What exactly is your "fair share"

(reprinted with permision from "For Love of Family and country")

I am tired of hearing about the top 1% not paying their fair share. Though I am not in the top 1%, I am sick of the slander and hate and more so the out right lie. Demonizing and preaching punishment of one citizen to the benefit of another has no place in our Republic.

A simple visit to the IRS and its vast data base can bring forth and shed a bright light on the main battle cry of the Democratic Party, our current president, Mr. Obama, and perhaps all those that say, “they should pay more!” A simple chart is all that is needed to demonstrate just how “fair” our tax system really is. And it will not take a statistician to discover an inconvenient truth in it all; our tax code is progressive and completely unfair in regards to people paying “their fair share”. It puts a tax premium on success and rises to meet every addition of income with its little book of 72,000 (?) plus pages of tax code aimed at those able to make it.

Our tax code is not fair; it is not fair to the top 50% who pay 97.75% of ALL Federal income tax. What happened to one country and all of us in this together? Our POTUS thinks these people, or as I would refer to them as citizens, should pay more than they already do. Shortly 50% of the tax payers will pay 100% of the federal income tax burden. When he said “you didn’t build this” with 50% not paying their fair share he was half right. Of course, he really wants the very top to pay more, those 1% at the very top that have built nothing on their own. We are lead to believe that they simply lived in the correct house, opened the door and had the windfall of monetary exuberance come crashing through and dump endless supplies of ill-gotten booty into their living room. They need to pay their fair share or as we will see, more of their fair share.

Let us peer into the tax tables of the IRS for a moment and look at what we find. I will be using the tables that display share of federal income tax paid be each group and the AGI share of income. For those that scream, “it’s not about income, it is about wealth”, I say, no it is not. Our tax code is not based on your wealth; it is based on your income. It is about what a citizen earns each year, not what they have managed to save and create over their life time or their heirs.

We will start with the year 1987, and I choose that because the AGI (adjusted cross income) was re-determined in 1986 so previous data is hard to compare. The time span I use is over 22 years so it should prove sufficient in its demonstration of “tax fairness”.

In 1987, the top 1% paid 24.81% of all Federal Income taxes. “Wow”, you say, “but they made more than that, right? They had to earn that much as well.” Well the IRS also grants us the ability to see the AGI for each sector to determine just what they made. In 1987 the top 1% had 12.32% share of the total AGI. They had a smaller share of the AGI but paid more taxes as a result of the tax code. Fair? I am not suggesting that they should only pay a percentage equivalent to their AGI share mind you; I only point out that “they” did not make 24.81% of the income.

Just for comparison, the bottom 50% paid 6.07% of all Federal income tax and brought home an AGI share of 15.63%.

So we have:
1987                             top 1%           top 10%          Lower 50%

Income tax share:        24.81%            55.61%            6.07%

AGI share:                    12.32%            36.90%            15.63%

As we proceed from 1987 to the current time of 2009, as far as the IRS tables go, we see a progression. And I’ll give you a hint, it progresses just like a success tax would progress; the rich pay more and the bottom 50% pay less, by a large amount. What does not quite correlate is the AGI share, though it increases for the top 1%, it does not increase by as much in comparison to the Federal Income tax paid. This would say the top 1% have increased the amount they pay for the rest of us yet have not made the same amount more in income. I will not ask the reader to feel sorry in any way but I must insist that in our pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness, fully armed with our unalienable rights why is it that one group of citizens must be so burdened by the rest of us? Why do some work in slavery for the rest of us? Why is it okay to demonize one citizen for the benefit of another? And please review the Clinton years when they paid a higher tax rate, even in those liberal-magic times the top 1% still did not pay the share they are paying now.

In 2009, the top 1%, you know “tax paying citizens”, pay a total of 36.73% of all Federal income taxes in the good ‘ole US of A; land of the free and home of the (taxed at a fair rate based on an imaginary feeling of moral goodness brought about by class war fare and wealth envy). The lower 50%, also citizens, pay 2.25%. The top 1% have increased their share from 24.81% to paying 36.73%!! That is a gain of 48%! Talk about fair. In the last 22 year span the top 1% have increased, through political compulsion, their personal support of the Federal Government (meaning the other 99%) by 48%! The top 10% of American citizens pay a grand total of 70.47% of all federal income taxes. How much more fair can it get? Though I admit, I am afraid of the answer.

Would our POTUS have us believe that each taxpayer in the top 10% should pay for 75% of the country? 80%? And some would suggest that they must have a far greater share of the income but again those pesky tables do not support this. The top 1% share of the AGI grew from 12.32% to a grand total of 16.93%. This is a 37% increase in AGI for a Federal Tax burden increase of 48%.

Mr. President, the rich, the top 1%, are paying more. They are paying a larger than life “fair” share. You are a disingenuous class warfare combatant and in no way a leader of merit when it comes to the citizens as a whole. You represent only one portion of this great Republic and only seek to further divide us.

Tables provided by the Tax Foundation (as I am mathematically lazy): http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Year	Top 1%	Top 10%	Top 25%	Top 50%	Bottom 50%
1987	24.81%	55.61%	76.92%	93.93%	6.07%
1988	27.58%	57.28%	77.84%	94.28%	5.72%
1989	25.24%	55.78%	77.22%	94.17%	5.83%
1990	25.13%	55.36%	77.02%	94.19%	5.81%
1991	24.82%	55.82%	77.29%	94.52%	5.48%
1992	27.54%	58.01%	78.48%	94.94%	5.06%
1993	29.01%	59.24%	79.27%	95.19%	4.81%
1994	28.86%	59.45%	79.55%	95.23%	4.77%
1995	30.26%	60.75%	80.36%	95.39%	4.61%
1996	32.31%	62.51%	81.32%	95.68%	4.32%
1997	33.17%	63.20%	81.67%	95.72%	4.28%
1998	34.75%	65.04%	82.69%	95.79%	4.21%
1999	36.18%	66.45%	83.54%	96.00%	4.00%
2000	37.42%	67.33%	84.01%	96.09%	3.91%
2001	33.89%	64.89%	82.90%	96.03%	3.97%
2002	33.71%	65.73%	83.90%	96.50%	3.50%
2003	34.27%	65.84%	83.88%	96.54%	3.46%
2004	36.89%	68.19%	84.86%	96.70%	3.30%
2005	39.38%	70.30%	85.99%	96.93%	3.07%
2006	39.89%	70.79%	86.27%	97.01%	2.99%
2007	40.41%	71.20%	86.57%	97.11%	2.89%
2008	38.02%	69.94%	86.34%	97.30%	2.70%
2009	36.73%	70.47%	87.30%	97.75%	2.25%

Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group)
Year	Top 1%	Top 10%	Top 25%	Top 50%	Bottom 50%
1987	12.32%	36.90%	60.75%	84.37%	15.63%
1988	15.16%	39.45%	62.44%	85.07%	14.93%
1989	14.19%	39.00%	62.28%	85.04%	14.96%
1990	14.00%	38.77%	62.13%	84.97%	15.03%
1991	12.99%	38.20%	61.85%	84.87%	15.13%
1992	14.23%	39.23%	62.47%	85.08%	14.92%
1993	13.79%	39.05%	62.45%	85.08%	14.92%
1994	13.80%	39.19%	62.64%	85.11%	14.89%
1995	14.60%	40.16%	63.37%	85.46%	14.54%
1996	16.04%	41.59%	64.32%	85.92%	14.08%
1997	17.38%	42.83%	65.05%	86.16%	13.84%
1998	18.47%	43.77%	65.63%	86.33%	13.67%
1999	19.51%	44.89%	66.46%	86.75%	13.25%
2000	20.81%	46.01%	67.15%	87.01%	12.99%
2001	17.53%	43.11%	65.23%	86.19%	13.81%
2002	16.12%	41.77%	64.37%	85.77%	14.23%
2003	16.77%	42.36%	64.86%	86.01%	13.99%
2004	19.00%	44.35%	66.13%	86.58%	13.42%
2005	21.20%	46.44%	67.52%	87.17%	12.83%
2006	22.06%	47.32%	68.16%	87.49%	12.51%
2007	22.83%	48.05%	68.71%	87.74%	12.26%
2008	20.00%	45.77%	67.38%	87.25%	12.75%
2009	16.93%	43.19%	65.81%	86.52%	13.48%

Suppressing the vote and other interesting news.

So the Obama White house is suing Florida to prevent voters from having to show any form of ID before voting. The President states this is to give everyone the best chance to vote (by everyone I think he means legal and illegal voters). In other news the Obama White House is suing the State of Ohio to prevent the state from extending early voting for active duty service members three days longer than for non-services members,  the President has not really stated why he would want to make voting more difficult for active duty military personal. 

The White house is not only suing Florida to make voting fraud easier, and Ohio to make voting more difficult, it is also suing Arizona to make more difficult to identify illegal aliens, New Mexico over water management and Texas over violations to federal equal pay acts.

With over half the states suing the federal government over Obamacare I wonder if this was the hope and change Obama promised us, at least it sure bodes well for the largest special interest group supporting the democrats…. lawyers.

 Changing the subject: Iraq (the country that had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) so we had no reason to attack them) has asked the international community for help…… wait for it …..you guessed it – they want help with the disposal of the remainder of their WMD’s.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.

The British Defense Ministry will start training Iraqi technical and medical workers this year, an embassy statement said. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime. He was overthrown in 2003 following an American-led invasion.

I admit it, I eat at Chick-Fil-A

I ate at Chick-Fil-A last Wednesday on Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. Since then I have been called a bigot, homophobic, and worse. This in spite of the fact that I voted against the North Carolina constitutional amendment to define marriage, this in spite of that fact that I have had a number of gay friends and really could care less if they are legally allowed to “marry”.

I ate at Chicki-Fil-A to send a message to politicians that at least for now the freedom of speech and religion is alive and well. People who hold political power can’t use their position to stifle speech, no matter how repugnant that particular politician might find it. When the Mayor of Chicago or Boston says “Chick-Fil-A values are not their cities values” are they speaking for those cities large Catholic population?

The politicians vowed to bar the Chick-Fil-A chain from opening restaurants in their cities not because of anything Chick-Fil-A did, but because of what the owner said. If liberal city government officials are allowed to punish a company for religious views or voicing those views, should a religious city government official be allowed to punish a company for an owner’s liberal views? I think not in both cases. There might be a constitutional argument to support gay marriage but there is most definitely a constitution guarantee of religious and speech freedom. As long as the US constitution exists, this country can never have limits on speech like we find in Europe and Canada. It might sound like a great idea to jail someone for voicing support for something like Nazi rhetoric in Germany, but what happens when the government jails people who don’t support Nazi values? Like Germany in 1938? Freedom of speech is a double edged sword and so is any attempt to limit it.

Everyone wants freedom of speech when the speaker agrees with them, most are more than happy to sanction limits on speech when they disagree, but sorry folks you can’t have it both ways. Citizens have every right to support or protest a business whose practices they disagree with. The government has no such right except to protect public safety, and I hardly thing the Chick-fil-A people can be viewed as a public hazard, except maybe to chickens. At the risk of suffering verbal abuse from gay marriage supporters I thought it was important to send this message to government.

The whole gay marriage argument is another example of the mess that we get into when we start involving the government in our personal lives. Why is the state even sanctioning marriage? If we need some recognized way to define a significant person as our next of kin for legal reasons why must it even be a spouse? Why can’t I have my uncle Harvey be the person who is assigned my legal guardian?

If the main problem with no government sanctioned gay marriage is economic How about this, we let each church define marriage in whatever model it sees fit and we file a paper with the government when you get “married” defining you legal guardian and leave it at that, be it your girlfriend, boyfriend or my uncle Harvey.

Obamacare, taxes and ducks take II

One of the newest liberal lines is that the President has not and does not want to raise taxes, well except for maybe anyone making over $250,000 a year. A few weeks ago we wrote that the Obama care bill is actually a tax bill. But “no” my liberal friends cried, “it’s a health care bill!” So I thought we should look at some of the health care issues addressed in the bill.

1. Medical Device Manufacturing Tax; a 2.3 % tax on medical device makers, every pacemaker, prosthetic limb and blood pressure monitor will increase in price in six months. Just to make the tax more insidious, it is on gross sales so even companies doing cutting edge medical development who have not been able to turn a profit will owe the tax. Interesting approach to decrease the cost of health care, increase the cost of medical equipment.

2. Increase of the deductible medical expenses; currently Americans are able to deduct their medical expense’s greater than 7.5% of their adjusted gross income, in six months that will increase to 10%. Interesting approach to lower people health care expenses, take away their tax deductions and collect billions of new tax paid.

3. Flexible Spending Account Care; in six months 24 million Americans will have a $2,500 cap on their FSA where none existed before. By restricting these pretax programs, ObamaCare effectively increases the taxes on medical care for everyone with a FSA. We are getting a theme here, lower the cost of health care by increasing taxes. Remember the “if you like your health insurance you can keep it” promise?

4. Limiting Health Saving Accounts; starting in 2011 the bill written to increase our access to HSA limited what HSA accounts can be used for. Before Obamacare passed people with HAS accounts could use their pretax HSA dollars for over the counter medications. So no reason to go to the doctor for a prescription to Ibuprofen, not any more, buy the product with after tax money or go to the doctor so you can use your HSA account. “You can keep your health care if you like it” lie take two.

5. A new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. Does it seem strange that the health care bill is changing the capital gains rate? As much as 135 billion dollars out of American’s pockets into the federal government. The liberals don’t really see this as a problem - it only affects wealthy people.

6. Medicare tax increase; employers will pay an additional 80 billion dollars over the next 10 years because of this increase in Medicare taxes, employers might want to use this money to pay their employees, or contribute to their employees’ health care. But instead they will contribute to the federal government.

Billions of new taxes collected so the government can then turn around and hand some of that taxed money back to the citizens. 290 times the ObamCare bill addresses taxes, every time increasing the cost of health care. The amazing thing about five of the six massive tax increases outlined above is they don’t take effect until after the 2014 election. It was so imperative to pass this bill, pass it so quickly that no one in Congress actually had time to read it, but almost four years after it passed and most of its major initiatives have not even gone into effect. The Presidents states that you can keep you existing health care insurance if you like it and then makes changes to existing HSA and FSA health plans. The President’s party states that the President has not raise taxes while a tax time bomb called ObamaCare sits on the books.

Maybe the President does not count tax increases in the health care bills as a tax increase - - but what were we saying about quacking like a duck?

When a tax is not a tax or when is a duck not a duck ?,

Tax- “money paid to government: an amount of money levied by a government on its citizens and used to run the government, the country, a state, a county, or a municipality”

I think what we have is a big misunderstanding. We thought while we were debating the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) we were discussing a health care bill, but according to the recent Supreme Court findings it was actually just a revenue raising bill, a tax bill.

Maybe this all makes sense seeing the Obamacare bill really does not solve or even attempt to solve the whole problem of people without health insurance, or even to decrease the cost of health care. It merely attempts to make people pay a tax, or penalty if you do not have health insurance. The authors of Obamacare and the Supreme Court acknowledge that up to four million Americans will elect to pay the tax rather than buy health insurance.  Some other percentage of homeless or indigent people who are currently uninsured will likely remain like that.  An income tax fine does not have much effect on someone who pays no taxes.  So we decreased the number of people without insurance but we accept that over 10% of the 35 million people who have no insurance in 2012 will still have no insurance after 2014, but the IRS will collect a bunch of money.   

The arguments presented to the court by the government in support of Obamacare followed a rather circular path.

The first of the three items the government argued was: 

Because the individual mandate was a tax, the whole case should be thrown out. The Anti-Injunction Act bars a lawsuit against a tax until the tax is actually being collected, the government maintained because this tax was not being collected the law suit was not legal. In this argument the court disagreed with the government and said this was not a tax and the major proof was the bill describes the payment for not having insurance as a “penalty” the so the suit could go forward. In the courts findings they point out the bill uses the word tax many times, the fact that they used the word penalty must mean they did not intend this as a tax.

The second government argument was:

The government could mandate that individuals buy health insurance under the Commerce Clause. They surmised that if you did not buy health insurance that would still affected the health insurance industry,  so who buys health insurance could be regulated. The government felt it had the power to force you into a market so they could regulate your participation in that market. The court again rejected the government’s argument, saying that the government has the power to regulate a market but not to force you into that market. Re-read this last paragraph please – our government is looking for justification to FORCE us into a market – force us to buy something.  As a side note Liberal representatives have been using the commerce clause to control more and more of life and personal behavior starting with FDR. In 1942 the government even argued and won a case that said the government could regulate a farmer’s corn production even though he grew the corn only for his personal use. In that case the government was trying to drive up the price of wheat by limiting production using the commerce clause, a farmer named Filburn was ordered to destroy a portion of his wheat crop and pay a fine even though not only was none of his wheat involved in intrastate commerce, it was not involved in commerce at all, it was for his and his families consumption. The government argued if he had not grown the wheat he would have to buy the wheat so that does affect interstate commerce. Yes in that case we had the federal government actively working to drive up the price of food and punishing people including jail time for people who attempted to provide their own food.  The fact that in the middle of a depression, while people starved to death the federal government was attempting to increase the cost of food is a subject for a whole different blog.

The third argument by the government and the one that the court agreed with and upheld:

 Obamacare really was just a tax collected if someone did not buy health insurance, not a federal mandate that you actually buy it. The government has great legal latitude to raise taxes and the court agreed.

So the court that found in argument one that the individual mandate to buy health insurance was not a tax and found in argument three that this was a tax and because of that, the bill is constitutional.

The President and his administration stated plainly a number of times during speeches and debates, even after the court decision, that the individual mandate was not a tax argued before the court in their first argument that it was a tax and then declared victory when the court agreed even while making speeches saying it’s not a tax.

The court spent 190 pages explaining how this was all very proper and legal.  Lawyers and scholars will explain for years to come why this is so - - but a wise man once said “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck”.  In the minds of government and lawyers apparently that does not hold true.

Great minds think alike (or I could not agree with Mr. Williams more)

"If a person without health insurance finds himself in need of costly medical care, let's investigate just how might that care be provided. There are not too many of us who'd suggest that we get the money from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. That being the case, if a medically indigent person receives medical treatment, it must be provided by people. There are several possible methods to deliver the services. One way is for people to make voluntary contributions or for medical practitioners to simply treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I find both methods praiseworthy, laudable and, above all, moral. Another way to provide those services is for Congress to use its power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. ... I'd personally find such a method of providing medical services offensive and immoral, simply because I find the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another, what amounts to slavery, in violation of all that is decent. ... I share James Madison's vision, articulated when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees in 1794. Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, 'I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents,' adding later that 'charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.' This vision of morality, I'm afraid, is repulsive to most Americans." --economist Walter E. Williams