• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Based on the latest tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
This is an amazing article because it blows away so many of the left?s arguments on taxes and incomes.

1. The ?rich? did FAR better under Bill Clinton than under Bush. Despite all the talk about rising incomes and fat cat Republicans etc etc. During the 90?s the top 1% saw their share of income grow from 14% to 21% a 50% increase while under Bush they have barely seen a 1% increase.
2. Despite all the talk about tax cuts for the ?rich? it turns out that Bush?s tax cuts have helped the poor FAR more than the rich. The ?poor? half of the country now pays only 3% of all income taxes. Even more amazing is the fact that 1.3 million ?rich? Americans pay 10 times more in taxes than the 66 million below the median income point.
3. Cuts in tax rates DO cause increases in tax revenue. Since capital gains taxes were cut from 20% to 15% in 2003 the amount of capital gains declared has DOUBLED!!! So we are getting less money per dollar declared, but we are getting a whole lot more dollars to tax.
4. If Bush was Democrat President the left would be holding him up as an example of what a President should be like when it comes to taxes.
link
BTW the data used comes from the IRS and Treasury Department so save your 'right wing' conspiracy BS for another thread.
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

For the political left and most of the media, this means only that the rich are getting richer, so of course they're paying more taxes. And it is true that the top earners have increased their share of total income. Yet, as the nearby table shows, 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. This makes it hard to pin their claim of "rising inequality" on the Bush tax cuts, though the income redistributionists are trying. By this measure, the Clinton years were far worse for "inequality."

Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. 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. How could this be?

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. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

The IRS statistics also tell a more complicated economic story than the media claim. First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm.

Liberals decry this as proof of a new "gilded age." But we'd say these gains are a sign that more Americans are joining the ranks of the truly affluent. More than 13 million American households, or about one in 10, had an income of more than $100,000 a year in 2005. This is the kind of upward mobility that a dynamic society should want because it means that incomes aren't stagnant and opportunity continues to exist.

Keep in mind as well that the IRS only records the income that taxpayers report. Its data don't include income that the rich hide in tax shelters or otherwise defer. And there is evidence that lower tax rates since 1981 have caused the rich to declare more of what they earn. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.

The IRS figures are also misleading because they include income that can make many Americans rich for only a single year. In 2005, for example, taxpayers earned an estimated $600 billion in income from capital gains, which is reported on tax forms as part of adjustable gross income. But that might include the one-time gain from a middle-class senior couple that has lived modestly for decades but suddenly retires and sells the family business or home for $1 million or more. They may be "rich" in Hillary Clinton's definition of the term, but in fact they are benefiting in one tax year from a lifetime of hard work and thrift.

The amount of capital gains declared on tax forms has doubled since the tax rate was cut to 15% from 20% in 2003, which has also contributed to more Americans being "rich." Dividend income has also increased by at least 50% since that rate was cut to 15% from nearly 40% in 2003. So part of the income gains of the rich are simply a result of assets that have been converted into taxable income -- in part because of lower tax rates.

We hate to break up the media's egalitarian chorus with these details, but facts are facts. If Democrats really want to soak the rich, they'll keep tax rates where they are, or, better, lower them some more.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
1. The ?rich? did FAR better under Bill Clinton than under Bush. Despite all the talk about rising incomes and fat cat Republicans etc etc. During the 90?s the top 1% saw their share of income grow from 14% to 21% a 50% increase while under Bush they have barely seen a 1% increase.
didn't the economy as a whole do far better under Clinton?

in any event...

?A lot of people justifiably feel they are working harder and smarter, they are baking a bigger and better pie, and yet their slice is not growing much at all,? Mr. Bernstein said. ?It is meaningless to middle- and low-income families to say we have a great economy because their economy looks so much different than folks at the top of the scale because this is an economy that is working, but not working for everyone.?

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.
seems to sum up the problem that democrats see and perhaps reflected in 4 straight months of falling consumer confidence.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html)
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Loki? the data is based on income share. During the 90s the economy may have grown at a better pace than it has under Bush, but the rich did FAR better than anyone else when it came to enjoying the economic growth.

Outside of the 2001 and 2002 recession the economy has been rather good under Bush. AND it seems that under Bush the growth has been far more spread out.

The rich are earning less and paying more, isn?t that what the left has always wanted?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,802
4,698
126
Isn't WSJ ran by the same company that runs Fox News?
Are they recommending the rich vote for Clinton if they want what's good for them? :D
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
The rich are actually earning more and paying fewer taxes than they were during the 90's. There's also the issue of correlation vs. causation, as there's nothing definitive to leads one to believe Clinton or Bush did anything to stop the bleeding. But a good partisan attempt by the OP. Failed attempt, ultimately. Tax cuts have hurt the economy almost conclusively considering the deficit spending that has been seen in conjunction with it. Inequality has still risen during Bush's term, and at the same rate as it was during the 90's (though again, the cause is difficult to ascertain).
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,166
14,018
136
The rich are paying a wider slice of the pie now because they have more of the pie now. The rich are not earning less.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
This whole article is bullshit. WSJ is owned by the same guy that owns Fox News. You can't trust anything any more..

They'll just fudge the numbers and ignore inflation, the money supply, the weakness of the dollar.. and declare that everyone wins under Bush!

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
What isn't being factored into the equation if the difference of the classes pre-Clinton compared to pre-Bush.

When Clinton took office, the population was completely one-sided and tilted towards the upper classes thanks to "Voodoo trickle down" economics perpetuated by Reagan and Bush I. With the policies implemented by Clinton and the Dem congress in the first term and then continued by the Repub congress in his second thanks to veto threats and not having a super majority to override, policies were a compromise that benefited more of the population.

When Bush took over, the pendulum had been swung back towards the middle. To say that Bush hasn't been looking out for #1 (in this case the 1 represents the percentage of the population that he cares about and they are at the very top) is ludicrous. The top had grown under Clinton as did every other class. What the author isn't telling you is that the top has continued to grow while the others have become stagnant or actually fell backwards.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Maybe you guys should just close your eyes and go "nanananana i'm not listening" it would have been more effective than your attempts to ignore the facts in this article.

The article maybe from the Wall Street Journal, but the data comes from the government.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Maybe you guys should just close your eyes and go "nanananana i'm not listening" it would have been more effective than your attempts to ignore the facts in this article.

The article maybe from the Wall Street Journal, but the data comes from the government.
You're not getting it.

If you go from 1 up to 10 you grew at a rate of 1000%. This is where the lower 99% were under Reagan/Bush I policies.

The upper 1% "only" went from 100 to 200 for a growth rate of 100%.

This doesn't mean that the lower 99% were better off, only that they were so depressed that their growth "looked" more dramatic when you don't adjust for inflation or when you take into account the starting ratio of the income/GDP gap.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What isn't being factored into the equation if the difference of the classes pre-Clinton compared to pre-Bush.

When Clinton took office, the population was completely one-sided and tilted towards the upper classes thanks to "Voodoo trickle down" economics perpetuated by Reagan and Bush I. With the policies implemented by Clinton and the Dem congress in the first term and then continued by the Repub congress in his second thanks to veto threats and not having a super majority to override, policies were a compromise that benefited more of the population.

When Bush took over, the pendulum had been swung back towards the middle. To say that Bush hasn't been looking out for #1 (in this case the 1 represents the percentage of the population that he cares about and they are at the very top) is ludicrous. The top had grown under Clinton as did every other class. What the author isn't telling you is that the top has continued to grow while the others have become stagnant or actually fell backwards.
Some of you guys are just plain dense.

There is a concept called 'income share' it tracks the break down of income by group.
When the rich do well and the poor or middle class don't do well then the income share of the rich goes up. That is what happened during the 90s.

During the first 5 years of Bush's term though the rich have not seen their share of the income rise much at all, less than 1%. That means economic growth has been shared by a much large percentage of the population.

IF as you claim in the bolded part that the top was growing and the others were stagnant of falling backwards then the income share of the rich would rise, and that has NOT happened.

You post is so detached from reality it is sad. Your claim that Clinton someone how created a compromise that helped 'more of the population' is not shown in the FACTS. In 1990 the top 5% of earners made 27% of ALL income in this country, by 2000 they were making 35% of all income. Yes everyone did well during the 90s, but the 'rich' did FAR better than the rest of the country.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Based on the latest tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy

Topic Summary: AND the rich did far better under Clinton than under Bush
Big surprise, another false thread by the non-professor.

The Bush Adminstration made everything Pro-Business at all costs.

This favors rich Republicans that use loopholes created by this policy to shelter their money.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Maybe you guys should just close your eyes and go "nanananana i'm not listening" it would have been more effective than your attempts to ignore the facts in this article.

The article maybe from the Wall Street Journal, but the data comes from the government.
You're not getting it.

If you go from 1 up to 10 you grew at a rate of 1000%. This is where the lower 99% were under Reagan/Bush I policies.

The upper 1% "only" went from 100 to 200 for a growth rate of 100%.

This doesn't mean that the lower 99% were better off, only that they were so depressed that their growth "looked" more dramatic when you don't adjust for inflation or when you take into account the starting ratio of the income/GDP gap.
Income share is the breakdown of income by percentile. You can compare income share from different years without regards to inflation because inflation is totally irrelevant when discussing it.

When you talk about income share you are not talking about dollars, but about percentages of the total pie.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
What I always find amusing is this insistence everybody did grea tunder Clinton. Who really did great under clinton? Wallstreet did awesome under clinton. The smart ones got out and left the rest of the avg joes feeling the sting of overvaluation.

I am pretty sure poor people dont work on wallstreet. Neither were the people who built companies out of thin air and sold that air for millions to the feeding frenzy of the dot com boom.

There are a fe things that cant be dismissed. Our capital gains taxes collect has gone up a lot since the tax cut. The rich as a % of income havent seen the huge gains they saw under Clinton.

Now do I think either president had a huge hand in what happened? Not really. Clinton was smart enough to be hands off. Bush did manage to get the capital gains cuts that lead to high taxes in the end.

Our fascination with the president having some godly wand to wave over our economy is amusing. The person with that wand doesnt sit in the white house. He sits at the fed reserve.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Genx87
What I always find amusing is this insistence everybody did grea tunder Clinton. Who really did great under clinton? Wallstreet did awesome under clinton. The smart ones got out and left the rest of the avg joes feeling the sting of overvaluation.

I am pretty sure poor people dont work on wallstreet. Neither were the people who built companies out of thin air and sold that air for millions to the feeding frenzy of the dot com boom.

There are a fe things that cant be dismissed. Our capital gains taxes collect has gone up a lot since the tax cut. The rich as a % of income havent seen the huge gains they saw under Clinton.

Now do I think either president had a huge hand in what happened? Not really. Clinton was smart enough to be hands off. Bush did manage to get the capital gains cuts that lead to high taxes in the end.

Our fascination with the president having some godly wand to wave over our economy is amusing. The person with that wand doesnt sit in the white house. He sits at the fed reserve.

I have been saying over and over that the economic boom we saw under Clinton had everything to do with Microsoft, Intel, and the (consumer) birth of the internet.

Windows 95 and the Pentium I, along with the internet, created a huge demand for tech hardware, and due to the increase in mass production, we saw much lower prices. What people fail to see is that this helped MANY businesses outside the tech sector and in MANY ways.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
This is funny . . .

""Don't look at the numbers!""

""Look at our interpretation of the numbers!""
That is what the lefty posters on here are doing.

Nice to see you nail them on it :thumbsup:
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,583
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Genx87
What I always find amusing is this insistence everybody did grea tunder Clinton. Who really did great under clinton? Wallstreet did awesome under clinton. The smart ones got out and left the rest of the avg joes feeling the sting of overvaluation.

I am pretty sure poor people dont work on wallstreet. Neither were the people who built companies out of thin air and sold that air for millions to the feeding frenzy of the dot com boom.

There are a fe things that cant be dismissed. Our capital gains taxes collect has gone up a lot since the tax cut. The rich as a % of income havent seen the huge gains they saw under Clinton.

Now do I think either president had a huge hand in what happened? Not really. Clinton was smart enough to be hands off. Bush did manage to get the capital gains cuts that lead to high taxes in the end.

Our fascination with the president having some godly wand to wave over our economy is amusing. The person with that wand doesnt sit in the white house. He sits at the fed reserve.

I have been saying over and over that the economic boom we saw under Clinton had everything to do with Microsoft, Intel, and the (consumer) birth of the internet.

Windows 95 and the Pentium I, along with the internet, created a huge demand for tech hardware, and due to the increase in mass production, we saw much lower prices. What people fail to see is that this helped MANY businesses outside the tech sector and in MANY ways.
Yes, we re-wired our economy, now it's time to change the energy source. Imagine what that could do for our economy.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Genx87
What I always find amusing is this insistence everybody did grea tunder Clinton. Who really did great under clinton? Wallstreet did awesome under clinton. The smart ones got out and left the rest of the avg joes feeling the sting of overvaluation.

I am pretty sure poor people dont work on wallstreet. Neither were the people who built companies out of thin air and sold that air for millions to the feeding frenzy of the dot com boom.

There are a fe things that cant be dismissed. Our capital gains taxes collect has gone up a lot since the tax cut. The rich as a % of income havent seen the huge gains they saw under Clinton.

Now do I think either president had a huge hand in what happened? Not really. Clinton was smart enough to be hands off. Bush did manage to get the capital gains cuts that lead to high taxes in the end.

Our fascination with the president having some godly wand to wave over our economy is amusing. The person with that wand doesnt sit in the white house. He sits at the fed reserve.

I have been saying over and over that the economic boom we saw under Clinton had everything to do with Microsoft, Intel, and the (consumer) birth of the internet.

Windows 95 and the Pentium I, along with the internet, created a huge demand for tech hardware, and due to the increase in mass production, we saw much lower prices. What people fail to see is that this helped MANY businesses outside the tech sector and in MANY ways.
Yes, we re-wired our economy, now it's time to change the energy source. Imagine what that could do for our economy.
I'm with you on that one!

Check this out:
U.S. hikes mileage standards 40%
:Q:Q:Q
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: Based on the latest tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy

Topic Summary: AND the rich did far better under Clinton than under Bush
Then you will be voting for Hillary :thumbsup: :cool:
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW the data used comes from the IRS and Treasury Department so save your 'right wing' conspiracy BS for another thread.
Pentagon reports were released confirming of people killed by sectarian violence in Iraq but didn't include car bomb victims or those shot in the back of the head as opposed to the front. Any statistic can be manipulated and no agency or group is above it since they may not even be doing it intentionally and may have reasons for including or excluding variables. But don't play the "this is from a source that can't be criticized" card. Besides, who the hell trusts the IRS??
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW the data used comes from the IRS and Treasury Department so save your 'right wing' conspiracy BS for another thread.
Pentagon reports were released confirming of people killed by sectarian violence in Iraq but didn't include car bomb victims or those shot in the back of the head as opposed to the front. Any statistic can be manipulated and no agency or group is above it since they may not even be doing it intentionally and may have reasons for including or excluding variables. But don't play the "this is from a source that can't be criticized" card. Besides, who the hell trusts the IRS??
If you dont trust the IRS then how can you complain the rich are eating a bigger piece of the pie?? How do you think those numbers are derived?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,313
5,256
126
Originally posted by: ironwing
The rich are paying a wider slice of the pie now because they have more of the pie now. The rich are not earning less.
according to the figures presented, the top 1% had the same slice of pie in 2005 than they did under clinton's last year (21% of all income). their share of the income tax has gone from 37% to 39%.

the top 5% increased share from 35% under clinton's final year to 36% in 2005. meanwhile, the share of income tax paid went from 56% to 60%. so, they increased their slice of pie by ~2.9%, but their income tax burden increased by ~7.1%.

those are treasury department figures.



keep in mind that the size of the 'pie' has increased. this is not a 0 sum game. real GDP increased from 9.817 trillion in clinton's last year to 11.003 trillion in 2005. so the pie got larger by ~12.1%.

source
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,289
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
This is funny . . .

""Don't look at the numbers!""

""Look at our interpretation of the numbers!""
That is what the lefty posters on here are doing.

Nice to see you nail them on it :thumbsup:

Where is the report, Johnnie?

A reputable organization would link to the report.

Now we are to believe a ""fair and balanced"" assessment of cherry-pickin' #'s brought to us by the Murdoch WSJ.

Yeah. Right. (rolling eyes)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY