BF2S Forums oops: The rich are paying the most taxes under Bush (EVER)

Kmarion wrote:

Pay attention to this.

The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more --->proportionately<--- than the rich.

Stare at it for a bit, then reply .

At every income level Americans had more income, after adjusting for inflation in 2005 than in 2003, but the increases ranged from almost imperceptible for the poor to modest for the middle class and largest for those at the top.

On average, incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.

The share of all federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent grew, but only slightly more than half the rate of their growth in incomes because of the tax rate cuts. The top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, up from 22.9 percent in 2003, while the share paid by the middle fifth of taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 10 percent in 2003.

The share of their income that the top 1 percent paid in all federal taxes and in income taxes fell. The total tax rate dropped 1.8 percentage points, to 31.2 percent, from 2003 to 2005 while their average income tax rate declined one percentage point, to 19.4 percent, largely because of the cuts in taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Kmarion wrote:

I'm in 2007 not 03'-'05.. come meet me.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Probably more than that. If you are looking for the impacts of new laws and tax cuts.

You are quite correct.  What I presented to you is what The Economist thinks will happen, that doesn't mean they can't be wrong at all.

Use your own head.. the NYT is spoon feeding you.

Initially it did benefit the rich.. but as predicted the entire economy is feeling the positive impact now that the wealthy (the ones who create jobs) redistribute the money.

The rich showed more rapid gains in reported income shares in the 1990s than in the first half of this decade. The share of the richest 1% jumped to 20.8% of total income in 2000, from 14% in 1990, but increased only slightly to 21.2% in 2005.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-12-19 16:14:44)

DIR_Diver wrote:

"On the other hand, income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.
The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent.
Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005"

"One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.
What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.
That is why the IRS data, which are for people 25 years old and older, and which follow the same individuals over time, find those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.
That is also why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts."

This is excerpted from an article by Dr. Thomas Sowell who has a PhD in economics and studied under Dr. Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago.

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Where in your post the stats shown are from 2007?  And btw you never addressed my question about jobs.

I missed the jobs question.. I'll have to look it up as well. Let me ask you a question. If it is only the rich (the job creators) benefiting from the tax cuts how is it more and more people are entering into the wealthy class?

Oh the 2007 thing, it's in the op.
http://i9.tinypic.com/819lggj.gif
Stare...lol . ^^

Maybe they reduced the line by which they measure poverty.  I don't think you can consider an income of 18k a year in the US over the poverty line.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Well you are right (and thank you for those links I'm reading them now +1), but the system has lead to people taking loans beyond their means. I guess this is where personal responsibility takes more of a role: don't take loans you can't afford, no matter how attractive those low interest rates may be. But if the Fed warns banks, they shouldn't expect to get bailed out when they take huge loses.

But Citigroup got cash a infusion from Abu Dhab. It has helped the dollar but I think it was too little too late. But is it right that someone like Citigroup gets bailed out, but not the average Joe?

Personal responsibility is the key. Don't buy what you can't afford. Don't buy what you can afford now, but won't be able to afford later.

I wouldn't say that Citi got such a good deal...what was their interest rate? Like 11%?

"I can't afford cancer treatment or back surgery."

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

"I can't afford cancer treatment or back surgery."

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

FEOS wrote:

Personal responsibility is the key. Don't buy what you can't afford. Don't buy what you can afford now, but won't be able to afford later.

Kmarion wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

FEOS wrote:

Personal responsibility is the key. Don't buy what you can't afford. Don't buy what you can afford now, but won't be able to afford later.

Meh... back surgery is BS anyways. Just do what I did.. get a good book and see how surgeons rip people off.


http://i4.tinypic.com/6wyghs3.jpg

http://i15.tinypic.com/6tw2phy.jpg

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-19 18:42:44)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread?

Meh... back surgery is BS anyways. Just do what I did.. get a good book and see how surgeons rip people off.


http://i4.tinypic.com/6wyghs3.jpg

http://i15.tinypic.com/6tw2phy.jpg

Which makes it the fault of a patient if they're Shanghai'd into unnecessary surgery?

But no, this isn't my scenario (though a good chiropractor can work wonders). I was pointing out that there are circumstances beyond the control of personal responsibility.

san4 wrote:

To put things in perspective:

Bush took office in 2001 and the statistics go through 2006
Median income:   increased from 48,091 to 48,201 (.2% increase)   
Mean income:     increased from 66,290 to 66,570 (.4% increase)

Clinton took office in 1993 and left in 2000
Median income:   increased from 42,926 to 49,163 (14.5% increase)
Mean income:     increase from 56,923 to 66,895 (17.5% increase)

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/h … h06ar.html

san4 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

san4 wrote:

To put things in perspective:

Bush took office in 2001 and the statistics go through 2006
Median income:   increased from 48,091 to 48,201 (.2% increase)   
Mean income:     increased from 66,290 to 66,570 (.4% increase)

Clinton took office in 1993 and left in 2000
Median income:   increased from 42,926 to 49,163 (14.5% increase)
Mean income:     increase from 56,923 to 66,895 (17.5% increase)

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/h … h06ar.html

k.. so the topic is about tax cuts. The Bush Tax plan/cuts were enacted in 2003.. we had one year of minimal decline (Once the cuts made it's way through DC) to fix where Clinton had directed the economy. His plan was very temporary, gutting national security and intelligence agencies along the way. The turn and noticeable trend takes a few years to filter through the economy. Federal tax cuts take a long time to make their mark. If you are going to claim to put things in perspective make sure you look at all the details.

Well, the thread has been wandering between tax cuts and other things (as threads tend to do), but in any case---

First, the change in median & mean income between 2003 and 2006 has been very small (about 1.5%). So the trend for the Bush tax cuts is weak at best. With inflation on the horizon (or even stagflation), it's hard to say the Bush tax cuts will be a success over the long term. The subprime mortgage crisis may wreck the economy and mask whatever future effects the tax cuts will have.

Second, a 'temporary' plan that increases median incomes 14.5% over a 6- or 8-year period is nothing to sneeze at. The fact that the huge boom ended doesn't mean it didn't happen. Mean incomes in 2002 were still much higher than they were in 1993.

Third, when incomes jump like they did under Clinton, that generates tax revenues to spend on things like national security or developing technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I don't know if tax revenues have increased or decreased under Bush, but that fact that there have been budget deficits makes me think they have decreased.

I agree that tax cuts can't be evaluated out of context. They have effects on how the government functions (among other things). A classic example (that we may see happen) is that higher taxes to fund a national healthcare program could increase overall economic productivity in the long run. It's hard to know how or when to evaluate the effects of tax cuts.

But I don't see what Clinton's alleged neglect of national security had to do with tax cuts. For reasons not necessarily related to taxes, I think the US has become much less secure under Bush.

Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd wrote:

well, at least in your country the people with more money is the one that pays more taxes, not like here in mexico, the richest guys always find a way to pay less or none taxes...