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: TimF who wrote (33330)	2/25/2009 5:03:57 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Thanks.... But Tim --- you are STILL trying to compare "Apples and Oranges". (The exact point I made earlier.) As Greg Mankiw's excellent Blog, (& the CBO report itself), and even you noted at the bottom of your post: This CBO analysis is talking about the AVERAGE of ALL FEDERAL TAXES (income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, etc., etc.) that people pay. NOT just "income tax" which was all that the earlier article addressed. OF COURSE THE VERY RICH PAY A LOT MORE IN CAPITAL GAINS AND SUCH --- they actually HAVE A LOT MORE INVESTMENT PROPERTY and FINANCIAL ASSETS! LOL! No one ever disagreed with that! Now, since you are trying to compare apples to oranges, let's go to that EXACT SAME C.B.O. analysis that Mankiw's Blog links to... and see what they REPORT FOR "income taxes" --- which was what the EARLIER ARTICLE I POSTED DISCUSSED: The C.B.O. reports these numbers (for the "top 1%" in wealth, and they add that the top 1% was very consistent): ...CBO’s previous estimates show an effective individual income tax rate of 19.4 percent in 2005 for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income. There was little variation among subgroups in the top 1 percent, except for people in the top 0.01 percent, whose effective individual income tax rate was 17.0 percent in 2005. That lower rate results from the combination of a large share of income (44 percent) from capital gains among households in that group in 2005 and a lower tax rate on capital gains than on other income. High-income households have a disproportionate share of comprehensive income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. The half-percent of the population with the highest income received 14.7 percent of total household income before taxes and paid 22.6 percent of total federal taxes in 2005 (see Tables 2 and 3). People at the top 0.01 percent of the income scale received 4.2 percent of total income and paid 6.5 percent of total federal taxes in 2005. The half-percent of the population with the highest income paid 31.5 percent of federal individual income taxes, while the top 0.01 percent paid 8.0 percent of individual income taxes in 2005. ================================================= NOTE: Top 1%'s TOTAL 'effective federal tax (all sources) --- 31.2 percent in 2005. Top 1%'s effective INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE --- 19.4 percent in 2005. (B-I-G D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-C-E between "31.2%" and "19.4%", wouldn't you agree Tim?) ================================================== What you have posted (thanks again for the excellent link!) does not disagree with my earlier article. You need to compare 'Apples to Apples' --- when one talks about "income tax rates" then you can't just drag in figures for all sorts of other taxes... because that would be an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING! (And one I've not disagreed with at any point. :-)

To: TimF who wrote (33330)	2/25/2009 9:53:14 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A very interesting CBO Report indeed, which can be found here: cbo.gov It shows a growing income gap and a shifting downward of the tax burden, two troubling signs, and probably not a coincidence that both theses trends also preceded the Great Depression. It also puts to rest the lie that the bottom 40% of workers don't pay taxes and therefore aren't entitled to tax cuts. It's exactly this sort of lie that has helped rationalize increasing the tax burden on the lower quintiles while lightening it on the upper quintiles. I'd like to see a study that shows how progressive taxation is with regards to wealth. Do the top 10% who own about 70% of the nation's wealth pay 70% of federal taxes? More? Less? I think a nice flat wealth tax would be the fairest thing we could institute, maybe not the most practical or most efficient, but the fairest... SD