and assume he's got the highest-paid receptionist in Omaha (or anywhere else). Even if he and she are both paying 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, are they in any sense equal as taxpayers? No — because the dollar amounts of their payments are vastly different. At 30 percent of $250,000, the receptionist is paying $75,000 in taxes. Working backward from figures provided by Buffett in his column, we can guess that his income must be something like $50.3 million. Thirty percent of that is $15.1 million.

Buffett isn't paying the same as his receptionist — he's paying 201 times more.

___________________________

"Warren Buffett's Tax Math Fuzzy at Best"

The last time congress tried to "sock it to" the fat cats, we got the AMT [Alternative Minimum Tax] which is systematically now killing the middle class.. be careful what you wish for...

Just lower all the rates and we all win...

___________________________

"Thinking Like Warren Buffett"

One way Warren E. Buffett became the world's most successful investor was by understanding how putting off tax payments can build wealth. Every year in the "owner's manual" he includes with Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A ) annual reports, he spells out the advantages of deferred tax liabilities over ordinary debt. His essays show how Berkshire boosts returns by keeping cash invested as long as practical until sending it to the U.S. Treasury. Shocked

___________________________

"Media Darling Warren Buffett Barks Up Estate Tax Tree"

___________________________

"Warren Buffett's Double Standard"

Apparently, Buffett's worried that its permanent repeal will create a "dynastic plutocracy."

He's certainly talking to the right people. After all, the Senate Finance Committee's members include a bunch of unknowns, like Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV and Sen. John Kerry, who married some woman named Heinz.

Sen. Ted Kennedy mercifully doesn't sit on the finance committee, but he surely knows all about ruling dynasties. Laughing out loud

He's so anxious to pay estate taxes himself that he's signed over the bulk of his fortune to charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation -- where it can pass, untouched by government hands, to do good works for people who probably really need them.

___________________________

"The Oracle of the Death Tax"

But don’t be fooled. Buffett advocates the death tax because it has been so very good to him over the years.

"Warren Buffett Benefited From Death Tax"

___________________________

In 2001, U.S. Representative (now Senator) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told The New Yorker:

“I think we’ve got a major crisis in democracy… We assume that voters will restrain the growth of government because it becomes burdensome to them personally. But today fewer and fewer people pay taxes, and more and more are dependent on government, so the politician who promises the most from government is likely to win.

Every day, the Republican Party is losing constituents, because every day more people can vote themselves more benefits without paying for it. The tax code will destroy democracy, by putting us in a position where most voters don’t pay for government.”

___________________________

"Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million"

With the April 17th deadline for federal tax returns looming, Americans are sharply aware of their federal income tax liabilities. However, one aspect of federal income taxes they may not be aware of is the growing number of Americans who pay zero federal income tax after taking advantage of deductions and credits.

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans — or 41 percent of the U.S. population — will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.

Who Are the Non-Payers?

Using IRS data, we are able to create a profile of these individuals who are outside the federal income tax system. As Table 1 shows, those who file as single or head-of-household are much more likely to be non-payers. One-third of single filers pay nothing in federal income taxes, and almost two-thirds of those who file as head of household pay nothing. In contrast, just 22 percent of married filers are non-payers.

Why do many single filers face zero tax liability? One reason is that single filers tend to be younger and earn lower incomes than married filers — especially single parents who file as head-of-household. As a result, married taxpayers pay roughly 75 percent of all federal income taxes, despite filing only 40 percent of returns.

Large Number of Non-Payers Make Tax Reform Difficult

Federal tax reform requires that the base of the federal income tax be widened, so that overall tax rates can be reduced. However, because of the large number of Americans currently paying zero federal income tax, any attempt to broaden the tax base will be a difficult sell for lawmakers. The millions of Americans who have no federal income tax liability will either be indifferent about tax reform or will positively oppose it, as it would require bringing them into the federal tax base.

The Effect of Recent Tax Cuts on Non-Payers

As President Bush pushed through his two major tax bills in 2001 and 2003, opponents focused on the dollar amounts saved by high-income individuals. What many critics have ignored is the number of people who were removed from the tax rolls as a result of the expansion of the child tax credit, which was a key provision of the President's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

Conclusion

These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system, and the possibility of base-broadening tax reform when the majority of the federal tax burden is borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers.

___________________________

As far as spending goes, I doubt that you'll hear too many conservatives praise President Bush's appetite for pork, or Congress's either. I'm a fan of Sen. Tom Coburn, "The New Sheriff in Town," or "The Senate's Dr. No." I highly recommend his book Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders.

"Congress’s 'Earmark Reforms' Are Hoax and Mirrors"

"Pork Landing with a THUD"

"Indefensible Defense Pork"

"Congress’ Labor of Lard"

Byrd Droppings (The Pork King)

And you want to put health care under the federal government's supervision? Puzzled


bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 8:55pm.

Can you tell me what W.B, paid in Capitol Gains Tax vs. his receptionist? I don't know the answer.

The way I heard the story, W.B. was playing word games.

What I didn't hear was the "TOTAL" tax paid by either based on their incomes.


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 7:45am.

You so turned me off with your dripping condesention that I stopped reading this post here:

"So, you want to teach economics and taxation and mathematics now. And I thought that Dr. Williams was the one with M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA."

Just ignore me like a stupid auto mechanic and step over my stinking carcass as you would a homeless street dweller smelling like a "warf rat." And you are in the mental health field? Go figure.

Kevin "Hack" King


Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Sun, 11/18/2007 - 10:10am.

I have watched Kevin King, the self appointed high authority of all things known and unknown, call Denise and anyone else who chooses to defy his illogical reasoning everything from mentally deranged to challenging them to a fisticuffs... and now he attacks 'Denise' and 'beaver' yet again. Typical liberal bigotry .. when you can't win on merit - play a race or gender card or use personal attacks to deflect or re-define the argument. You may be an officer but you are certainly no gentleman Mr. King. It must be hard to go through life with your chip. Tel me- are you the product of affirmative action?

I suppose the moral high ground of you leftist elitists was all but eliminated by Bill Clinton. What a shame. Now neither party can be an example. Although, at least the Republicans fire (or attempt to fire) those in power who show poor examples of moral character like yours.

AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sun, 11/18/2007 - 11:07am.

"Although, at least the Republicans fire (or attempt to fire) those in power who show poor examples of moral character like yours."

Righton the money, assuming you are serious, report directly to a mental healthcare professional Smiling

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: You republicans tend to be tuff guys. Wanna fight? Smiling We'll meet in Denise's back yard and she can serve lemonade to the blogging onlookers. You wear an elephant suit, and I'll be a jackass. Deal?


Denise Conner's picture
Submitted by Denise Conner on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 11:45am.

You mistook my teasing. Smiling I'm not a professor of economics either! Laughing out loud

I've NEVER called someone stupid because of his employment, and certainly not an auto mechanic. You're deliberately twisting my words and you know it, as well as attributing a quote by Neal Boortz to me.

I won't apologize for my "tough love" approach, though. Smiling

"Tough love or TLC?" (Theodore Dalrymple, author of Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass -- Review)


AF A-10's picture
Submitted by AF A-10 on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 8:23pm.

Ha! Git, flushed you out with ye ole' "tax" word did I? If I led a post with this:

"Isn't Hilllary Clinton the one with the law degree from Yale?" you would laugh me off of this forum. Doesn't add too much umpf to and argument. Denise, you know I still love you, but you gotta come with more than a man's education. Remember, Che Guverra had a medical degree.

Git, you ask how much tax should come from the wealthy? Americans should contribute enough to meet our government's obligations. You've said you support the global war on terror. It takes real dollars and cents git. We've got to start paying for it, don't we? Do you want interest payment upon interest payment because "conservatives" kept an election promise of not raising taxes by instead raising debts? The president has raised the debt ceiling three times.

Warren Buffet feels he should be taxed at more than 1/2 of his employees' tax rates. Is he wrong?

Kevin "Hack" King


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 11/18/2007 - 8:02am.

Git, you ask how much tax should come from the wealthy?

I simply asked, "Please define for me the rates you feel someone with the income level $100K and higher should pay?". You want higher taxes on the wealthy. In your opinion, what are the percentages that should be taken from my income before you would be satisfied?

Americans should contribute enough to meet our government's obligations.

How much is enough? Personally, I'd like to keep more of the monies I make so I can invest back into our economy and build businesses so I can pay more taxes. I've always taken much pride in paying my taxes. But, like I said, my overall tax burden exceeds 50% now. Again, I ask, How much is enough?

You've said you support the global war on terror. It takes real dollars and cents git. We've got to start paying for it, don't we?

Yes, yes and yes. There is soooooo much waste in spending going on in every branch of our government, including our military. We are peeing away our dollars in so many ways. But, that's a whole different blog.

Do you want interest payment upon interest payment because "conservatives" kept an election promise of not raising taxes by instead raising debts?

You left out 'raising spending'. Statistics have already proved that cutting taxes generates increased tax intakes. As a real conservative I am disgusted with how Bush and the Republican's increased spending after gaining power. On another note....please stop pretending like the "liberals" had nothing to do with our debts. The Democrat's hands are as bloody in this crime as the Republicans in this crime. And please spare me the line about how Clinton balanced the budget during his term. He was forced to by a Republican led congress and senate that 'somewhat' got it.

The president has raised the debt ceiling three times.

Shameful, isn't it?

Warren Buffet feels he should be taxed at more than 1/2 of his employees' tax rates. Is he wrong?

What's so funny is that I've been in the top 1% of income earners in this country for the last few years, and I get lumped in with Warren Buffett? You claim Warren Buffett only pays 17% of income to the government. Like I stated earlier, my overall rates exceed 50% and you guys want to increase it for me too? Puzzled I just don't get it? How much is enough?

It seems to me that there are alot of mult-millionaires, that profess to be Democrats, that have made theirs and now want to pull the rug out from the rest of us that are trying to build stable financial futures for our families. No wonder the foreigners are buying up our assets in this country these days. None of us can afford to buy them or keep them.

The way I view it is this. If the tax burdens are increased on my business and myself, it might be worth it for me to just get out, lay-off my people, and preserve the monies I've made and let my Chinese competitor take / have my customer base. Why should I get penalized for fighting the 'good fight'?


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 8:30am.

You've taken your shots at Denise and others too. Please tell me you skin isn't thicker than that. She makes some very good arguments for a 'med subscriber'.

Please define for me the rates you feel someone with the income level $100K and higher should pay? All I can tell you is that with the thrashing I take tax wise, the only word that comes to my mind is punitive. After all I go through to earn my income each year, I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth messing with the 18 people I employee each year.

6 of which make over $100K, 5 that earn in excess of $60K and the remainder of which, no one earns less than $32K.

Between the IRS, the GA Dept of Revenue, Clayton County, the DOT and a handful of other gumament agencies, I'm about ready to say the hell with it. There's no doubt I put my monies to work as a developer investor and not have to fool with as many headaches.

My combined tax penalties and government compliance costs way exceed 50%.

And Charlie Rangel wants to nail my tail with an additional 4% at the very least?

All I'm asking is, at what level do all the tax percentage hikes halt? How much is enough for the Democrats and those that don't make as much as I do?


Submitted by thebeaver on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 11:36am.

Barack Obama is a human featherball -- a slick, smiling, substance-free empty suit who excites gullible dimwits by repeating the words “change,” “unity,” and “hope” over and over --

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 11/17/2007 - 8:17am.

Shocked


Submitted by d.smith700 on Fri, 11/16/2007 - 12:44pm.

Walter Williams blog above says that federal income taxes are paid mostly by people in the higher wage brackets.
Which also indicates that people in the lower wage brackets pay little if any federal income tax.
What he doesn't say, is that those in the lower income brackets aren't able to pay any more!
Lower bracket people still have to pay the same for food as upper bracket people, same for sales taxes, same for property taxes as upper level income, same for transportation as upper level wage earners, same for movie tickets, same for TVs, same for furniture, same for kids expenses, same for clothes, same for beer and vodka, same for insurance, same for tags, same for education of children, and on top of all that many have to serve in Iraq that can't get a job that pays anything here!
I think it would be great if the lower level wage earners were to be required to pay more taxes to subsidize the upper wage earners.
Of course these same reasons make the "flat tax" so desirable.
And, the Georgia republicans who want an additional sales tax instead of a property tax makes it even better, doesn't it?
Were Clarence Thomas and Walter Williams room-mates?
Of course, only the lucky, smartest and most selfish should get ultra-rich, and the great unwashed majority should just have enough, barely. Right?
Makes for a more regal country---which of course has failed everywhere else in the world!

Submitted by RightOnTheMoney on Sun, 11/18/2007 - 9:52am.

Okay smithy, apparently you feel that the cost of all goods and services should depend on ones (self perceived)ability to pay.

Here are some of your ridiculous statements:

What he doesn't say, is that those in the lower income brackets aren't able to pay any more! (Those in the lowest brackets pay ZERO sister.) Lower bracket people still have to pay the same for food as upper bracket people, same for sales taxes, same for property taxes (lowest income still owns property- wow - what a country) as upper level income, same for transportation (do you also drive a Lexus or a Navigator) as upper level wage earners, same for movie tickets (Uh - who can afford this?), same for TVs, same for furniture, same for kids expenses (you can afford kids? Who paid the medical bill?), same for clothes, same for beer and vodka (you are kidding about this one- right?), same for insurance (not so), same for tags (based on the value of your car), same for education of children (public education you mean?), and on top of all that many have (Drafted??!!??) to serve in Iraq that can't get a job that pays anything here!

Okay - in the spirit of Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas (yes they were friends for many years but not room-mates) try this: Better yourself - the desire to have the same cars, homes, clothes, opportunities for higher education for your kids - and Vodka as the 'rich' all come from HARD WORK and DETERMINATION - not from the US GOVERNMENT.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, irrespective of what they have produced.

Every dollar you pay in taxes becomes the most inefficiently used crutch that has been devised by mankind.

There is no Santa Claus Smith - you and your entitlement handout attitude is what is wrong with this country and why the democrats (and lately the big spending republicans) have created this huge deficit by enslaving a portion of society that wants the 'gubament' to do for them anything they just don't want to do for themselves.

Get a grip.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.