New congressional study says what Dems have been saying for the last 6 years.
Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
The congress will have abandoned its moral duties if they reauthorize the top tax cuts, giving the millionaire class yet another break at the expense of average Americans.
Damn those rich bastards for not paying their fair share (at the end of OW’s link):
Yeah, they’re paying more because they make more. This is always touted by the right as a big revelation when to normal people it’s common sense.
Yeah, they’re paying more because they make more. This is always touted by the right as a big revelation when to normal people it’s common sense.
Of course that common sense doesn’t exist for people on the left when they complain about the dollar amounts of the tax cuts the wealthiest get. Because they pay more, they’ll obviously see a higher dollar.
In addition the article also says:
Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.
In its report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the overall effective federal tax rate edged up to 20 percent in 2004, from 19.8 percent the year before.
But even with that increase, Americans faced lower tax rates than any time since 1979.
So what expense are you talking about exactly?
The expense being the deficit created from not collecting those revenues at the top. What’s the sense of a break for people who can afford it and who aren’t putting the money back into the economy?
The top 1% in 2004 (according to the CBO report) earned 16.1% share of income and payed 25.3 share of taxes.
In fact, the bottom 4 quintiles (the bottom 80%) all pay a smaller share of taxes than their share of income.
In other words, your much despised group is the only one that pays a bigger share of taxes than its share of income.
Those bastards!
“payed”
OMG…did I type that?
I’ve met people who still insist that the Poll Tax was perfectly fair, so I usually just leave them to it.
Oliver, the deficit is in decline and those at the top account for the largest share of those revenues. The politicians in Washington create deficits with their absurd spending habits, and yet the solution is always to just take from somebody else to make up for it.
Why? Because according to you, they can “afford it.” Why should anybody accept that reasoning? If your employer came to you and said “Oliver, the company isn’t doing that good, so we’re taking $100 out of your paycheck each week to dump back into the company. We know you can afford it.”, would you just roll over and say, “Hey, no problem!” Hell no. You’d tell them to tighten their belts and pay you what you’ve earned.
Why should it be any different with the government? And unless these people are hoarding their money in cash under their bed, they most certainly are putting it back into the economy. Even when they invest it, there is a chain of people who have to do all the work in order for it to happen. Somebody benefits along the way.
Let’s look at the actual data (effective federal tax rates) comparing 2000 to 2004:
Lowest Quintile drops from 6.4 to 4.5. That’s about a 30% drop.
Second Quintile dropped about 23%
Middle and Fourth Quintiles dropped 16%
and Highest Quintile dropped about 10%
The tax rate for the top 1% dropped less than 6%.
The same trend is true if you look at just income tax, though the NYT mixes the data between effective tax rates and income tax rates between the different quintiles (without being clear to the reader). In other words, they pick the most dramatic numbers for the groups and ignore which tax qualification its using.
While income taxes dropped more for the lower quintiles than for the upper quintiles, the effect appears less dramatic than the effective federal tax rates since the upper quintiles pay additional federal taxes on other sources.
Don’t depend on the NYT false spin. Look at the actual data from the CBO.
Argue the data.
Top quintile is the only group to pay a larger share in taxes than they earn.
The top quintiles had a smaller rate of tax relief than each successive lower quintile.
That called “progressive.”
And let me ask you this Oliver: Why are Democrats so vehemently opposed to means testing things like Social Security and Medicare? I don’t understand it quite frankly. The wealthiest seniors benefit greatly from both SS and Medicare.
The retiree that is forced to work a part time job in order to supplement his retirement income has his SS benefits reduced because of the income he is earning. Yet, a wealthy senior who makes a good deal of money from investments gets the full SS benefit each month because his investment cash is not counted as “income.” Most people get out of SS what they paid in within 5-7 years. After that, it becomes an entitlement. Medicare is an entitlement, yet Bill Gates will pay no more to use it than the average Joe who retires at the same time.
Yet when means-testing is raised as a possible solution, Democrats are the first ones to shoot it down which doesn’t make much sense.
If welfare recipients have to go and get jobs or lose benefits, then wealthy retirees should kick in more for Medicare and get less in SS payments once their contributions have been paid out to them. Wouldn’t you agree?
I’m left wondering, as usual, why it’s so damed important that the rich pay more.
Considering it’s involuntary, it seems kind of in violation of the American spirit of things: You know, denying people the freedom to spend their own money as they wish.
Anybody want to weigh in on why Democrats view the rich as cash cows?
“Why are Democrats so vehemently opposed to means testing things like Social Security and Medicare?”
The short answer is that they’re both programs that function as a safety net, not as ways to maximize individual’s benefits, if you follow; and to maximize public support by keeping them open to the entire public. The programs exist for the public welfare, not individuals’. Obviously it makes no sense in the particular case of Warren Buffet receiving SS, but as a broad fallback mechanism open to everyone, it makes perfect sense.
“Anybody want to weigh in on why Democrats view the rich as cash cows?”
The issue is that for top earners, the marginal utility for their share is far less that a poorer person’s — that’s something that the flat taxers and conservative talking point vomiters don’t grasp, but that a majority of the American people, election after election, have agreed upon and upheld time and again. It’s a piece of common sense justice not just in America, but throughout the modern world.
You and others find justice in taking what is not yours. The wealthiest already pay more than their share. How much is enough? At what point will you and “common sense justice” determine that all is “fair”?
Dr AGH :: marginal utility? Isn’t that code for “they really don’t need it”?
So, I guess if a rich guy gets mugged, or burglarized, we don’t get his belongings back because he didn’t really need them, and he can always buy more?
The truth is, the money of the rich is theirs, just as the money of the poor is theirs, and the government has no moral right to it, and the rich have no moral obligation to submit to legislative extortion.
But, even within the Constitutional framework, they have every right to protect themselves from this plunder by allying themselves with whatever politicians will protect them.
“the government has no moral right”
Don’t cry for me Argentina, huh? The government is made up of the people, and the American people’s democratic verdict on progressive taxation is quite clear. Meanwhile, the average guy’s paycheck hasn’t changed in the last 6 years. How much has the top one percent gained recently? 18% in 2004 alone. Not to mention the fact that class mobility is now as static and frozen as Old Europe — now is not the time to turn the clock back to 1910. Luckily, progressive taxation isn’t going anywhere. Your Quixotic quest to ease the burden on Paris Hilton (In the name of morality!) is quite helpful to explaining why you lost Senate seats in VA and out West, by the way. Nobody likes taxes, but the rich will pay at a higher rate than the middle class and the poor. That’s our democratic consensus on the matter. If you don’t like it, I encourage you to move to Brazil, where the wealthy have devised many methods of preventing their income from in any way helping the poor.
@Jay:
“the deficit is in decline and those at the top account for the largest share of those revenues”
The hole isn’t growing as fast as it was and the rich are digging more slowly. Hooray!
“The deficit is in decline” is putting the best possible face on bad economic news. We’re still spending well more than the government takes in.
“and those at the top account for the largest share of those revenues”
Of course they do. The ones “at the top” are the ones with the most income. Even with a perfectly flat tax structure, they’d still account for the largest share of revenues.
Your arguments duck the real issue: when we have an annual deficit and a war to finance, should there be tax cuts? Reasonable people can answer “yes” (but they’ll have a difficult time making their case). The question that follows is: “What’s the best way to allocate those cuts?”
Your answer seems to be: give the cuts to the people who are already the most well off.
@fd:
“I’m left wondering, as usual, why it’s so damed important that the rich pay more.”
The progressivity in tax rates has been a feature of the federal tax system for a long, long time. As a matter of practicality, it’s easier for the government to take its revenue from people who have money than it is to take revenue from people who don’t have money.
From a perspective of fairness, the people who enjoy the most benefits of our society are capable of carrying a bigger share of the burden.
Unless you’re advocating an absolutely flat percentage tax (including a flat zero tax rate) those with high incomes will always pay more.
90% of the gains, only 37% of the tax burden. I’d say the Paris Hiltons are doing quite well under this arrangement. You can tell a person’s character by the battles they pick to fight.
Dr AGH: I’m not moving anywhere. And you, of course, were forced to side step the thrust of my question.
The fact is that the Founders never intended for individuals to pay income taxes.
There exists no philosophical criteria for determining who should pay, and how much.
It is arbitrary and capricious.
As for the consensus, the Democrats feed people the line that “You should pay your share”, and then stoke the fires of class envy by bragging about how they ’soak the rich.’
Instead of skirting around the issue, answer a simple question: Why should a person earning X + n dollars pay a higher tax rate than a person earning X dollars?
And, no South American diversions this time, OK?
“The fact is that the Founders never intended for individuals to pay income taxes.”
I. Don’t. Care. But needless to say, you’re wrong. If you’re truly interested in proving Jefferson a flat taxer, you’ll actually have to work to back up that claim. I expect you will not do so.
“There exists no philosophical criteria for determining who should pay, and how much.”
No, it’s determined by democratic mechanisms, and while the specific rates vary over time and society, it remains essentially universal throughout all modern, democratic nations.
“Why should a person earning X + n dollars pay a higher tax rate than a person earning X dollars?”
Because the consensus view of the citizens living here is that they should. Because in a modern industrial society, that class can better bear the burden. Societies in which the rich don’t pay their fair share tend to be basket-cases. Brazil is a prime example of what happens to a democracy when wealth becomes overly concentrated. Since 1500 the rich have won their battles in “class warfare”; if we let them win in the U.S., we’ll be like them: with a permanent underclass and overclass, no social mobility, no innovation, crime, entrenched corruption, massive exploitation, and crumbling infrastructure, with the wealthy hidden away behind their security fences with their armed guards. AKA the Republican dream.
Progressive taxation, at it’s heart, is about protecting the middle class — the class which keeps our politics, economy, and society stable. The GOP wages class warfare on behalf of the rich, and so is indifferent to the plight of the middle class, and hence, America’s future.
“The fact is that the Founders never intended for individuals to pay income taxes.”
I. Don’t. Care. But needless to say, you’re wrong. If you’re truly interested in proving Jefferson a flat taxer, you’ll actually have to work to back up that claim. I expect you will not do so.
“There exists no philosophical criteria for determining who should pay, and how much.”
No, it’s determined by democratic mechanisms, and while the specific rates vary over time and society, it remains essentially universal throughout all modern, democratic nations.
“Why should a person earning X + n dollars pay a higher tax rate than a person earning X dollars?”
Because the consensus view of the citizens living here is that they should. Because in a modern industrial society, that class can better bear the burden. Societies in which the rich don’t pay their fair share tend to be basket-cases. Brazil is a prime example of what happens to a democracy when wealth becomes overly concentrated. Since 1500 the rich have won their battles in “class warfare”; if we let them win in the U.S., we’ll be like them: with a permanent underclass and overclass, no social mobility, no innovation, crime, entrenched corruption, massive exploitation, and crumbling infrastructure, with the wealthy hidden away behind their security fences with their armed guards. AKA the Republican dream.
Progressive taxation, at it’s heart, is about protecting the middle class — the class which keeps our politics, economy, and society stable. The GOP wages class warfare on behalf of the rich, and so is indifferent to the plight of the middle class, and hence, America’s future.
Quaker: If rich people pay more, because their 20% is greater than, say, your 20%, I have no problem with that.
It’s the higher tax rate I object to.
I have no taxable income, for me the problem is strictly academic.
The “benefit of society” argument cuts no ice with me, because a person can only drive in one car at a time, on one highway at a time, and be defended by one army at a time.
He does not owe “society” anything because he can buy an Escalade, and you can only afford an Accord
Brazil is a prime example of what happens to a democracy when wealth becomes overly concentrated.
I. Don’t. Care. [That answer worked for you, no?]
Not to mention that I sincerely doubt that Brazil’s economy is a wreck because they don’t tax the rich. And please don’t even try to prove it. *
And you only repeated yourself — “It is because it is.” If propping up the middle class is all we need do, then why not simply take all the money from the rich and divide it up between the poor until they become middle class, and give the rest to the middle class?
The answer to that is obvious — which is why you’re avoiding it.
The rich are rich because of what they do, not because of what they possess. They are neither thieves, nor greedy pigs.
They get up and go to work as CFO’s and CEO’s, doctors and dentists, inventors and whatever.
They give us Slinkies and Birkenstocks, Oldsmobiles and Gateway computers, MySpace and YouTube. And they deserve whatever the market will bear for their efforts. You wouldn’t even be involved in this thread if Bill Gates weren’t a billionaire.
*
CIA – World Fact Book – Brazil
“The “benefit of society” argument cuts no ice with me”
It would if you lived in a society where inequality was much worse. Fortunately, it cuts ice with our society. In fact, it cuts ice in every industrialized nation, as far as I know, for the reason that the government has to safeguard not only people’s interests on an individual basis, but as a society as well. Which is why we vote on these things. Voters have decided that there’s a lot of services they want from the government, and that this is the fairest way to pay for it. People who don’t like it can work within the system in order to change people’s minds — in your case, crying “class warfare” with your mouth while redistrubting wealth to the rich with your hands. At least you’ve backed off your factually bankrupt claims about the founding fathers.
16% of the income and 37% of the tax burden.
In other words, the millionaires are paying more than double the share of their income.
That is with the Bush tax cuts that Oliver says is unfair.
No one has yet proposed at what point the rich has enough of their earnings confiscated.
According to Oliver and others, the rich aren’t paying enough. So tell us how much is “fair”?
If rich people pay more, because their 20% is greater than, say, your 20%, I have no problem with that.
It’s the higher tax rate I object to.
Then it is you, not the rest of us, who holds the radical idea.
Progressivity of rates has been a feature of income taxation for a long, long time. By your definition, our legacy of “class warfare” stretches back to WW I.
What it comes down to, then, is a debate over the appropriate tax rate for your hypothetical n in an income of X+n. Mr. Bush has chosen to reduce that n by a few basis points, and elects that option over other priorities. Debating the wisdom of that choice isn’t “class warfare.” It’s just plain ol’ fiscal policy.
Also this:
the Democrats feed people the line that “You should pay your share”, and then stoke the fires of class envy by bragging about how they ’soak the rich.’
Example, please.
If rich people pay more, because their 20% is greater than, say, your 20%, I have no problem with that.
It’s the higher tax rate I object to.
Then it is you, not the rest of us, who holds the radical idea.
Progressivity of rates has been a feature of income taxation for a long, long time. By your definition, our legacy of “class warfare” stretches back to WW I.
What it comes down to, then, is a debate over the appropriate tax rate for your hypothetical n in an income of X+n. Mr. Bush has chosen to reduce that n by a few basis points, and elects that option over other priorities. Debating the wisdom of that choice isn’t “class warfare.” It’s just plain ol’ fiscal policy.
Also this:
the Democrats feed people the line that “You should pay your share”, and then stoke the fires of class envy by bragging about how they ’soak the rich.’
Example, please.
Yeah, I’m quite aware of Brazil’s economic profile. The fact remains, the fundamental problem in politics, economics, and society generally is the lack of a Brazilian middle class, which is itself a relic of colonial times. I’m not anti-rich, but a society that is divided between rich and poor will not function as a democracy for long. In the U.S. context, tax policy should act as a steward of the growth of the middle class and everyone else, rather than acting to fossilize classes as they are just because you’ve got a “moral” hard-on for everyone paying the same rate.
At least you’ve backed off your factually bankrupt claims about the founding fathers.
I didn’t back off. It was no longer necessary to point out the obvious. There was no room in the Constitution, by the most liberal of interpretations, for an income tax, until Lincoln’s temporary tax during the Civil War.
Even withholding of Income Tax was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
I know a little about the IRS, having been a Revenue Officer for about 15 years.
A friend of mine once described our job as, “Going out on the field of financial battle, and bayoneting the wounded.”
Thank you. I’m quite aware of Brazil’s economic profile. The fact remains, their fundamental problem in politics, economics, and society generally is the lack of a Brazilian middle class, which is itself a relic of colonial policy. I’m not anti-rich, but a society that is divided between rich and poor will be at best a weak, unsteady democracy, vulnerable to demagogues and military coups, as the Brazilian example shows. I know you don’t care about our own country’s future, but it’s weird for you to brag about it, Frank.
In the U.S. context, tax policy should act as a steward of the growth of the middle class and everyone else, rather than acting to fossilize classes as they are just because you’ve got a “moral” hard-on for everyone paying the same rate on paper. Frankly, I’m just surprised you’re so hostile to the expressed values of the American people.
“90% of the gains, only 37% of the tax burden.”
“16% of the income and 37% of the tax burden.”
My number’s referencing gains in income during the Bush years. Needless to say, if you make the average guy’s wage (median wage) you haven’t gained shit in the past 6 years. I repeat: the people in the middle have not gained in the past 6 years. The people at the top have gotten it all. Your policy of waging further class war on the middle through your tax cuts is both immoral and electorally unwise.
“No one has yet proposed at what point the rich has enough of their earnings confiscated.”
Wahh. So what? That’s because most of us Americans don’t see the taxations rates of the rich as a hard and fast principle, merely one priority to be balanced among many. I personally like the idea of going back to mid-nineties levels, but what’s practically wrong with the Scandinavian model? Scandinavia has the best competitiveness rankings in the world, with no corresponding population exodus due to “moral” reasons — and it’s been ratified by the people who live there over and over again. Why do you have conservatives have such a problem with democracy?
Frank, is your claim about the Constitution or the Founding Fathers? Because Jefferson scholars will disagree with you and point out his own writings on progressive taxation.
If your claim is merely about the Constitution, well, fortunately for you and America, believe it is expected to change with the times, especially since we’ve gone from being a nation of farmers to trying to help shape the world to be a better place.
Yeah…the lower your quintile, the bigger your percentage of tax cut. That’s really stickin’ it to ‘em.
Unfortunately for the party of Paris Hilton, the middle class is waking up to the fact that the GOP’s appeal are all lip service intended to distract them from the fact that the GOP only helps the rich. Similar to how they treat evangelicals: with contempt, except at election time. Tax cuts won’t be enough to win back VA and OH in two years, not if the economy doesn’t improve the median wage, and not if health costs keep skyrocketing. The GOP will never has been the party of the little guy, and never will be.
Dr AGH: According to you, not me, because I never said these things:
I don’t care about our nation’s future. You gathered this from the idea, I suppose, that I don’t support higher taxes for the “rich.”
I’m hostile to the expressed values of the American people. You gathered this, I suppose, from your notion that the American people favor high taxes. I disagree with that. Call it hostility? OK
I’ve got a moral hard – on for everyone paying equal taxes. For some, that is known as fairness. An unfamiliar concept for power – hungry Democrats, I grant you, but I’ve lived with it as a guidepost for most of my life.
Finally, for the record, just because we are not a nation of farmers, doesn’t mean we should one more penny in taxes than is absolutely necessary.
The so – called “needs” of the National Government should not be the determining factor in how much people pay.
There was a time when the Federal Government played a small role in our lives. I will never be convinced that as that role increased, our lives have improved.
If rich people pay more, because their 20% is greater than, say, your 20%, I have no problem with that.
It’s the higher tax rate I object to.
Then you’re the one with radical ideas, not the rest of us.
Progressivity in tax rates has been a feature of the federal tax code for a long, long time. It’s not about to go away and until it does, what we’re debating isn’t the philosophical justification for tax rates, but the practical application of fiscal policy.
In other words, if we can afford to reduce the tax burden by $1 billion, what’s our top priority? Lower taxes for Bill Gates? Or lower taxes for people who can barely afford food and heat?
There are a number of reasons for a progressive system of taxation that nobody has mentioned yet (least I don’t think so – sorry if I missed something):
1. Traditionally the rich derive greater benefit from governmental services. If Pete Pauper walks to work and Richie Rich punishes the roads with his six-ton hummer on his daily thirty-minute commute from the exurbs, why should they both pay the same rate for roadbuilding and upkeep? If Richie has 5 mil in property assets and all Pete has to his name is an old TV and an Oakland Raiders beer can hat, why should they pay the same rate for property protection by the police and the military?
2. In modern times the progressive income tax goes some way to counter a number of other revenue mechanisms that are flat or regressive, such as the sales tax, the payroll tax, gasoline tax, “sin” taxes, etc. Add all those taxes up, and factor in all the deductions and dodges that high-income people can take, and historically people in all but the lowest income brackets pay a pretty similar rate.
3. Social stability: as my civil-engineer grandfather used to say about road cuts: if you don’t cut your banks to 2:1, then mother nature will do it for you. Likewise, vast income gaps will eventually be brought closer to equilibrium one way or another. Progressive taxation is one way to do it without stirring things up too much. Huge income gaps are unhealthy for society and eventually lead to breakdown. And “envy” or irrational “hatred” of the rich is not the problem: the upper end of the income range drives consumer culture and drags prices upwards. 100 years ago few people had cars and nobody had computers. Nowadays its hard to get by without both. The price of just keeping your head above water keeps on growing.
4. Finally, Dr. Anatole has mentioned this already, but there is the basic issue of doing what is right. Historically wealthier people have recognized that since they have more disposible income left when they finish buying their basic staples of life, they not only can but should contribute a higher percentage to the common good. Lincoln’s wartime tax was incredddddibly progressive, and Lincoln was no pinko. It’s only in the last hundred years or so with the growth of various philosophies of selfishness that anyone has shed any tears over the brutal unfairness of the progressive income tax (which is less progressive now than at most times in its history).
It is very progressive right now.
The 2004 share of income for the lower four quintiles is HIGHER than it was in 2000.
The 2004 share of income for the upper quintile is LOWER than it was in 2000.
Yet the reverse is true for the federal tax liabilities. The bottom three quintiles have a LOWER tax share and the top two have a HIGHER share.
LOWER income share and HIGHER tax share for the top quintile = MORE PROGRESSIVE than in 2000.
Argue the facts.
In no real order:
* As one’s income rises, the percentage of it that goes to necessities goes down. Thus, the progressive income tax taxes excess wealth.
* One thing on which the right wing focuses are the taxes that burden the rich while ignoring those burden the poor and middle class. Usually, this means only mentioning the progressive income tax, the estate tax (greatest tax ever invented) and Earned Income Tax Credit while ignoring Social Security and Medicare taxes and various user fees, which are regressive taxes (Medicare is flat). Ignoring Social Security and Medicare taxes is odd when you remember that EITC was devised as a way to relieve the burden of those taxes on low-income workers.
* The right-wing also ignores state taxes, which are notoriously regressive. Property taxes are mildly regressive or flat, depending on the implementation, and sales taxes are hideously regressive. Thus, when the right-wing talks about making the tax burden more level, it is really talking about making the tax burden regressive.
* The percentage burden of the progressive taxes shifting to the rich is meaningless to the average taxpayer. What matters is how much he pays, and how good is government that he gets in return. The specific points of the Bush tax cuts were chosen to create this statistical shifting.
* Making sure the lower classes have a share of the pie keeps economic multipliers going through their purchases of staple goods. Everyone benefits, which is one reason the Western world had such great economic growth in the post-war period.
It’s only in the last hundred years or so … that anyone has shed any tears over the brutal unfairness of the progressive income tax (which is less progressive now than at most times in its history).
Hundred years or so?
The Income Tax Amendment was ratified in 1913!
In other words, people have complained about the progressivity of the income tax before it was law!
Damn right they have…
And not because of some new – found “selfishness”.
Historically wealthier people have recognized that since they have more disposible income left when they finish buying their basic staples of life, they not only can but should contribute a higher percentage to the common good.
So who’s complaining about the income tax? Just me?
Stop it, please, you’re giving me a headache.
There have been flat tax plans that I know of going back to the 70’s.
The Laffer Curve really works — tax [rate] cuts increase revenue. Period.
Progressive income tax is a Democratic shibboleth, which plays to class envy.
End of story.
The “effective federal tax rate” takes ALL those into account. That’s why I use it (from the CBO) rather than just the income tax rate.
As I keep saying and the facts keep showing:
The middle and lower quintiles now have a greater share of income along with a smaller share of the tax burden.
The Bush tax cuts have made the tax structure MORE progressive since 2000.
OW and company are only misrepresenting the Bush tax cuts (which are federal), so that’s what data I’m discussing.
JWG: Don’t let facts get in the way of a good left wing harangue:
Soak the rich! Soak the rich!
Yay, TAXES!
Tax breaks for the rich and program cuts for the poor.
Just look at how the rich suffer and the poor make out like bandits
Republican economic talking points are pure bullsh*t. Laffer curve included.
There’s rich and then there’s RICH.
Of course, harping on income taxes ignores payroll, state, city, sales, and other forms of taxation that when taken into account actually bring the overall taxation rates for rich and poor to about 17-20%. Also ignored are the slash and burn tactics by the Bush administration that have decimated middle and low income programs for education, health, veteran’s benefits, and so on. What’s more, no one has addressed how, after inflation, the average income of most middle and lower income Americans has gone down some 2-4+% while incomes for the wealthy have risen by that much or more. So any argument that the rich are getting soaked and the poor are somehow getting a free lunch has to disregard all of the above, along with any increases in state and local taxes to compensate for federal cuts (but Bush’s cuts are federal…sniff…sniff…no fair inluding increases in stae and city taxes…wahhhh). At the same time, housing, education and medical costs have skyrocketed. The ballooning costs for these three areas alone annihilates any pitiful tax gains for the middle and lower class.
But wait, we haven’t addressed corporate tax cheats, with some 60% of corporations in the U.S. paying no taxes at all since 1996. And what about all the cuts to capital gains and estate taxes (not to mention the push to wipe out the estate tax entirely)? All of those tax cuts benefit virtually only the well heeled. We’re still not done. The I.R.S. has openly admitted that it skews its investigations to middle and lower income individuals and often ignores blatant wealthy tax cheats.
Holy crap you have to be stunningly stupid or rich to buy GOP economic spin.
Bill L. | Jan 8, 2007 10:25:55 PM
“Holy crap you have to be stunningly stupid or rich [ or Frank DiSalle ] to buy GOP economic spin.”
Do you idiots really believe we can tax cut our way toward income equality and a balanced budget? That’s fucking nuts. You guys really don’t give a shit about reality at all, do you?
Yay, TAXES!
Contrary to what some experts have predicted, invasions don’t pay for themselves.
The 2004 share of income for the upper quintile is LOWER than it was in 2000.
Argue the facts?
OK.
The 2004 share of income for the top quintile is HIGHER than it was for 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, and 1979.
The 2004 share of income for the top quintile was LOWER than 2000 and 1999.
Now, let’s think back. What could have possibly made the income for the top quintile even higher in those two years?
You’re busted, JWG. You picked one of only two years out of the last 25 that tilt your way. ALL OF THE REST show a higher share of income for the top quintile in the most recent year.
Contrary to what some experts have predicted, invasions don’t pay for themselves.
The “conservatives” say “give me my tax cut now, and let my grandchildren pay for the invasions, with interest.”
Got to say it’s hardly surprising to see the same people who a few threads down were cherry-picking climate evidence (and Bible passages) back here cherry-picking economic evidence.
The “Laffer curve”, however, is not bullshit, its a simple bell curve that describes a valid correlation. But of course Frank gets it wrong: the Laffer curve does not predict that tax revenue will increse whenever tax rates are cut, it predicts that that will happen only after tax rates have gone past the top of the bell.
What’s bullshit is the notion that we’re anywhere close to passing the top of that bell.
Good ol’ Wilbur: He’d rise from the dead to post a comment if he thought I was wrong.
From Investopedia:
The curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases
From Opinion Journal:
The idea is that lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and thereby will often lead to more tax revenue collections for the government rather than less.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/laffercu.html
The Laffer Curve does not claim that lowering income tax rates will always bring in more revenue. It only claims that a lower income tax rate may bring in more revenue. If the tax rates are already very low, lowering the rates may not bring in more revenue. But if the rates are too high, lowering the rates will bring in more revenue.
And so on, and so forth, and scooby dooby dooby…
If you don’t think the rates are too high, ask the nearest Doctor, Dentist or Lawyer.
Besides, this is all nonsense. The answer to the deficit is to reduce spending.
Raising taxes is never a good idea.
Does it get any simpler?
Besides, this is all nonsense. The answer to the deficit is to reduce spending.
Raising taxes is never a good idea.
Does it get any simpler?
I’m not busted.
1) We’re arguing about Bush’s tax cuts.
2) The NYT article to which OW linked and commented upon was comparing 2004 to 2000. So did I.
3) The share of income of the lowest quintile (i.e. the poor) has been HIGHER during the Bush years than for ALL of Clinton’s years.
4) The same is true for the second quintile.
5) The same is true for the middle quintile (except for 1995).
6) The fourth quintile is generally similar to the Clinton years (sometimes higher, sometimes lower).
7) The highest quintile is LOWER during the Bush years than during ALL of the Clinton years.
So let’s get this straight: The share of income for the non-rich is HIGHER than it was during Clinton’s years, and the share of income for the highest paid is LOWER than it was during the Clinton years.
Argue the facts.
The poor have a higher share of income and a lower share of federal taxes under Bush.
Oops…I was in a rush and was looking at the share of income for households without children, I think.
I’ll have to look at the “all households” later when I have time.
What I wrote is definitely true for whatever percentage of households are not claiming dependent children.
OK, let’s look at the income share of ALL households (rather than nonelderly households without dependent children). Let’s also consider the income share AFTER all federal taxes, since it’s the evil Bush tax cuts that are so horrible:
Before Bush took office (i.e. the Clinton years), the bottom 4 quintiles had all been LOSING post-tax income shares for many years, while the highest quintile had been GAINING shares.
Clinton must’ve loved the rich!
The same trend is generally seen during the Bush years.
However, the bottom 4 quintiles all have a HIGHER share of after-tax income than they did when Clinton left.
Likewise, the highest quintile has a LOWER post-tax income share than they did when Clinton left office.
Also, the effective federal tax rate on the poor had been rising under Clinton in his last term, and it had been declining for the very wealthy.
The Bush tax cuts reversed the rising rates on the poor.
Let’s also consider the income share AFTER all federal taxes,
Sure.
Plant the goalposts right where you just kicked the ball.
No problem.
Before Bush took office (i.e. the Clinton years), the bottom 4 quintiles had all been LOSING post-tax income shares for many years, while the highest quintile had been GAINING shares.
I was unaware that the President got to hand out the paychecks. Can you think of anything, ANYTHING AT ALL going on during the later years of the Clinton administration that might have pumped up the share for the top quintile? And then suddenly, but temporarily evaporated?
However, the bottom 4 quintiles all have a HIGHER share of after-tax income than they did when Clinton left.
Argue the facts? See above. You’re cherry-picking a single outlier year in a long trend.
Nope.
This is what is being claimed: The Bush tax cuts helped the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
So we look at how much income the poor and middle class have been getting in relation to the taxes they have paid under the Bush cuts.
The data from the CBO (as linked to the NYT article by OW) show that the lower and middle quintiles are better off than at the end of Clinton’s term, and the rich are worse off.
It’s not an outlier. It’s the end of a trend called the Clinton presidency. True or False: The rich got richer during the Clinton presidency?
So we look at how much income the poor and middle class have been getting in relation to the taxes they have paid under the Bush cuts.
And comparing that data to what? One of the only two years out of the last 25 where the share of income was even higher than it is now.
Cherries is yummy.
This is what is being claimed: The Bush tax cuts helped the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
And right there is where you have moved the goalposts. When I came in, you were arguing this:
The 2004 share of income for the upper quintile is LOWER than it was in 2000.
Cherries! Do I need to list the other 23 years for you again?
It’s the end of a trend called the Clinton presidency. True or False: The rich got richer during the Clinton presidency?
Of course. Are you giving Mr. Clinton credit for the tech boom of the 1990’s? Are you blaming Mr. Bush for its collapse?
Didn’t think so.
Do I need to list the other 23 years for you again?
Oh, what the heck. I’ve got time on my hands. Here you go:
The 2004 share of income for the top quintile is HIGHER than it was for 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, and 1979.
Give em hell, Quaker! They don’t know about economics and they don’t WANT to know!
For crying out loud. The Bush tax cuts reversed what was happening by the end of the Clinton presidency. Bush HAD TO START with the end of Clinton’s term and the income/tax situation at that time.
If the Bush tax cuts hurt the poor, then they should be WORSE OFF than where they started. Where did they start when Bush took office? IN THE YEAR 2000.
Therefore:
This is what is being claimed: The Bush tax cuts helped the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
is directly related to
The 2004 share of income for the upper quintile is LOWER than it was in 2000.
How are the rich being helped at the expense of the poor if the rich are paying a higher share of taxes while acquiring a smaller share of income than they were before Bush took office?
Additionally, the rich were getting richer MUCH FASTER under Clinton than they have under Bush.
The rich were better off under Clinton.
You can’t dispute this.
Under CLINTON’S second term, the total federal tax rate for the poor was INCREASING.
You can’t dispute this.
Under BUSH, the total federal tax rate for the poor has been DECREASING.
Under BUSH, the total federal tax rate on the poor is LOWER than at any other time.
You can’t dispute this.
You have to compare Bush’s numbers to the end of Clinton’s because those are the conditions from which Bush started.
This is coming from the person who stated:
I repeat: the people in the middle have not gained in the past 6 years. The people at the top have gotten it all.
Try looking at the income shares from 1993 to 2000. Do you see all those numbers heading south faster than falling rocks?
For someone who “knows” about economics, you’re blindingly ignorant.
The poor and middle classes were all losing income shares while the wealthy was gobbling them up.
Why did Clinton hate the middle class at the expense of the wealthy?
The Bush tax cuts reversed what was happening by the end of the Clinton presidency.
That’s utter nonsense.
First of all, the trend of an increasing share of income going to the top quintile continued nonstop from 1979 to 2000. And yes, that includes the Clinton administration. It also includes about a billion other things–including the freaking Internet boom!
The top quintile took a hit in 2001–which you blindly credit to the Bush tax cuts. Can’t think of even one other possibility? Like the end of the Internet boom?
Since then, the top quintile has recovered and currently rakes in a greater share of all income than in any other time in all of recorded history–except for the two years when which trend was at it’s peak?
(Hint: It starts with “Internet” and ends with “boom!”)
Now you’re trying to argue that the Bush tax cuts raised the four lower quintiles’ share of pre-tax income? Immediately upon enactment?
Amuse me.
Explain how that works.
You have to compare Bush’s numbers to the end of Clinton’s because those are the conditions from which Bush started.
No, you have to compare Bush’s numbers to the end of Clinton’s because that’s the only way you can make the numbers work out the way you want!
The top quintile rakes in 50 percent of all income. That’s the highest ever–except for two outlier years you insist on using as your baseline because that’s the only way to make the numbers come out the way you want!
I would add that while it is true that the income gap increased under Clinton, there are many of us who at the time were saying that that was a bad thing.
It was a bad thing then, and a bad thing now. Difference is that the increase under Clinton was not a result of his tax policy, while under Bush, tax policy is specifically designed to beef up the supply side.
And tax policy is what we are talking about here.
And at least Clinton was balancing the budget, instead of ballooning the deficit and starving the government of resources it might need to help the people on the other side of the shit stick.
Now why did I start by comparing 2004 to 2000? Because that’s what OW’s link to the NYT was doing.
So you agree that 2000 was the end point of a multi-year trend in which the income share of the rich went up up up while everyone else went down, but you call the use of that trend line endpoint as cherry picking. That’s just stupidity.
The total federal taxes being paid by the poor were increasing during Clinton’s entire 2nd term.
All while they were losing their income share.
The Bush tax cuts reversed these taxes on the poor. You cannot dispute this.
I never argued that. In fact you chastised me for using the post-tax income figures.
It should be blindingly obvious, even to you, that by lowering the taxes paid by the poor and everyone else, that people will have MORE of the money they earned.
Well, that’s not quite accurate (except for the part about the Clinton administration). However, the general trend is upward.
But thank you for arguing my point. I’ve been waiting for someone to confirm this.
How can Bush’s tax cuts (the point of OW’s post) be helping the rich at the expense of the poor (repeated ad nauseum by Dr. AGH) just because the “rich are getting richer”?
The answer: Bush’s tax cuts DID help the poor and middle classes.
Yeah, that Clinton tax policy of making the lower income earners pay an increasing amount of taxes had nothing to do with how much money they had in their pockets.
Damn that Bush for decreasing all those taxes for the low income earners.
JWG: “The answer: Bush’s tax cuts DID help the poor and middle classes.”
That must be why the lowest quintile went from 17.4% of households in 2000 to 19.0% in 2004. In that same period, the “middle class” (3rd and 4th quintile) went from 39.7% of households in 2000 to 38.5% in 2004.
Hmmm. Fewer middle class families, more poor families.
Meanwhile, now that Bush’s tax cuts are in full effect, the average income for the top 1% went from $859,600 in 2003 to $1,055,200 in 2004. That’s a one year jump in income of 22.8%. Not too shabby.
The 2003 – 20004 jump for the others? Lowest quintile: 0%. The middle class: 2.8% to 3.9%.
Thank you, George Bush, for helping the poor and middle class at the expense of the rich!
JWG: Do you realize you’re explaining to adults why having more money is better than having less?
Here’s the example I like to use:
Suppose you drive over a toll bridge every day to work. The toll is relatively low, and the route is shorter.
As the toll goes up, what can we expect drivers to do?
More and more them will look for an alternate, cheaper route instead of the bridge, yes?
Of course they will.
End of discussion.
What source are you using for this data?
“Quintile” is a statistical tool representing 1/5 of a sample. That means roughly 20%.
I don’t understand how you are using it.
Well, again I’m wondering about the source since I’m not seeing the same numbers from the CBO report quoted in OW’s NYT link.
However, the point about your trend holds. What you’re ignoring is that trend is consistent THROUGHOUT every presidential term (including the ever-so-loved Clinton terms).
The top percentiles have ALWAYS increased at a much faster rate than the lower ones.
But when you look at the federal tax rates, Clinton’s last term was INCREASING the total rate being paid by the lowest quintile.
The Bush tax cuts REVERSED this (and decreased the taxes for the middle class as well). The middle and lower groups saw a much higher cut in rates than did the upper.
It’s ridiculous that I have to keep pointing out the obvious.
Pre-Bush taxes: Increasing for the poor
Bush tax cuts: Decreasing for the poor.
Bush’s first term (4 years):
Lowest Quintile: Tax rates down 30%
Second Quintile: Tax rates down 23%
Middle Quintile: Tax rates down 16%
Fourth Quintile: Tax rates down 16%
Highest Quintile: Tax rates down 10%
Top 1%: Tax rates down 6%
Clinton’s last term (4 years):
Lowest Quintile: Tax rates UP 10%
Second Quintile: Tax rates down 4%
Middle Quintile: Tax rates down 4%
Fourth Quintile: Tax rates static
Highest Quintile: Tax rates static
Top 1%: Tax rates down 5%
If the Bush tax numbers were similar to Clinton’s you guys would be screaming bloody murder.
If Clinton had failed to increase the average guy’s salary, I definitely would have screamed bloody murder. JWG, can you explain how the middle class got this awesome tax cut, and yet somehow this has failed to make the median income move at all over the past 6 years? Why have the rich gotten all the gains in the economy over the past 6 years, and why are they trying to force MORE risk on us through their bankruptcy bill, SS privatization, etc.? Oh, right, it’s because the GOP was in charge during that time. And their whole reason for being is to fuck the middle class on behalf of the rich.
It has increased during the past two years.
A major reason for the difficulty in raising the median income (besides the past recession) is the consistent decrease in two-income families. If you look at the middle and upper income households, you will see that they overwhelmingly are married and mostly have two incomes. The opposite is true at the other end. As we increase the number of single mothers we are decreasing the wage power of total households. This is a harmful trend.
JWG,
I’m using the Excel file from the CBO. Of course, I mistakenly was looking at Sheet 4C, when I should have been looking at Sheet 1C. So my numbers were for non-elderly no-kids households, rather than all households.
I took the total number of households in each quintile (as presented in the sheet.) and divided by the total number of households. So, for the lowest quintile in 2000, I divided 8.2 million by 47.1 million to get the percent in the quintile (which was 17.4). Then for 2004, I divided 9.5 million by 49.9 million (which was 19.0). If that’s flawed math, let me know. I’m no statistician.
As for the average income, again I used the Sheet 4C when I wanted 1C. (Stupid brain.) I also used pre-tax numbers.
If you look at Sheet 1C, under the Average Income (Post-Tax), you’ll see that this was the trend from 2001 to 2004:
Lowest Quintile: Down 2.6%
Second Quintile: Up 0.6%
Middle Quintile: Up 2.3%
Fourth Quintile: Up 3.5%
Fifth Quintile: Up 8.6%
Top 1%: Up 15.5%
So, from Sheet 1A, we can see that the Effective Individual Federal Tax Rate for the top 1% went down from 24.1% in 2001 to 19.6% in 2004 (a drop of 18.6%). During that period their income grew by 15.5%.
Over the same period, the Lowest Quintile’s tax rate went down 10.7%. Yet, their income dropped 2.6%. If Bush’s tax cuts help the poor, how can this be?
As for the Clinton numbers, I don’t know how much of his tax policy was his own and how much came from a Republican-controlled Congress. Compare the numbers from first-term to second-term. I know that Clinton was a whore to the rich, don’t get me wrong. I just think he balanced it off with some social programs that helped the poor. Haven’t seen so much of that from Bush. (The social program part. Seen plenty of the whore part.)
So you’re claiming a spike in single mothers? Show me the evidence, please. And are your numbers adjusted for inflation? Because after inflation, the median household wage is down 2.7% from 2000. The poverty rate has up since then, and health costs have gone up, too.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20060829
Here’s a copy of a Financial Times article laying out how the real median wage is still not up to 2000 levels. What’s your evidence, JWG?
http://xinkaishi.typepad.com/a_new_start/2006/11/ft_middle_ameri.html
I’ll agree that Bush is no champion of the poor. But I do think the tax data demonstrate that his cuts helped the poor and middle class.
As far as social programs, I’ll just note that the Bush years have seen the largest increases in social spending in history…to the utter agony of fiscal conservatives.
You have to calculate from the 2000 tax rate since Bush’s cuts were active for 2001. Additionally, the cuts for the poor were activated before the cuts for the rich (so starting from 2001 skips the big cuts for the poor that had already taken place).
Therefore (Table 1A Total Effective Tax Rate from the starting point in 2000 to the end point in 2004):
Lowest Q: down 30% (6.4 to 4.5)
Second Q: down 23% (13.0 to 10.0)
Middle Q: down 16% (16.6 to 13.9)
Fourth Q: down 16% (20.5 to 17.2)
Highest Q: down 10% (28.0 to 25.1)
Top 1%: down 6% (33.0 to 31.1)
Well, you jumped to the Income Tax chart, but the trend remains the same. But you have to start from 2000 since the Bush tax cuts already reduced the rates in 2001.
Therefore (from Table 1A Income Tax):
Lowest Q: down 35% (-4.6 to -6.2)
Top 1%: down 19% (24.2 to 19.6)
Because anytime you take less money away from people they have more money in their pockets. In fact, as far as the bottom two quintiles are concerned you should note the minus signs. That means they actually received extra money from the government in addition to not paying income tax. That’s why it’s better to compare Total Effective Tax rates since they still paid taxes for SS and such.
I made that same mistake on an earlier post! You explanation was very clear, and the math was correct.
The quintiles are first calculated based on roughly 20% of All Households, and the later tables continue to be based on that original division.
Therefore, your household numbers for nonelderly, childless households is counter-balanced by the other categories. For example, the percentage of households in the lowest quintile actually decreases from 2000 to 2004 within the “Households With Children” (Table 2C).
That’s not the same as “failed to make the median income move at all over the past 6 years.”
I don’t have time to find a news report, but I do know that it has been increasing since 2005 after decreasing since 1999.
I will later. I have to find the pdf report I used in a previous OW discussion about black culture.
“I do know that [the real median wage] has been increasing since 2005 after decreasing since 1999.”
We agree! “Still not up to 2000 levels” is what I was looking for.
JWG, in the interest of staying on target, let me reproduce your post that I have issues with:
If you want to discuss progressivity of tax rates, the year 2000 is an outlier in a long trend. After years of an increasing share of income for the top quintile, something unusual happened in 2001–the share declined.
You want to attribute this decline to Bush tax cuts. However, if you look at the longer trend line, you can see that from the 2001-2002 recession, the share of income for the top quintile has resumed rising and has very nearly equaled its peak from the preceding 25 years.
That holds whether you look at share of income pre- or post-tax. The evidence for the cause-and-effect relationship you assert isn’t there.
Clinton? Not relevant.
New York Times? Not relevant.
I’m talking about your assertion shown above.
Sorry. Error here:
If you want to discuss progressivity of tax rates, the year 2000 is an outlier in a long trend.
That should say: If you want to discuss share of income, the year 2000 is an outlier…” etc.
You are ignoring the contex I used. I used BOTH share of income AND share of all federal tax liabilities.
If you look at the RATIO of total income share/total federal tax share and compare the Bush years all the way back to 1979 you’ll easily see:
Lowest four quintiles: HIGHEST share of income/tax ratio EVER
Highest Quintile: LOWEST share of income/tax ratio EVER
In other words, under Bush’s term the rich pay a greater share of taxes compared to their share of income that ever before.
Likewise, as you move down to lower quintiles the people pay a lesser share of taxes compared to their share of income.
PROGRESSIVITY in the tax code has INCREASED under Bush.
This is exactly opposite of “giving the millionaire class yet another break at the expense of average Americans.”
Argue the facts.
You are ignoring the contex I used. I used BOTH share of income AND share of all federal tax liabilities.
You could save yourself the trouble and just look at the chart that gives “effective tax rates”.
Of course, that would make it harder to stack the deck.
You are ignoring the contex I used.
Let’s review. You wrote:
argue the facts,
argue the facts,
argue the facts,
no, wait, I’m arguing context!
I entered this thread on one single point: The 2004 share of income for the upper quintile is LOWER than it was in 2000.
Focus, man.
You can’t cut this point off from the points that immediately followed it:
I wrote the statements in the same comment in context with one another.
Read, man.
My argument is consistent and accurate.
The effective tax rate along with the income share show that the upper quintiles are paying a growing share of taxes in comparison to their income growth.
In other words, their share of taxes is growing faster than their share of income.
The Bush tax cuts have made the system more progressive.
You can’t cut this point off from the points that immediately followed it
Why not? I did and I continue to do so because it’s a totally bogus point. It takes one anomolous year and treats it as significant.
You only insist that it can’t be done because your argument rests on the bogusness…uh, bogusiosity…bogusitude…of that one assertion.
their share of taxes is growing faster than their share of income
while their rate of taxation has declined, and it has declined by the same number of raw percentage points as the rates for other quintiles.
Simply: If the rate for the middle quintile falls from 8 percent to 5 percent and the rate for the top quintile falles from 15 percent to 12 percent, both rates are lower by 3 percent. The difference in the rates is still 7 percent.
More progressive? Same? Less progressive?
The year is irrelevant to the overall argument. You just can’t handle the math.
In every argument I’ve made, I’ve discussed the share of income to the share of taxes. It doesn’t matter which year you pick because any year within Bush’s tax cuts is more progressive than any year in the chart going back to 1979.
You mention my point about share of income, but chop off the equally important part about the share of taxes.
The share of income for the top quintile is getting higher (just like it always does), but the share of taxes paid by the top quintile is rising even faster.
The top quintile has paid a higher share of taxes compared to their income share than ever before in the chart going back to 1979.
Likewise, as you move down to successively lower quintiles you find that each quintile is paying a smaller share of taxes compared to their income share.
Never before has the rich paid so much of the taxes compared to their share of income.
Never before has the poor paid so little in taxes compared to their share of income.
More progressive.
Let’s add some income:
Top Q = $200,000
Middle Q = $50,000
tax on Top Q: 200K * 0.15 = 30K
tax on Mid Q: 50K * 0.08 = 4K
Top earns 4 times more and pays 7.5 times more than Mid.
tax on Top Q: 200K * 0.12 = 24K
tax on Mid Q: 50K * 0.05 = 2.5K
Top earns 4 times more and pays 9.6 times more than Mid.
You reduced the Top Q payment by 20%.
You reduced the Mid Q payment by 37.5%
If you take your example to the extreme, you could drop the Top from 15% to 7% (a drop of
and the Mid from 8% to 0% (a drop of 8). They both have “declined by the same number of raw percentage points.”
More progressive? Same? Less progressive?
You just can’t handle the math.
Don’t kid yourself.
It doesn’t matter which year you pick because any year within Bush’s tax cuts is more progressive than any year in the chart going back to 1979.
That does it. Now you’re MSU. That’s just flat out false.
Nope.
I said it before:
If you look at the ratio of total income share/total federal tax share and compare the Bush years all the way back to 1979 you’ll easily see:
Lowest four quintiles: HIGHEST share of income/tax ratio EVER
Highest Quintile: LOWEST share of income/tax ratio EVER
In other words, under Bush’s term the rich pay a greater share of taxes compared to their share of income than ever before (their share of taxes has increased more than their share of income).
Likewise, as you move down to lower quintiles the people pay a lesser share of taxes compared to their share of income.
It’s a fact.
Here’s the Bottom Q share of income/share of tax ratio from 1979 to 2004:
(2.76) (2.85) (2.75) (2.48) (2.23) (2.08) (2.09) (2.14) (2.44) (2.53) (2.69) (2.42) (2.47) (2.59) (2.81) (3.38) (3.54) (3.91) (3.91) (3.91) (3.82) (3.64) (4.30) (4.30) (4.20) (4.56)
Here’s the Top Q:
(0.81) (0.81) (0.83) (0.85) (0.86) (0.86) (0.87) (0.88) (0.84) (0.85) (0.85) (0.85) (0.85) (0.84) (0.82) (0.82) (0.81) (0.81) (0.82) (0.82) (0.82) (0.82) (0.80) (0.79) (0.79) (0.80)