"Fair Share"

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Engineer

So the top 1%'s percentage of of total income rose 28.4% ((20.3 - 15.8 ) / 15.8 * 100) from 2002 to 2006 while their percentage total tax rose 18.1% ((39.81 - 33.71) / 33.71 * 100) from your own links. Based on income, their percent of taxation (as a whole) should have rose 28.4% (based on income gains) but it grew at 2/3's pace. Sounds like a much lower "effective" rate than before to me.

that alone doesn't answer the question of whether the tax system is more or less progressive than it was before. you'd also have to answer the question for other parts of the income distribution.


That's why I stated above that you would need to see the effective rates to see whether it was more or less progressive. The OP claimed that the taxes were more progressive because the rich and upper divisions paid more % of national tax burden. My example above shows that income "can" determine the % of total taxes paid just as much or more than rates, and even with equal rates, the rich can pay more. Doesn't mean that paying more of the national % of taxes = more progressive (as claimed by the OP). That claim is simply untrue without looking at the effective tax rates of every percentile

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I would like to see a study that uses not just IRS data but FICA/FUTA collections, sales and use taxes, gasoline taxes, etc., to truly capture the percentage of gross income each taxpayer pays in taxes. Using just the IRS data (for FIT paid) is misleading.

that too

Well, that would be the true tax burden of every single person in society, not just income tax burden. SS payroll tax would effect anyone up to $100,000 more than it would effect people earning millions as their payout would end at the $100,000 (or whatever the payout limit is on SS for that year). That's another thead though as this one is about income taxes from the OP

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Typical liberal BS. When you have the bottom 50% paying 3% but making 12% you can come to no other conclusion that it is progressive and since the numbers have changed to lessen the "burden" on the bottom 50%(and the income share increased). But I know it's got to be difficult for you diehards to accept reality and I fully expected you to come in here whining about the numbers.

Typical conservative stupidity (see how easy it is to insult an entire subsection with a generic slander?).

When the bottom 50% equates to a population base of 200M taxpayers, the input is going to be lower based on the fact that the AVERAGE income for that many people is significantly lower which puts them in a tax bracket that is significantly reduced.

Now, when you start talking about the top 5%, you are talking about a few thousand individuals. Of course, the higher average is to be expected. With the higher average comes a higher tax bracket.

The rich's burden didn't increase. The amount of money that they are earning did which increased their total input in terms of dollars....not in their effective tax rate.

Now, if the rich want to join the lower class by giving some of their wealth to the lower classes in a manner that the lower is still taxed for it, I don't think that you will hear a single complaint from the bottom feeders about the amount of taxes that they are now being forced to pay on their newfound wealth. That would lower the rich's burden while increasing the poor's.

You can't expect to get more and more of the wealth and then make an argument that those that are getting less should pay more so that all things will be "fair" and be taken seriously by anyone else but those in your country club.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, that would be the true tax burden of every single person in society, not just income tax burden. SS payroll tax would effect anyone up to $100,000 more than it would effect people earning millions as their payout would end at the $100,000 (or whatever the payout limit is on SS for that year). That's another thead though as this one is about income taxes from the OP

Yeh, but that's the OP's usual trap- looking at federal income tax as if it were the only tax. It's not. Taxes are taxes- they all have the same effect on purchasing power.

Looking at it any other way is dishonest, or blind, depending on whether you're the one doing the convincing or the one being convinced.

This chart shows the effects of the bush taxcuts on total taxation-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/fsl2004.pdf

And it's also important to realize that much the same happened under the RR-GHWB admins, as well... the cumulative effect over the last 25 years has been profound, and it shows in the explosive inequality of today...

 

[GTKeeper]

CAD,

I know you are not a dumb person. I honestly think though that your definition of progressive is something other than what progressive really means.

Just because certain brackets pay more of the total income share of the gov't doesn't mean the system is more progressive.

Simple Example:

Bill Gates sits in a bar of 100 people. Lets say that its all people earning 100k / year and him. Lets also assume the tax rate is flat at 1%. Let's say Bill's Income is 500 million/year. He pays 5 mil in taxes.
The rest of the bar pays 99k.

Now you can say that the top 1% of this population pays 99.9999802% of the taxes and that 99% of the population pays 0.0000198% of the taxes. I am affraid that by YOUR definition this system is EXTREMELY progressive, but in fact its not progressive at all, its a flat system.

See my point?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

Even Jefferson knew that taxation was necessary, and supported 'progressive' taxation.

Jefferson also said, "Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."

Jefferson also had slaves and lived a couple hundred years ago, so I'd take the various things he's said with a grain of salt. (fixed)

Hey, I didn't bring Jefferson into this.

I figured a founding father's opinion on the matter would carry some weight with you.

As long as you can take it as much as you dish it out.

I have no problem 'taking it' although I think my quote is a tad more powerful. One should look at the entire quote you put forth:

"The government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular one because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the health and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny. Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823. ME 15:432

So he is primarily talking about goods anyhow. And uniform in this case? http://www.answers.com/uniform&r=67: Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.

And the quote I was referring to:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

So taking the word uniform out and inferring that it means the more wealthy members of society shouldn't contribute more is laughable at best. If the increased taxes they pay was uniform in its progression then it seems to fit both quotes here.

 

[ayabe]

CAD - Are you the guy I see every day driving the beatup Honda with the "FLAT TAX NOW" stickers all over his car?

If not you guys sure are drinking the same bowl, might wanna get that checked.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I have no problem 'taking it' although I think my quote is a tad more powerful. One should look at the entire quote you put forth:

"The government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular one because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the health and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny. Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823. ME 15:432

So he is primarily talking about goods anyhow. And uniform in this case? http://www.answers.com/uniform&r=67: Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.

And the quote I was referring to:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

So taking the word uniform out and inferring that it means the more wealthy members of society shouldn't contribute more is laughable at best. If the increased taxes they pay was uniform in its progression then it seems to fit both quotes here.

Ok, you nailed that one. I'll give you a :thumbsup: .



But really, I don't want to play an endless game of contradicting quotes.

I'm sure both of us can find what we're looking for. But I think in the end, I hope, we could agree that what we have today is unacceptable.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to wade hip deep into tax return data, but that article (and CSG's commentary on it) has the potential to be pretty misleading. The year to year comparison is done on income percentiles without doing a comparison on how much actual income is accounted for in each percentile. A single data point comparing the two is given on the included graph on the page, demonstrating that the tax structure is indeed progressive, but no proof is offered to show that it's MORE progressive than it was before the Bush tax cuts, which is the implication of the article.

If someone else wants to look this up, they're more than welcome to, but I'm suspicious of this article because it looks like funny math to get the desired outcome. A very simple way to prove (or disprove) their point would have been to compare percentage of total income to percentage of income tax burden. If it went up for higher percentile groups, that would indicate an increase in how progressive the tax system is. But instead the article compares income percentiles to tax burden, which is an unbelievably clumsy way of doing it unless they're trying to fudge the numbers.

Of course you're more or less right, but it comes down to your definition of "more progressive." If by "more progressive" you mean "those with higher incomes shouldered a larger percentage of the tax burden than they did previously," then it is more progressive (though not by much). If by "more progressive" you mean "those with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than they did before," then no, it's less progressive, though it's less progressive at every margin. Most people probably mean the former, in which case it really is more progressive, though only slightly. I posted the numbers in a thread I may have started a few years ago now.

I would define progressivity as the fraction of the total budget that is shouldered by a person divided by their income. I don't think any data are available for this metric, but it would be interesting to see how it compares. Of course, since congress hasn't bothered to pass a budget in the last few years, it would be indeterminate. Lazy bastages.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
CAD,

I know you are not a dumb person. I honestly think though that your definition of progressive is something other than what progressive really means.

Just because certain brackets pay more of the total income share of the gov't doesn't mean the system is more progressive.

Simple Example:

Bill Gates sits in a bar of 100 people. Lets say that its all people earning 100k / year and him. Lets also assume the tax rate is flat at 1%. Let's say Bill's Income is 500 million/year. He pays 5 mil in taxes.
The rest of the bar pays 99k.

Now you can say that the top 1% of this population pays 99.9999802% of the taxes and that 99% of the population pays 0.0000198% of the taxes. I am affraid that by YOUR definition this system is EXTREMELY progressive, but in fact its not progressive at all, its a flat system.

See my point?

Yes, I know what you are saying, but that's not my point and not the point of the data being presented. I've already addressed the "effective" and other scenarios but that isn't what I'm talking about here. There are 2 different "progressive" measures and I'm addressing the one here that we see trotted out by the libs all the time - that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". It's total BS - they are paying more and more of the tax share. The libs here don't seem to want to accept that so they switch to the "effective" or "rate" whining per usual. It's just the same as when we talk about the other things, they whine about "fair share". I'm simply addressing what the data shows, others seem to be trying to bringing other arguments into it.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I have no problem 'taking it' although I think my quote is a tad more powerful. One should look at the entire quote you put forth:

"The government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular one because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the health and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny. Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823. ME 15:432

So he is primarily talking about goods anyhow. And uniform in this case? http://www.answers.com/uniform&r=67: Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.

And the quote I was referring to:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

So taking the word uniform out and inferring that it means the more wealthy members of society shouldn't contribute more is laughable at best. If the increased taxes they pay was uniform in its progression then it seems to fit both quotes here.

Ok, you nailed that one. I'll give you a :thumbsup: .



But really, I don't want to play an endless game of contradicting quotes.

I'm sure both of us can find what we're looking for. But I think in the end, I hope, we could agree that what we have today is unacceptable.

Thanks. Neither do I, but i just feel that to paint the whole taxation thing as simply morally unjust isn't proper. Remember, the colonists were fighting against taxation without representation, not taxation period.

I won't claim to know what to do or even what is the problem, but I get kind of tired of those who paint taxation as entirely wrong from the get-go. Taxes are necessary for a country like ours (or any other of this size) to exist. Where we should disagree is how the tax should be collected, how much, and how it should be spent.

And what folks often forget is that even with a 'morally superior' flat tax system there would still be wealth redistribution. There is no way to get around 'robin hood' economics (as I've seen some nuts post) unless you have an entirely regressive tax system, which you and me both know is insane. I simply see no problem with the most wealthy of our society carrying most of the tax burden for they don't feel it like the middle class does. You don't hear of them having to cut back on their luxuries because the darn tax rate is too high. Sorry if I get tired of the right complaining about how oppressed the wealthy people are.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm addressing the one here that we see trotted out by the libs all the time - that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". It's total BS - they are paying more and more of the tax share. The libs here don't seem to want to accept that so they switch to the "effective" or "rate" whining per usual. It's just the same as when we talk about the other things, they whine about "fair share". I'm simply addressing what the data shows, others seem to be trying to bringing other arguments into it.

They are paying more because they are earning FAR more of the income, period. The article was written suggesting that the Bush tax plan has caused the taxation in the US to be more progressive. Bush's tax plan had nothing to do with it causing it to be "your so called definition of progressive". Their incomes rose at astronomical rates while the rest of the people (especially bottom 50%) stagnated. It's as simple as that. They received an even larger rate cut when including capital gains. You complain far more than they (the rich) or any so called lib does.

They pay a lower rate than they did before, so why are you complaining about it?

Progressive has always been defined by the rates and now you guys jump in and state that progressive is defined by one groups "share" of national taxes. Bullshit. The above flat tax examples show that not to be the case because as income goes up, by that definition, then the taxation would go up proportionately and therefore be more progressive (because they paid a larger share) because they paid more. The only non progressive plan, based on that garbage, would be to truely flat tax everyone and that would mean everyone paying the exact same amount (not percent) as everyone else.

The article is pure spin trying to suggest that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive...bullshit.

 

[Excelsior]

There are 2 different "progressive" measures and I'm addressing the one here that we see trotted out by the libs all the time - that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". It's total BS - they are paying more and more of the tax share.

I just want to comment that I rarely if ever see or hear such specific talk from liberals. Everyone knows that the wealthiest people pay the most...and they should. I think liberals just don't want to see the wealthy have their taxes cut without the middle class folks not seeing much of an improvement. Lets be honest, the 'burden' on the wealthy isn't a burden at all for they don't feel the effect of the taxes on their lifestyle in a significant way. However, for a family of four making a household income of 50K, every dollar counts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm addressing the one here that we see trotted out by the libs all the time - that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". It's total BS - they are paying more and more of the tax share. The libs here don't seem to want to accept that so they switch to the "effective" or "rate" whining per usual. It's just the same as when we talk about the other things, they whine about "fair share". I'm simply addressing what the data shows, others seem to be trying to bringing other arguments into it.

They are paying more because they are earning FAR more of the income, period. The article was written suggesting that the Bush tax plan has caused the taxation in the US to be more progressive. Bush's tax plan had nothing to do with it causing it to be "your so called definition of progressive". Their incomes rose at astronomical rates while the rest of the people (especially bottom 50%) stagnated. It's as simple as that. They received an even larger rate cut when including capital gains. You complain far more than they (the rich) or any so called lib does.

They pay a lower rate than they did before, so why are you complaining about it?

Progressive has always been defined by the rates and now you guys jump in and state that progressive is defined by one groups "share" of national taxes. Bullshit. The above flat tax examples show that not to be the case because as income goes up, by that definition, then the taxation would go up proportionately and therefore be more progressive (because they paid a larger share) because they paid more. The only non progressive plan, based on that garbage, would be to truely flat tax everyone and that would mean everyone paying the exact same amount (not percent) as everyone else.

The article is pure spin trying to suggest that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive...bullshit.

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

By your view, a flat tax would be progressive.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

By your view, a flat tax would be progressive.

What would the "shares" be under that system? Provide those numbers and we'll see how it stacks up to the current share data.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

But what was presented was a fallacy. You and the author in the OP are trying to make the claim that the rich are worse off because their contribution is more without allotting for the fact that their take is even bigger than that.

You are essentially trying to say that even though that make 25% more than they did previously, they are paying 10% more so they are burdened. It is either lunacy, willful ignorance or stupidity that you can't see that.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

By your view, a flat tax would be progressive.

What would the "shares" be under that system? Provide those numbers and we'll see how it stacks up to the current share data.

Because the top had their share of income go up 28% (of total income), their tax share would have also went up 28%. It would be even more progressive than the up 28% for income and only up 18% that it is now. Of course, the bottom would now be paying a share but the "flat tax" would still be FAR MORE progressive in this case, based on your definition.

Current system: Top incomes went up 28% of total income from 2002-2006 while total share of taxes went up 18%.

Flat tax system: Top Incomes total share of income would have went up 28% while share of taxation would have went up 28% (instead of the current 18%).

See how that works?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm addressing the one here that we see trotted out by the libs all the time - that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". It's total BS - they are paying more and more of the tax share. The libs here don't seem to want to accept that so they switch to the "effective" or "rate" whining per usual. It's just the same as when we talk about the other things, they whine about "fair share". I'm simply addressing what the data shows, others seem to be trying to bringing other arguments into it.

They are paying more because they are earning FAR more of the income, period. The article was written suggesting that the Bush tax plan has caused the taxation in the US to be more progressive. Bush's tax plan had nothing to do with it causing it to be "your so called definition of progressive". Their incomes rose at astronomical rates while the rest of the people (especially bottom 50%) stagnated. It's as simple as that. They received an even larger rate cut when including capital gains. You complain far more than they (the rich) or any so called lib does.

They pay a lower rate than they did before, so why are you complaining about it?

Progressive has always been defined by the rates and now you guys jump in and state that progressive is defined by one groups "share" of national taxes. Bullshit. The above flat tax examples show that not to be the case because as income goes up, by that definition, then the taxation would go up proportionately and therefore be more progressive (because they paid a larger share) because they paid more. The only non progressive plan, based on that garbage, would be to truely flat tax everyone and that would mean everyone paying the exact same amount (not percent) as everyone else.

The article is pure spin trying to suggest that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive...bullshit.

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

Simple math lesson for you. 2 things determines final tax you pay.

Income x effective tax rate= tax you pay.

The rich income grew at a much higher percent then bottom 50%. So even tho their effective rate actually dropped a little, the final tax they pay grew as a percentage. It has nothing to do with the tax policy, but it has lots to do with how bush government created bigger income gap.

Like engineer said, most people look at tax from effective tax rate perspective. That's what people care about. The tax you pay as a percentage is just the result of changes in income distribution and got nothing to do with the actual tax policy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

But what was presented was a fallacy. You and the author in the OP are trying to make the claim that the rich are worse off because their contribution is more without allotting for the fact that their take is even bigger than that.

You are essentially trying to say that even though that make 25% more than they did previously, they are paying 10% more so they are burdened. It is either lunacy, willful ignorance or stupidity that you can't see that.

No where did anyone claim the rich were "worse off".

..next lame attempt...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

By your view, a flat tax would be progressive.

What would the "shares" be under that system? Provide those numbers and we'll see how it stacks up to the current share data.

Because the top had their share of income go up 28% (of total income), their tax share would have also went up 28%. It would be even more progressive than the up 28% for income and only up 18% that it is now. Of course, the bottom would now be paying a share but the "flat tax" would still be FAR MORE progressive in this case, based on your definition.

Current system: Top incomes went up 28% of total income from 2002-2006 while total share of taxes went up 18%.

Flat tax system: Top Incomes total share of income would have went up 28% while share of taxation would have went up 28% (instead of the current 18%).

See how that works?

No, I'm talking about the change to flat vs current. But yes, in you scenario a year to year change could be progressive with a flat tax. However if you only wish to use a narrow definition of progressive - it's rely on rate. However that doesn't work with the OP due to it not being about rate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm addressing the one here that we see trotted out by the libs all the time - that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". It's total BS - they are paying more and more of the tax share. The libs here don't seem to want to accept that so they switch to the "effective" or "rate" whining per usual. It's just the same as when we talk about the other things, they whine about "fair share". I'm simply addressing what the data shows, others seem to be trying to bringing other arguments into it.

They are paying more because they are earning FAR more of the income, period. The article was written suggesting that the Bush tax plan has caused the taxation in the US to be more progressive. Bush's tax plan had nothing to do with it causing it to be "your so called definition of progressive". Their incomes rose at astronomical rates while the rest of the people (especially bottom 50%) stagnated. It's as simple as that. They received an even larger rate cut when including capital gains. You complain far more than they (the rich) or any so called lib does.

They pay a lower rate than they did before, so why are you complaining about it?

Progressive has always been defined by the rates and now you guys jump in and state that progressive is defined by one groups "share" of national taxes. Bullshit. The above flat tax examples show that not to be the case because as income goes up, by that definition, then the taxation would go up proportionately and therefore be more progressive (because they paid a larger share) because they paid more. The only non progressive plan, based on that garbage, would be to truely flat tax everyone and that would mean everyone paying the exact same amount (not percent) as everyone else.

The article is pure spin trying to suggest that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code more progressive...bullshit.

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

Simple math lesson for you. 2 things determines final tax you pay.

Income x effective tax rate= tax you pay.

The rich income grew at a much higher percent then bottom 50%. So even tho their effective rate actually dropped a little, the final tax they pay grew as a percentage. It has nothing to do with the tax policy, but it has lots to do with how bush government created bigger income gap.

Like engineer said, most people look at tax from effective tax rate perspective. That's what people care about. The tax you pay as a percentage is just the result of changes in income distribution and got nothing to do with the actual tax policy.

That's fine if you wish to have an "effective rate" or just plain rate discussion - but that isn't what the OP was about.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, I'm talking about the change to flat vs current. But yes, in you scenario a year to year change could be progressive with a flat tax. However if you only wish to use a narrow definition of progressive - it's rely on rate. However that doesn't work with the OP due to it not being about rate.

I didn't use rate at all in the above situation because it was moot - i.e. flat. However, income does matter and an income increase in the flat system produces an even MORE progressive system than the current one did. Nowhere does the above rely on rate, only income change % of total which is what the OP relys on, but isn't mentioned of course.

Of course, the rich would be paying a smaller "share" because they would now be paying 22% instead of 40% but YOU would be paying more. That's fine as long as you pay more to lower theirs down. I'm not willing to pay more for that.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Again, this isn't about rate. Try again.

OK CAD. Someone pointed out in this thread that you would just repeat the dodge until people wore down and quit and they were right. You can define progressive however you want but you know the damn truth and won't admit it. The tax code is not more progressive, period and evidence has been given to support that.

No, look at the OP. It's not about rates. So while you and others try to make it about other things - I'm trying to stick with what was presented.

You may not want to accept a broad view of "progressive" and stick to a narrow "rate" view if you wish but it doesn't change anything.

But what was presented was a fallacy. You and the author in the OP are trying to make the claim that the rich are worse off because their contribution is more without allotting for the fact that their take is even bigger than that.

You are essentially trying to say that even though that make 25% more than they did previously, they are paying 10% more so they are burdened. It is either lunacy, willful ignorance or stupidity that you can't see that.

No where did anyone claim the rich were "worse off".

..next lame attempt...

From your first post (the OP):

Seems our system is MORE "progressive" after Bush's taxcuts. The bottom 50% make 12% of the income yet only pay 3% of the taxes. I'm not sure how BHO can really lessen the "burden" when there isn't much of one to begin with.

So someone can have a bigger burden but not be worse off in your opinion?

Typical liberal BS. When you have the bottom 50% paying 3% but making 12% you can come to no other conclusion that it is progressive and since the numbers have changed to lessen the "burden" on the bottom 50%(and the income share increased). But I know it's got to be difficult for you diehards to accept reality and I fully expected you to come in here whining about the numbers.

First and foremost, you are the one whining about the numbers. The whole premise of the thread was the author's and your whining about how the rich have to pay such a high progressive tax. Whaaaaa!

Secondly, you once again are complaining that the poor are getting off easier.

There are 2 different "progressive" measures and I'm addressing the one here that we see trotted out by the libs all the time - that the rich aren't paying their "fair share". It's total BS - they are paying more and more of the tax share. The libs here don't seem to want to accept that so they switch to the "effective" or "rate" whining per usual. It's just the same as when we talk about the other things, they whine about "fair share". I'm simply addressing what the data shows, others seem to be trying to bringing other arguments into it.

Here you are complaining once again that the libs don't see that the poor, poor rich folk are having to pay more than they used to without any acknowledgment that they are bringing in even more than what their increase in output is. What is the name of that kind of rational again? Oh, yeah...cognitive dissonance.