Rand Paul: 'The Rich And The Middle Class Are Paying Their Fair Share'

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that the richest 1 percent of Americans are taxed fairly.

"We hear that over and over again, 'The rich are not paying their fair share,'" Paul said in response to a question from ABC's Christiane Amanpour about whether Congress should raise taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit.

"The top 1 percent, the millionaires in our country, pay on average 29 percent of their income," Paul said. "That's what they pay on average. If the average carpenter who makes $50,000 to $75,000 a year pays between 15 and 18 percent. The top 50 percent of wage earners pay 96 percent of the income tax. The rich and the middle class are paying their fair share."

Paul's statement is a common Republican talking point. It omits the fact that while the rich pay a hefty share of income taxes, the tax system is more favorable to them than it used to be. The Congressional Budget Office reported in October that after-tax income has grown faster for the richest of the rich than it has for any other group over the past few decades.

The top 1 percent of earners have increased their share of total U.S. income while less of the pie went to everybody else. From 1979 to 2009, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income grow by 275 percent. It grew 65 percent for the next 19 percent of earners and just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Paul did not suggest hiking taxes on the poor, as several Republicans have done in recent months.

Comments

[fortressfountain]

11:20 AM on 02/28/2012

He is not like his dad. He said the price of oil is based on the dollar. This is true, but if you go to the Forex website the dollar does not rise and fall 30% in one day. He says we need to drill for more oil. We have so much excess oil in the country we are exporting it because of our lack of demand.

[James De La Cruz]

01:05 PM on 01/02/2012

The Pauls are good for pointing out the obvious, but while being in the position to offer solutions - they offer none. How does Rand Paul propose squeezing water from rocks?

[Y I Wearblack]

09:56 PM on 12/05/2011

I guess it all depends what you mean by fair. Let's say you got rich by using the pension funds of public workers as collateral and then leveraging it up 50 to 100 times its value. You make a good bet and you are rich. Hallelujah! Or maybe you lose and you don't get rich that day. But the money in the pension fund is gone. Or maybe a house. Lot of betting on houses. Or maybe a job? Lot of jobs outsourced by rich people. In America today the rich get rich by stealing from the poor. Then the rig the game with all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies so in the end that 29 per cent you talk about amounts to zero. How about hedge fund managers? The pay only capital gains on their income. There was once a great philosopher, I don't recall who, but he said that a rich man shall enter heaven as easily as a camel will pass through the eye of a needle. It was never more true than in America today. Read about Ron Paul's candidacy on www.politico2.blogspot.com

[GlowingGoingGone]

08:07 AM on 11/22/2011

This simplistic (present day American Libertarian) ideology is self-serving, self-perpetuating (as opposed to self-sustaining) & yet ... disturbingly, self-defeating (look around you). Rather than seeking to evolve or adapt systems to ever-changing conditions (otherwise known as reality) it seems to revolve around circular reasoning. This ideology uses 'mental & often times, mutual, masturbation' techniques or strategies. Personally, I view the worst (most self-defeating) aspect & its most prevalent feature is the ideology leads nowhere (this is, by definition, mental masturbation).

On a more positive note, more people seem to be noticing. In other words, people seem to be fine-tuning their bs detectors & calling the Libertarians out.

[damdelion12]

11:40 PM on 11/21/2011

George Wills is correct - Newt is the classic rental, while Obama reads "FOR SALE"...

[GeorgieGirl9]

09:58 PM on 11/21/2011

"Paul's statement is a common Republican talking point. It omits the fact that while the rich pay a hefty share of income taxes, the tax system is more favorable to them than it used to be. The Congressional Budget Office reported in October that after-tax income has grown faster for the richest of the rich than it has for any other group over the past few decades."

Someone needs to explain to me how a tax code that is progressive and has higher earners paying more as a percentage of their income than lower earners is more favorable to the high earners. And what does any of it have to do with how much money people make to start with?

[Jeff1958]

10:08 PM on 11/21/2011

For starters, people who work for a living pay federal taxes at a top rate of 35%. People like the richest of the rich get their income from capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. Regular people pay FICA at 6.2% of their income. The wealthiest pay closer to 0.062%. Shall I continue?

[SIMPLICIMUSS]

10:22 PM on 11/21/2011

What you say is true. Although question your FICA FIGS. Depends on their income. There should be no earnings Cap, and there should be a means test !. Buffet and all the other fund Mgrs are scrooin everybody, as well as Bon Jovi and all the big $$ earners ( A-ROD NYY ) . They should be paying more taxes, as well as the % 47 that pay no Fed. Inc. Taxes, and are raking in the $$ with their " Sidelines "

[bcoggins1967]

09:08 PM on 11/29/2011

The vast majority of people in this country whether they be poor or rich work for a living. Only the top of the top of 1% take most of their income in capital gains so what's the point of going after their money. It's nothing but a class warfare play to whip up the dumb masses like you and get you all frenzied so you will go out and stupidly pull the lever again for a tax and spend liberal socialist like Obama. Enter Occupy. You fail to realize or omit the fact that capital gains are based on making money from what typically amounts to risky investments. Just who is going to put their capital at risk if the reward is so meager due to an overly burdensome capital gains tax rate. The low capital gains rate is an incentive to the whole investor class which in your warped view is only the rich. You are not honest enough to admit the truth that is that virtually all of us to some extent are part of the investor class in that most of us have a 401K or 403B or an IRA of some sort not a cushy government pension. I invest a good portion of my savings in the stock market and certainly don't want the government taking more of my money if I should be so fortunate to earn it by taking the risk and winning. Why should the government get paid off of my risk capital?

[rowdiman]

08:22 PM on 11/21/2011

No one came to his Birthday Parties as a child and we are all paying for it.

[MB1East]

06:46 PM on 11/21/2011

Here is the basic question that I never hear asked: the rich have the lowest tax rate in decades, and we are in major debt, so what is wrong with raising it just a little? Am so fed up with the national conversation being redirected all the time. The Bush tax cuts we're designed to be temporary. End them!

[GeorgieGirl9]

09:59 PM on 11/21/2011

End them for everyone or no one.

[GodBlessTexas]

05:36 PM on 11/21/2011

Basically it's a bunch of libs who don't work and want to take from those who do through big government.

[CaptainRenault]

05:54 PM on 11/21/2011

Time to disconnect from the Kool-Aid IV in your arm.

^ ^

[patricksmom]

09:15 PM on 11/21/2011

You must have voted for "PARRY". It shows.

[zzeltar]

03:54 PM on 11/21/2011

The system is fixed for the 1% http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-21/billionaires-duck-buffett-17-tax-target-avoiding-reporting-cash-to-irs.html#

[CaptainRenault]

05:59 PM on 11/21/2011

Excellent article! -- It really puts the lie to the argument that guys like Rand PAul and other righty ideologues try to make.

I thought that this passage from the linked article was notable:

**Tip of Iceberg** -
The rate at which the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income actually paid federal income taxes --their so-called effective tax rate -- fell to about 18 percent in 2008 from almost 30 percent in 1995, IRS data show. That’s the tip of the iceberg, since much of their wealth never converts into income on a tax return, McCaffery said.
* * * *

Earth to GodblessTexas: Please read article.

Thank you.

^ ^

[zzeltar]

06:49 PM on 11/21/2011

Very much my pleasure! Here's a great book (on effective/nominal tax games etc)- http://www.amazon.com/Fifteen-Biggest-Lies-about-Economy/dp/0470643927 Holland is amazing! Fanned ;)

[mataylor16]

02:05 PM on 11/21/2011

Who really gives a rip what somebody's 'fair share' (whatever that means) is. You tax the rich to prevent aristocracies.

[Paul Stacey]

03:00 PM on 11/21/2011

Or at least to prevent the aristocracy from having so much power they can interfere with governance. Which is what is going on now.

[CaptainRenault]

06:00 PM on 11/21/2011

America is now effectively a plutocracy. The moneied intersts get the rules written to favor them and their agendas hold sway over the majority of the electorate.

^ ^

[rgilley]

01:04 PM on 11/21/2011

Rand Paul is blatantly lying and hoping none of us will fact check him.
The rate for people who make make thier living on capital is 15% he knows that very well and MOST of the 1% make their living on capital.
In the last 30 years THIS is what income looks like!

Top tier has seen thier incomes rise 258%
The middle has seen THIER income rise 40%
The bottom 20% has seen thier incomes rise 18%

These numbers are not questioned by either side....so just who is the American dream set up to serve???

[BCS]

01:32 PM on 11/21/2011

Well, if you want people to risk their money, you have to let them keep most of their gains. That's the way that it is.

If you tax away a large portion of the gains. it becomes too risky to invest and guess what?
Businesses stop expanding.
They will buy gold instead.

The Left always bangs the same drum- that the rich don't pay enough- but if we did it THEIR way things would be even worse than they are.

The way you get wealth re-distributed is not through tax rates, but through providing opportunity to move up. That is how I became a large taxpayer.

So, how do you do that?

Basically by invoking regulations that both protect the public and allow businesses to expand.
Unfortunately, our regulations are so screwed up that they not only do not protect the public, in many cases, but they stifle healthy economic growth.

So, in many cases, government provides the worst of both.

[Minnesota Black]

01:44 PM on 11/21/2011

"That's the way that it is."

This is a statement of faith, not a reasoned argument.

Do you see a problem with political opinion boiling down to beliefs instead of reason?

[LemonLyman]

02:20 PM on 11/21/2011

This is an unreasoned and baseless argument for among other reasons the fact that there was plenty of investment before the rates for capital gains was scaled back to benefit the rich. Get your Republican talking points out of here. And no matter what bracket you are in -- you are implying you are wealthy -- you are not not a "large taxpayer". Pay your fair share of 39% -- why would you want to be a rich person in a poor country?

[Ppossom]

12:04 PM on 11/21/2011

The notion, I believe, is that income should be "flat taxed," and that taxation should not be based upon the "means to pay."

Even Rand Paul, as corrupt as he is, has better sense than to suggest we squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Until income is better distributed in the USA, the wealthy will need to support a disproportionately large share of the tax burden. Since they benefit more than other classes in this society, that is a perfectly reasonable expectation: the cost of American opportunity for them should be in proportion to the benefit they enjoy.

Rand Paul should consider expatriation to a "no income tax" state, like Somalia.

[BCS]

01:36 PM on 11/21/2011

Please stop with the Somalia comparisons.
No one is saying that we want zero taxes, okay?

But raising taxes on the rich will hardly make a dent in the problem.
So the whole argument is moot anyway.

But okay, let's presume you get your small tax increase.

Okay, now what do you do?

[maninal2]

03:18 PM on 11/21/2011

"raising taxes on the rich will hardly make a dent in the problem"

Which problem would that be? When tax rates on the wealthy are artificially low the excess capital is used for both speculation and manipulation. The tax rates of the 1950s encouraged long term investment instead of short term gain. You should study the history of taxation a little deeper.

[Solid Snake]

02:49 PM on 11/28/2011

http://mises.org/daily/2066

[stopthemadness69]

11:16 AM on 11/21/2011

"The top 1 percent, the millionaires in our country, pay on average 29 percent of their income," Paul said. ........................................................................................................................................Atleast he is willing to admit that the million dollar earners, pay nowhere near the top rate of 35%. If they pay 29% now instead of 35%, what will they pay if the top rate goes down to 28%, like the GOP want? 22%?

[BCS]

01:39 PM on 11/21/2011

You forget- 29% is a LOT-nearly 1/3- and that is only federal income tax.
Top tax rate earners in New York pay about 50% overall in taxes.

I don't care how much money you make, taking over 50% is oppressive!

So you don't think 50% total taxation is enough?

How about you cut some of that waste and fraud before you go demanding more than 50%?

[camanokat]

01:57 PM on 11/21/2011

It's hilarious that you are promoting lower taxes for zillionaires. Face it, you're never going to be one.

[stopthemadness69]

02:33 PM on 11/21/2011

You CAN NOT blame the federal government for the 21% of that 50% tax that is from the states. The federal government only sets the federal rates, they have nothing to do with the state rates, that would be the job of your state congress. I don't care about total taxation in regards to the discussion on federal income tax rates. Why is NY taxing people 21%? I also find it funny how when defending lower federal rates people throw in state tax and sales tax and property tax, but seem to pretend those taxes don't exist when complaining about the poor who pay no federal income tax?

[Mac88]

03:57 PM on 11/21/2011

A 35% tax can be offset by an increase in wages of 6% over 8 years. If those at the top have achieved an increase of 400% over the last 30 years or 13% per year, then someone else has been paying the taxes for them over the last 26 years.

[stopthemadness69]

04:49 PM on 11/21/2011

Actually no one has been paying them, which is why we are in hock up to our eyeballs. We have borrowed in order to run the nation rather than ask those at the top to help out more.

[USFGrad08]

10:50 AM on 11/21/2011

STOP BASHING THE RICH, BASH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FED RESERVE.

They are the ones causing the inflation, do your homework on the Federal Reserve. They should be occupying the Fed Reserve not wall street.

The rich are the ones who create jobs and infrastructure if the environment is right.

We need to get a hold on inflation, get things reasonable. Then the rich you all hate so much and despise will hire you and your children. The Fed reserve can adjust the interest rates to make it very profitable for the rich to invest. Yet inflation is so bad right now they have to reduce the interest rates to get a hold on this. The interest rates make their ROI worthwhile, they aren't investing right now because they can't get the required rate of return that simple.

Stop blaming them, blame your government for the wars, the spending, the corruption and the bailouts.

We should aspire to be them, not despise them. And them I don't mean Kim K, I mean the investment bankers who stayed up all night mastering calculus and doing things the average person cannot. So what if they used their intellegence to take advantage of the average Joe. Last time I checked any car mechanic or A/C guy will rip me off without thinking twice.

[stopthemadness69]

11:19 AM on 11/21/2011

The top 25 hedgefund managers earn an average of 1 BILLION each, every year, yet they only pay 15% capital gains tax and NO SS or medicare taxes, rather than 35% income tax and 10.4% fica. Just how many people are each of them hiring every year with the 30.4% savings from their low taxes?

[USFGrad08]

04:32 PM on 11/21/2011

1 billion seems like a lot doesn't it, it deserves capitalization. Well what about the 4 trillion Obama spent?

If he wouldn't have spent that money and we balanced the budget, got a handle on inflation. The fed reserve could stimulate the economy and get interest rates back up. (I am sure you are educated and understand how the federal reserve literally has power over heating up/cooling down the economy)

If the environment was right those same hedgefund managers would be investing in start up companies/side jobs and hiring like crazy, but I guess I shouldn't tell you this. They would hire tons and tons of people but they would make more BILLIONS off of hiring people and stimulating the economy.

But apparently you ahve a problem wiht people doing their jobs, being very good at it and making ridiculous money.

The reality is, we want the environment to be friendly to the rich! It is in our best interest!

[BCS]

01:43 PM on 11/21/2011

I don't agree that rip offs are okay- not by a long shot. In fact, those people should be in jail and the fact that they are not should make you think twice about BOTH corrupt parties.

But I agree with the rest of your comment!

[USFGrad08]

04:12 PM on 11/21/2011

I wasn't saying it was right or if i agree with ripping off, just saying that it is in human nature. Everyone is guilty of it, we are born sinners, it is pretty apparent that we all act in sin.

Also I just had my blower moter go out on my A/C and the guy told me it was $770 to fix, i look the parts up online and they were $250. It woudl prob take the guys about 20 min to install, I guess $500 for 20 min of labor is fair? lol