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)

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.

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.

It takes one anomolous year

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

You could save yourself the trouble and just look at the chart that gives “effective tax rates”

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.

entered this thread on one single point

You can’t cut this point off from the points that immediately followed it:

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

I wrote the statements in the same comment in context with one another.

Read, man.

My argument is consistent and accurate.

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 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.

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.

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.

That should say: If you want to discuss share of income, the year 2000 is an outlier…” etc.

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.

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.

We agree! “Still not up to 2000 levels” is what I was looking for.

the real median wage is still not up to 2000 levels

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.

So you’re claiming a spike in single mothers? Show me the evidence, please.

I will later. I have to find the pdf report I used in a previous OW discussion about black culture.

I just think he balanced it off with some social programs that helped the poor. Haven’t seen so much of that from Bush.

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.

So, from Sheet 1A, we can see that the Effective Individual Federal Tax Rate…in 2001 to… in 2004

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)

Over the same period, the Lowest Quintile’s tax rate went down 10.7%

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)

If Bush’s tax cuts help the poor, how can this be?

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.

So my numbers were for non-elderly no-kids households, rather than all households.

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).

http://xinkaishi.typepad.com/a_new_start/2006/11/ft_middle_ameri.html

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income20060829

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.)

failed to make the median income move at all over the past 6 years

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.