Please do me and yourself a favor. Pass this article or website on to your friends and relatives so that when you start to lilsten to the next year of political BS you will know the truth about taxes and who pays what.

The Tax Foundation recently released an analysis of the Internal Revenue Service's income tax data for 2005 (latest available). Let me repeat just a small part of that Tax Foundation analysis:
America's richest 25 percent of taxpayers paid about 86 percent of all federal income taxes in 2005, despite earning only 67 percent of the nation's income... The highest-earning 1 percent alone - those earning more than $364,657 - paid a staggering 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes... That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal income tax as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns combined.
This data for 2005 is not really new. The top income brackets have always paid the majority of income taxes.

Here is the data from the IRS for 2005:
Taxpayer
AGI Brackets Average %of AGI Paid Share of Total
Income Taxes Paid
Top 1% 23.13% 39.38%
Top 5% 20.78% 59.67%
Top 10% 18.84% 70.30%
Top 25% 15.86% 85.99%
Top 50% 13.84% 96.93%
Bottom 50% 2.98% 3.07%

[Note: The Average Percent of AGI paid in taxes for each of the Taxpayer Brackets listed above is calculated by taking the sum of all income tax paid by individuals in each bracket in 2005, and dividing it by the total adjusted gross income of all such individuals. For example, based on 2005 income tax data from the IRS, the top 50% of taxpayers had total adjusted gross incomes of $6.544 trillion, and paid total income taxes of $906 billion. Thus, $906 billion divided by $6.544 trillion equals the 13.84% tax rate shown above.]
Based on the Internal Revenue Service's own data, the rich do in fact pay a higher percentage of their adjusted gross income in income taxes, by far, as compared to those in the lower income brackets. The top 50% of taxpayers pay 4.6 times the percentage paid by those in the bottom 50% on average. Someone in the top 10% pays 6.3 times the percentage paid by those in the bottom 50% on average.
Keep these numbers in your head for the next time a liberal tells you that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. The top 50% already pay almost 97% of all income taxes paid, whereas the bottom 50% pay only about 3%. And let us not forget that the top 50% create virtually all of the jobs in this country, and make the economy strong, yet the libs want to tax them even more!
If you want to see the 2005 IRS income tax data and tables, click on the following link to see the full story from the Tax Foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/printer/250.html.

Democrats Plan To Hike Top Tax Rate To 65%

The three leading Democrat candidates for president - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - have all made it known that, if elected, they will consider raising taxes on "the rich" in order to fund their various programs, including nationalized health care. And as discussed above, the rich are now defined as any individuals making $150,000 or families making $200,000 or more per year.
In the recent Democratic presidential debates, Hillary has avoided stating just how much she would raise taxes on the rich, but candidates Obama and Edwards have told us what they plan to do, and you're not going to like it. They have done so in discussions on the subject of how to save Social Security.
Both Obama and Edwards have rejected the notion of cutting Social Security benefits or raising taxes on the middle class to fix Social Security's unfunded costs. Instead, both Obama and Edwards have actually proposed plans for raising the income tax paid by those making over $200,000. To many moderate voters, this probably makes plenty of sense.
The question is, how much would taxes have to go up on the rich ($200,000 or more in annual income) in order to fix Social Security going forward and fund the Dems' plans for national health care? According to a front-page article in last Thursday's Investment Business Daily:
"To bring in enough money to close Social Security's shortfall and make good on the $2 trillion in IOUs in the trust fund would require an annual tax increase in excess of 25 percentage points on those earning over $200,000... [Emphasis added, GDH.]
Combining this tax hike with the reversal of President Bush's tax cuts for high earners - as all of the top Democratic contenders have called for to help pay for their health care plans - would raise the top rate on work income from 35% to about 65%."
What, you haven't heard of this? Of course you haven't. The mainstream media is not about to tell us that the three leading Democrat candidates plan to skyrocket income taxes on those making over $200,000. Heritage Foundation senior fellow David John reacted to the Dems' proposed tax increases as follows:
"It's easy to say, 'We'll just assess a small tax on the rich. But when you start to add up the cost of (Democratic plans for) health care, Social Security, the (elimination of) the alternative minimum tax, you run into some astonishing tax increases." [Emphasis added, GDH.]
I suggest you start paying more attention to these Democratic presidential debates and be aware of just how deeply these liberals plan to raid our pocketbooks. Even worse, if the Dems are successful in hiking taxes to such levels, there will be no guarantee that they will actually use the money to fix Social Security - they might just spend it.
Finally, can you imagine the negative effects that a top tax rate of 60-65% would have on the economy and job creation? History has shown that at such excessive tax rates, high income earners find ways to limit or reduce wage and salary compensation. Some wealthy individuals will actually work less, or not at all, rather than pay 60-65% tax rates.
I know some conservatives who are so disgusted with the Bush administration that they say they will vote for a Democrat in 2008, just to send a message. I hope they're ready to see their income taxes almost doubled if they do!