Detroit Free Press: Rich pay far more than their 'fair share' in taxes

I'm sure they didn't mean for it to come out like the headline says, but it's right there in their piece: Should the rich pay more taxes? Let me just get to the highlights a few paragraphs down:

...3% of U.S. taxpayers who make more than $200,000 a year already pay more than half of all income taxes.

Also this towards the end:

Q: How much of the U.S. income tax do wealthy people pay?
A: They pay most of it. Taxpayers with at least $100,000 in adjusted gross income each year account for 12% of the tax returns, 49% of the income and 75% of the taxes. Define "wealthy" as more than $200,000, and those people accounted for about 3% of the returns, 26% of the income and 50% of the taxes.

Just keep in mind that the 'income' number is before taxes, and that is very important because the bottom 51% don't pay any federal income tax at all. Fact: Top 1% Pay More Fed Income Taxes Than Bottom 95%! Bottom 51% Pay None. Bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK! Worse yet, from my prior post: Good News: 51% of Households Pay No Income Tax (Most of Those Get Money Back!); Share of Taxes Paid by Rich Growing Faster Than Income. There are now more people not paying federal income taxes than those paying them. So basically what is happening is a huge transfer of wealth from the productive to the unproductive, which will have the effect of incentivizing non-productivity while punishing productivity. Shouldn't that be backwards? So an update on a prior post on the issue before the 50% point was reached: not only does bottom 47% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax, but the bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK! And regarding the rich paying 'their fair share:'

Q: Does that mean they're already paying their fair share?
A: The top 20% have also seen their share of all the income made in the U.S. rise past 50% in the last 20 years. Meanwhile, the share of income has declined for every other income level. The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 helped higher-income earners more than lower ones (reducing the 36% bracket to 33% and the 39.6% bracket to 35% saves more money -- because the income thresholds are higher -- than reducing the 28% bracket to 25%). ...

The freep dances around this issue too, but raising taxes won't solve the deficit problem (I'll ignore for now that historically each $1 in higher taxes results in $1.17 of new spending. Raising taxes will make th edeficit worse, not better, because the liberal ruling class will simply piss it away in new spending. It's just what they do ).  As they correctly state, last week, liberal billionaire 'Warren Buffett suggested in his "Stop coddling the super-rich" editorial in the New York Times that tax rates be raised for people making more than $1 million (and even more for people making more than $10 million).' The freep points out that an expert at the Tax Foundation 'ran the numbers and found that increasing the effective rate on millionaires to 50% would bring in about $120 billion in the first year.'  That is simply a drop in the bucket to the $1.5 trillion annual deficit that Obama is running. Even if Obama were to confiscate all of the wealth of the rich with a tax rate of 100%, it still would only take out about a third of the annual deficit, and you can only steal all that wealth once. This graphic that the freep puts out explains a lot:

Two things about it. 1) That $1.3 trillion number in red is over 10 years, and it still wouldn't cover the deficit for this year alone! 2) The rich are paying way more than their fair share. Again, it's not something the freep wants to say, but the totality of the above says it quite well anyway. The second graph the freep puts out is also telling:

It quite explicitly shows that anyone making less than $100k pays less in percentage of taxes than their percentage of income. For anyone over $100k, it's the opposite. Which is to say that the rich are paying the bills, and instead of being thanked for it are being bled more and more by Obama and the Democrats. They are in fact being punished for pursuing or achieving the American dream. Which brings me to this:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin

The rich are paying far more than their fair share, and instead of being thanked are demonized by Obama. In addition, all data clearly shows that conservatives and the evil rich give far more of their money to charity than liberals. Liberals are very generous... with other people's money. But not their own. A good example of just how punitive towards productivity the tax system is can be seen not only at the top tax brackets, but at the lowest ones. From Zero Hedge: In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

It is literally a government incentive against being productive.

UPDATE: Another freep piece perhaps unintentionally admits that no amount of tax increases will makeup for Obama's overspending:  A look at some of the tax deduction options. Keep in mind that these totals are over 5 years and that the current fiscal year deficit is projected to be $1.65 trillion:

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the five-year cost of some tax breaks popular with wealthier Americans:

$162 billion: Deduction for tax exempt bonds.

$403 billion: Reduced rates on dividends and long-term capital gains.

$246 billion: Deduction for charitable donations.

$484 billion: Deduction for mortgage interest.

All those put together wouldn't even make up for the deficit this year alone. Over 5 years, they don't even make a dent, and will make matters worse since pulling that much money out of the private sector that produces, to fund the government sector that does not, will hurt the economy, lower growth in the GDP, and bring in less tax revenue, not more.

UPDATE #2: Via Instapundit:

TAXES: Before You Call Me Greedy, Operate Fairly:

Over the years, I have paid a significant portion of my income to the various federal, state and local jurisdictions in which I have lived, and I deeply resent that President Obama has decided that I don’t need all the money I’ve not paid in taxes over the years, or that I should leave less for my children and grandchildren and give more to him to spend as he thinks fit. I also resent that Warren Buffett and others who have created massive wealth for themselves think I’m “coddled” because they believe they should pay more in taxes. I certainly don’t feel “coddled” because these various governments have not imposed a higher income tax. After all, I did earn it. …

Others could pay higher taxes if they choose. They could voluntarily write a check or they could advocate that their gifts to foundations should be made with after-tax dollars and not be deductible. They could also pay higher taxes if they were not allowed to set up foundations to avoid capital gains and estate taxes.

What gets me most upset is two other things about this argument: the unfair way taxes are collected, and the violation of the implicit social contract between me and my government that my taxes will be spent—effectively and efficiently—on purposes that support the general needs of the country. Before you call me greedy, make sure you operate fairly on both fronts.

Today, top earners—the 250,000 people who earn $1 million or more—pay 20% of all income taxes, and the 3% who earn more than $200,000 pay almost half. Almost half of all filers pay no income taxes at all. Clearly they earn less and should pay less. But they should pay something and have a stake in our government spending their money too.

In addition, the extraordinarily complex tax code is replete with favors to various interest groups and industries, favors granted by politicians seeking to retain power. … Governments have an obligation to spend our tax money on programs that work. They fail at this fundamental task.

Indeed.

I second that. Also via Insty: SURVEY: We need spending cuts, not tax hikes, say economists.