Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (124328)	7/10/2005 2:55:27 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 794032

You're right; the difference is one of degrees. However, the separation is huge. That depends on the numbers one looks at. The changes in bracket rates is rather different than the effective tax rate, due to the fact that our tax code is rather complex with numerous means of decreasing one's tax obligation. I found this from the 2002 year with Bush's tax cuts: Effective Tax Rates in 2002 The overall effective tax rate fell by 0.7 percentage points, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 20.7 percent in 2002, largely because of a 0.7 percentage point drop in the effective individual income tax rate. The effective corporate income tax rate fell by 0.3 percentage points, while the effective social insurance tax rate rose by an equivalent amount. The source is the CBO site. cbo.gov They have effective tax rates from '79 on in .xls. Have not looked at those yet, but it will be interesting to see. I'd like to see a plot of total federal income vs. GDP for the last half century to see what light that might cast on this issue. Where the Dems & Reps can diverge in the 10 to 20% range is in how they allocate rates among the brackets. But that is much different from differing by 10 or 20% on effective taxes for the entire population. BTW,thanks for your reasoned response!