Here is another article posted in magazine that says the similar to the Heritage site. I found multitudes that says the same thing, but whatever I post, despite who it is by, how educated and professional they are, you'd dismiss it no matter what. But, I'll post this last one:

"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes." - The American Magazine - http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

And how much did it make in profits?

What does it matter what they make when they only are profitting 9 cents per gallon of gas?

Eliminate the gas tax = lower prices for gallon of gas

http://www.tankthegastax.com/

When the cost for a barrel goes up, which Exxon and other oil companies have NO CONTROL OVER, of course gas prices are going to go up. I guess you think a private company should make negative profits.

"Exxon's first-quarter profit margin was 9.4%, meaning it kept 9.4 cents of every $1 in revenue." - USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-04-27-xom_x.htm

I don't think these taxes were included in the 30 billion paid -

What about the numbers I dont see?

You say that 99,000 doesn't seem rich. Its not, its middle class and it is used to set the figures for tax-payed by the wealthiest, also
The lower 80% includes part-time workers(ie students and mothers trying to supplement their families incomes, single mothers etc.) Many pay zero taxes while others pay about 25% of their income in taxes.
20% of the population are not among the wealthiest in this country! There is a huge disparity between 100,000 a year and 500,000 a year, both in tax base and income.
If they didn't group the figures like they do you would see most of those 20% are actually middle class, and they are the ones complaining about their taxes.
Without that group included in the first the figures would be quite different.

As far as the corporations are concerned I'm sure those figures are before the tax-loops and breaks given. These people have been cooking their books for years and lets dont forget,
They are your gov.

If you go here http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22471.html
You will see that 50% of the country live in the poverty range. They take into account all the factors that go into calculating poverty in our society.
I suggest you read it all. Its very informative!

This article is by Stephen Moore, who founded the Club for Growth, which endorses Republican candidates, hardly an unbiased , non-partisan source of accurate information.

In this article, it states that 'The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts.'

According the Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the country:

'We did an informal office survey by looking at the total tax footprint versus the total income. I earned 46 million and paid a tax rate of 17.5%. My rate was the lowest, the average was 33%, and my cleaning lady paid 40%. The system is tilted towards the rich. The Forbes 400 total net worth has gone from 220 billion to 1.54 trillion, an increase of 7-to-1. You see in legislature that there is lobbying carried on by the powerful over issues such as the estate tax and carried interest for private equity investments. We need to flatten income and payroll taxes, and those making under $30,000 shouldn’t be bothered.'

His statements can be found at:

http://undergroundvalue.blogspot.com/2008/02/notes-from-buffett-meeting-2152008_23.html

Note the statement 'The system is tilted towards the rich.'

Well gosh, it couldn't be that the upper management, with their golden parachutes being compensated at hundreds of times the rate the lowly line laborer having made bad strategic decisions like to keep on making high-profit SUVs when all the handwriting was on the wall, had anything to do with it, right?

Here are a small minority of politically connected people being paid princely sums whether the company does well or not. And when it doesn't, it's always the little guy that takes the brunt of the pain. Worse, they're the whipping boys conservatives always blame when simultaneously trying to defund the working classes safety net to use the money as leverage to borrow even more money to spend on things like wars that build legacies.

-Kerry O.

Like I said, goodness, I can find you the same factors on a multitude of sites run by professionals.

And, even though Warren Buffet pays 17.5% of his income, he is still in the bracket that pays 80%+ of the total tax revenue. His money to spend from his pocket trickles down to those he employs and those who sell things he pays for.

Lower the percent they pay in taxes, the more they will buy in goods to distribute in the economy. Raise the percent each individual pays the less capital they have in the pocket to spend.

Econ 101

The system should be tilted fair, all pay 20%. That is it. It should NOT be weighed on how successful or unsuccessful you are, that is not fair.

So you favor a flat tax?

Interesting.

20% for someone who is about to have their house foreclosed upon is a lot different from 20% for someone who has money to burn.

I'm not going to argue further. I just see no benefit in punishing rich for their wealth trickles and is distributed among all in so many fashions.

We should have a fixed tax income at 20%

All pay 20% no matter how rich or poor you are.

That is what is truly fair.

I agree. CEOs shouldn't be paid so much, especially if the company is losing money.

I concur. Getting rewarded when your company is tanking or tanked is ridiciulous. And, no wonder you are in such dire straights.

Cool, but what about those that make only 10,000 a year?
I feel that those taking 2 or 3 months Vacation a year, and have 4 or 5 houses can afford to pay more, and shouldn't ***** about it. Many peoples children still go to bed hungry at night because their parents arent poor enough for welfare and not rich enough to live comfortably week to week while juggling which bill to pay when!
If they want to share the wealth with their employees then the Tax burden would be shared as well. (What better incentive to pay higher wages and keep down prices)

I'm not against taxes. Id gladly pay 300,000 a year if I could make a million in wages.

While I'm at it hiker, I would make sure an equal number of these CEO and Senator son's were drafted. After a few nights in Afghanistan with a poor redneck hillbilly maybe he would be more apt to pay him more when they are both civilians again, and less likely to outsource his job!

Well, what I said wasn't factored out to specifics, but of course those making 10,000 and less per year fall into a bracket of their own where they shouldn't pay anything, but should also get nothing back as well. Of course if they have children then the issue comes in to getting money back, but that is a whole other can of worms.

Finally, something we BOTH agree upon!

How about collecting the whole kaboodle in sales tax?

Cause if it goes the other way then I'm going to say those who make less than 25 thousand are exempt and then bracket groups after that in a progressive way!

A sales tax would only effect you if you spent. The larger the price, the more tax for the gov to spend in Iraq! You could also, if you're rich, avoid income tax altogether by being a miser!

Fanta,

Yes, that might enlighten them on the problems the poor face in this country and others.

But I don't think it will ever happen.