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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (703889)	9/26/2005 4:49:11 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Thanks, Peter.... A few points (but thanks for the supportive statistics): Your first clump of statistics ('percent of tax' paid) failed to make a comparison of NET EFFECTIVE tax rates (actual percentage rate paid --- after loopholes --- for the various income levels). A statistic based upon NOMINAL rates, such as this, is only THE FIRST HALF of an argument. Your second group of stats, putatively: 'some percentages of the tax burden as a percentage of Taxable income' appears to be unsourced.... Hard to check the methodology that way. (Or is it from the same link at the top of your post????????? From the IRS for tax year 2001 only, and only considering the effect of the federal income tax?????) If so, then: 1) the statistic would be failing to address the very objection you raised, failing to consider additively the NET effect of taxes in totality. 2) Due especially to significant tax law changes, it would appear to be SERIOUSLY dated... thus unable to tell us much about the true current state of affairs. 3) Even though dated... it shows EXACTLY what I contended: a 'hump' in the middle of the statistic wherein the largest percentage burden is bourne. I contend that one effect of recent tax law changes has been to increase this 'hump-in-the-middle' effect even more. I also contend that an additive comparison of net tax loads (the point YOU raised, adding state income levies, state and local sales and excise taxes, etc., into the calculation) would also raise the tail to the left side of that hump in the middle... restoring the distribution to an even more 'bell curve-like' graph. Further establishing my position.