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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (33251)	2/24/2009 4:49:13 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The point you keep repeating is simply wrong. One article I linked two and quoted indirectly refered to ""percent of an individual's total income" that is payed to Uncle Sam (net of deductions....)" Even if you don't like or don't understand the indirect reference, the 2nd point in the same post, referred DIRECTLY to "percent of an individual's total income" that is payed to Uncle Sam (net of deductions....)" "Effective tax rates" (the exact words used in the post) are the percent of an individuals total income that is paid in taxes. And in case you didn't understand that, Mankiw was nice enough to directly state "(total taxes divided by total income)" And on the repost I even bolded that part for you. Come on Buddy, your too smart to not realize that "total taxes divided by total income" IS the "percent of an individual's total income" that is payed to Uncle Sam (net of deductions....)" I can't believe this has all gone over your head, so it would seem that either you aren't paying attention to the posts you respond to, or your arguing dishonestly.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (33251)	2/24/2009 10:11:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

But not measured for the individual you didn't! Yes Buddy I did. What I am talking about IS NOT the percentage of revenue the feds get from people of different income levels but the percentage of the individuals net income that gets paid out in taxes. Its been that from the beginning. Apparently you misunderstood and now you stubbornly stick by your misunderstanding. From the CBO report People in the lowest quintile pay an average of 4.3 percent of their income in federal taxes, people in the second quintile pay 9.9 percent, people in the middle quintile pay 14.2 percent, peopl in the fourth (2nd highest) quintile pay 17.4 percent of their income in federal taxes, people at percentiles 81-90 pay 20.3 percent, people at percentiles 91-95 pay 22.4 percent, people at percentiles 96-99 pay 25.7 percent, people at percentiles 99.0-99.5 pay 29.7 percent, people at percentiles 99.5-99.9 pay 31.2 percent, people at percentiles 99.9-99.99 pay 32.1 percent, and people in the top 0.01 percentile pay an average of 31.5 percent of their income in to federal taxes. That for all federal taxes, not just the income tax. However it doesn't a share of corporate tax indirectly paid by the owners of public corporations. If it did include that than the federal tax regime would be even more "progressive". Only at the highest .01 percent does the total federal tax burden move in a "regressive" direction, and even then it only moves slightly that way, the highest 0.01 percent pay less (as a percentage) than the group right below them (99.9 to 99.99th percentile) but pay more than every other income group. So in short the opinion piece you originally posted is incorrect when it talks about the "very rich". I haven't directly shown it to be incorrect when it talks about the top 400 (the top .01 percent group in the CBO report is the top 1 out of 10,000 taxpayers and thats out of about 130 million tax returns filed in 2005, so its about the top 13,000 returns, not the top 400. What true of the average of the top 13,000 might not be true of the average of the top 400. But the fact that the top 13,000 or so paid a lot more as a percentage of their income than the average of typical taxpayer, combined with the fact that the article based its argument largely on a apparently false point about Buffett and his secretary, means that even its claim about the top 400, is to say the least rather questionable.