Whenever the subject of Tax Cuts comes up, the number one argument from the Democrats is always the old worn out cliche, "Tax cuts for the rich!!!" Well this argument has been disproven time after time as the above link illustrates.
"A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. They show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent.
Not only are these data interesting on their own, but looking at them over time shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply. A growing body of international data shows the same trend.
On the first point, we see that in 1980, when the top statutory income tax rate went up to 70 percent, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers was just 19.3 percent. After Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1981, which reduced the top rate to 50 percent -- a massive give-away to the wealthy according to those on the left -- the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose steadily.
By 1986, the top 1 percent's share of all federal income taxes rose to 25.7 percent. That year, the top statutory tax rate was further cut to 28 percent -- another huge-give-away, we were told. Yet the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent continued to rise. By 1992, it was up to 27.5 percent."
With this information at hand, why are the Democrats so dead set against Tax Cuts??? Could it be perhaps because some of the wealthiest members are Democrats??? And they find themselves paying more in taxe$??? It would appear the Democrats would rather shift more of the tax burden back to the middle class...
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Is this thread in the right place? Surely Democrats on this site should have responded by now. They might also want to take a look at government revenue growth following tax cuts when preparing their answers. We can discuss government spending habits at a later time.
Posts: 8066 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
You say that the top 1% pay 27.5 % of the taxes, but neglect to say that the top 1% earn more than the bottom 40%. Also you fail to note that the wealthiest 5% of the U.S population control 59% of the country's wealth. Does it not stand to reason that those who have most of the money would also enjoy the privilege of paying the biggest portion of the income taxes? Well, perhaps they don't enjoy it as much as they should, but they could work toward leveling the playing field instead of constantly lobbying for an ever widening chasm between themselves and their less affluent compatriots. IMHO.
Then I assume you are happy with the reduced tax rates, frank! They have resulted in an increase in the tax burden on the highest income earners, which is the point LR is making in the first place.
To my knowledge, the bottom 40% pay virtually no income tax. I assume this is also music to your ears.
Posts: 8066 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
OK Mr. Frank. You talk about leveling the playing field. Seems that when the Democrats attempt to level, more of the burden shifts down to the middle & poor classes. Is that what you want???
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by coldfuse: Then I assume you are happy with the reduced tax rates, frank! They have resulted in an increase in the tax burden on the highest income earners, which is the point LR is making in the first place.
To my knowledge, the bottom 40% pay virtually no income tax. I assume this is also music to your ears.
Forgive me, 'fuse, but I don't consider LR my most reliable source of unbiased economic theory. In fact, the point "LR is making" is the unquestioned opinion and statistics of the National Conservative Weekly. Hardly a neutral authority.
Originally posted by Lighteningrodd: OK Mr. Frank. You talk about leveling the playing field. Seems that when the Democrats attempt to level, more of the burden shifts down to the middle & poor classes. Is that what you want???
I assume the courtesy title is in deference to my advanced years, but it isn't necessary. I would neither espouse an economic theory nor reject it solely on the basis of which part of the political spectrum was promulgating it. On the other hand, the fact that you invariably seem to favor the handouts of the present administration piques my skeptical nature. My limited knowledge of the dismal science is sufficient to make me dubious of the simplistic formulae.
'The most recent tax cut derived from President George W. Bush. Critics of this tax cut argue that it has produced the most detrimental presidential tax cuts to date. The tax cut has effectively widened the gap between both ends of the financial spectrum. The average annual income for the lower 25% has decreased by 10 percentage points, while the average income for the upper 5% has increased by 15 percentage points. This particular example often serves as rhetorical ammo for the liberal economists who advocate cutting taxes for ordinary people.
Much discussion has occurred regarding the optimum capital gains tax rate, with some advocates calling for tax cuts in the belief that a lower rate (e.g., under 25%) will provide an incentive to investors to sell old stocks and invest in new stocks -- which supply siders maintain encourages the creation of new jobs, reduces unemployment, and has the paradoxical effect of increasing tax revenues more or less immediately, an idea first proposed by economist Arthur Laffer while an advisor to Ronald Reagan (See Laffer Curve). While this paradoxical effect is clearly possible in principle, opponents of capital gains tax cuts are not persuaded that it occurs in practice. They therefore argue that the rate of capital gains tax should be raised, since it is paid primarily by the better off, who can afford to contribute disproportionately to government revenues" Reference:Tax Cuts Effects
I happen to believe, no surprise perhaps, that "the better off, who can afford to contribute disproportionately to government revenues, " should in fact, do so. Those who are too selfish or greedy to do so voluntarily should be required by responsible and realistic laws.
Even though we disagree on most things, when I address you as Mr. Frank, it is certainly intended with respect. I want you to know that.
When lowering tax rates occurs, it is really a win-win for everybody. The economic stimulation that takes place brings in more tax revenue. This tax cut is no different. The wealthy are rightfully rewarded. They turn right around & invest their money which in turn helps create more jobs. People have a tendency to dislike the rich, but if it weren't for them, we wouldn't have jobs being created in this country. The rich certainly do their share in stimulating the economy & paying their fair share of taxes. And if the truth be known more than their fair share of charity contributions.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
The rich certainly do their share in stimulating the economy & paying their fair share of taxes. And if the truth be known more than their fair share of charity contributions.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Tax cuts for the poor tend to stimulate an economy because they simply buy stuff with the extra money. The rich invest it wherever it will get the best return, not necessarily in their own country - and when they buy stuff, it often has to be exclusive foreign merchandise, so they can show off how rich they are.
There is a whole tax-avoidance industry which helps the rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes - 'The US alone misses out on at least $35 billion in tax every year because its super-rich citizens hide their money offshore rather than contribute their fair taxes like every other person.'The New Pharoahs and Tax Avoidance
Poor give more generously than the rich.Bill Gates gives generously to genuinely charitable causes - other rich people can be much more tight-fisted, and their 'charities' often turn out to be self-serving scams. The rich got rich by devoting themselves to making and/or hanging on to money, not by giving it away.
"Tax cuts for the poor tend to stimulate an economy because they simply buy stuff with the extra money."
I remember a quote from an official in either the Reagan or Nixon administration (I think it was Reagan's, but am not sure) about a tax cut for teh wealthy and why it made not sense for the poor to get a similar cut.
"(the poor) will just spend it on non-durable goods."
The comment made by many after reading that was "Yeah, like food and shelter." Today, we could add heat.
Posts: 17481 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Added to "all of the above" is the fact that the rich spend millions on advertising that convince us that we need their overpriced drugs to relieve any ailments we may conjure up, we need their products to appear more attractive to the opposite sex, to succeed in business, etc. and they write off the cost of that advertising to overhead expenses and add it to the price we pay for being brain-washed. The cost of a first class letter goes up every couple of years, but my mail box is stuffed full every day with junk mail I have to dispose of at my expense. My newspaper fills my garbage can every couple of weeks, but the news items could all be contained on two or three pages. We are a nation of sheep and we have been fleeced regularly, all the while being persuaded that we are the best, smartest, richest country in the world - forget about the 45 million or so without adequate health care or the millions of children living below the poverty level, or the homeless freezing to death in the town parks. Yeah, I feel sorry for the poor millionaire having to pay "inheritance" taxes, etc. Bah, humbug!
The rich certainly do their share in stimulating the economy & paying their fair share of taxes. And if the truth be known more than their fair share of charity contributions.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Tax cuts for the poor tend to stimulate an economy because they simply buy stuff with the extra money. The rich invest it wherever it will get the best return, not necessarily in their own country - and when they buy stuff, it often has to be exclusive foreign merchandise, so they can show off how rich they are.
There is a whole tax-avoidance industry which helps the rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes - 'The US alone misses out on at least $35 billion in tax every year because its super-rich citizens hide their money offshore rather than contribute their fair taxes like every other person.'The New Pharoahs and Tax Avoidance
Poor give more generously than the rich.Bill Gates gives generously to genuinely charitable causes - other rich people can be much more tight-fisted, and their 'charities' often turn out to be self-serving scams. The rich got rich by devoting themselves to making and/or hanging on to money, not by giving it away.
Come the revolution...
So what am I wrong about???
You are doing the rich a huge disservice. By virtue of being rich, you imply they obtained their money in corrupt & illegal ways by scamming the poor. While there are scam artists out there, they eventually get caught up with.
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
You were wrong in saying that the rich do their share to stimulate the economy. They don't. They tend to invest their money outside their own economy, and buy imported goods. You were wrong in saying that the rich pay their fair share of taxes. There is a whole tax-avoidance industry which helps them to avoid doing so. And you were wrong in saying that the rich pay more than their fair share of charitable contributions - in general, the poor pay a larger proportion of their income to charity.
If the bottom 40% of wage earners pay essentially no income taxes, how are the top earners not paying their fair share?
Rodd's original point was that reduced tax rates result in the top earners paying an even greater portion of the income tax burden. Do you take issue with this (from the data, not from some "zero sum" mindset)?
Maybe I have blinders on over the economic stimulus argument because of my job. All but one of the businesses my company works with were started by entrepreneurs who put up the capital and took substantial risk to start companies that provide gameful employment to thousands of other people. Over 99% of American businesses are privately held, and they employ over half of our people. Those that choose to invest in other companies, or put their money in savings, also stimulate the economy. Are you suggesting that the savings and investment rates are higher for low wage earners?
I would be interested in discovering more about income versus charitable contributions. I would also like to know the facts on charitable contributions that directly benefit low wage earners. If you also considered government transfer payments from affluent to needy Americans, what would things look like? Do you have data to support your case here?
Doesn't George Bush want people in lower income tax brackets - those who do not otherwise itemize - to be able to deduct 100% of their charitable contributions? That sounds like something you might like.
I happen to get a little offended when I pay a lot of taxes each year and then get a check for $300 as my tax "reduction". (Is that what people who had to pay $1000 worth of taxes got as well??? WHAT A JOKE) And then realize that I have to claim it as income the next year... oh boy what a deal. I have no idea what other people got, but I got the shaft I tell yah. It is insane to even bother to go through all the red tape to write such a check. The government probably had to spend $200 just to process the damn things. It was basically a buy off. I happily was a good citizen and went on vacation with it... such a patriot.
I truthfully hated Clinton's tax policy. I hate Bush's tax policy. I dislike when taxes get mixed in with buying votes. Clinton did it by giving families all sorts of breaks (at the expense of single people) and Bush does it by giving everyone a check that he hopes they'll run out to use in the local shopping mall. Spending is GOOOD. Both hope that the end result will be that the American people feel like they are getting a good deal on their taxes.
We're all getting the shaft.
Posts: 3062 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
Maybe it's more a case of pushing ol' Lightening's buttons.
Top earners tend to have ways - legal but unfair - of dodging their share of the tax burden. The poor haven't the same resources. The bottom 40% or so of many developed countries pay no tax because of phenomenal inequality of wealth, for example the poorest 50% of the population in the US have 2.8% of the wealth.
That kind of unfair distirbution didn't happen by people paying their fair share to society. The unfairness is self-perpetuating, too; in Europe and North America there is clearly inequality of oppurtunity. The 'American Dream', of the poor kid making it big, was busted long ago. The exceptions are just that - exceptions.
You have a point about entrepreneurs, though. There used to be a division - for purposes of charity - between the 'deserving' and the 'undeserving' poor. Maybe we should draw the same distinction for different kinds of rich. For every go-getter putting it all on the line to start something constructive, there is some chiseler prepared to abuse limited liability, stepping from one wrecked company to another - pausing long enough only to line his or her pockets. For every Bill Gates cleverly exploiting a good idea, there's some dolt like our buddy George, making it on family wealth and connnections.
I am so tired of hearing this cliché. If it is accurate that 40% of the population is exempt from taxes, then they are not paying ANY share, fair or otherwise.
As I have opined before, I wouldn't mind paying taxes, if it weren't for the fact that governments, federal, state, and local, engage in such profligate spending on so many useless projects, that the money is wasted.
Posts: 7675 | Location: On Vacation | Registered: 06-06-02
Has it been established that the people at the bottom paying no taxes is actually 40% of the total number of taxpayers? I find that very hard to believe, especially in light of the Senate, a few years ago, arguing over whether the middle class upper limit was $300,00 a year or $200,000 a year. Remember that the median annual family income in the US is no more than about $60,000.
Posts: 17481 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
