"Fair Share"

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Also, the ones whining about "fairness" are YOU people. YOU are the ones playing the emotional games with taxes.

The last point here is that you didn't seem to read my OP. I'm not seeking to shift the "burden" anywhere - I'd like to keep them right where they are for now seeing as how we're stuck with taxing labor.

I've seen far more threads with people whining about taxing the rich too much lately, not sure what forum you are reading.

As for taxing labor, I think my labor should be taxed at the same rate as long term capital. I'm an investment and should be taxed as such, so my rate should be lowered to long term capital gains rates!

I don't think labor/productivity should be taxed at all. IMO, there are much better ways - the best being consumption.

I always liked that idea, the problem is that it seems like it could negatively impact spending. With income tax, it's still worth it to rise up the corporate ladder or invest, even if the tax is progressive, because overall you still get more money. A consumption tax, on the other hand, means that spending money now results in even more money out of your pocket, and it can be avoided entirely if you simply spend less.

Which is fine, up to a point, I think people should save more and spend less overall anyways. The problem is that I think it would encourage pretty dramatic changes in how people spend their money compared to how they do now. More taxes would be the thing at the back of your mind with every purchase, a subtle discouragement to actually spend money unless you needed to.

shit man - twice in the same day? on two different topics? Surely the world's time is short....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

Look at the link I just posted. Sheesh. top 1% went from a 33.89 share in 2001 to a 39.89 share in 2006. The other tops have increased shares as well but not that big. the top 50% went from 96 to 97.01. Thus since all their shares have gone up - the bottom 50% has gone from a 4% share to 2.99.

What more do you want? the top 1% to pay a 50% share? 60%? What is going to make you people happy?
Also, it's difficult to discuss this when people don't agree on what "middle class" and "upper middle class" are. They are really a poor categorization unless agreed upon by all parties involved.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

since you apparent missed it, the income share of the top 1% grew faster than the income share for the bottom 50%

(31,987-26,415)/26,415= .2109 or 21% increase

(388,806-293,415)/293,415= .3251 or 35% increase

from this we can presume that the top 1% earn 14% more relative to the bottom 50% as compared to 10 years ago.

in that time spawn their share of income tax paid has increased from 36.18 to 39.89

(39.89-36.18)/36.18 = .1025%

so that top 1% now pay a 10.25% greater share relative to 10 years ago while their relative share of income increased by 14%, so the top 1% are paying a smaller burden per income than 10 years ago.

now it will be interesting to see if this gets a response or any criticism at all, other than some other random link with a set of numbers with no analysis.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

Look at the link I just posted. Sheesh. top 1% went from a 33.89 share in 2001 to a 39.89 share in 2006. The other tops have increased shares as well but not that big. the top 50% went from 96 to 97.01. Thus since all their shares have gone up - the bottom 50% has gone from a 4% share to 2.99.

What more do you want? the top 1% to pay a 50% share? 60%? What is going to make you people happy?
Also, it's difficult to discuss this when people don't agree on what "middle class" and "upper middle class" are. They are really a poor categorization unless agreed upon by all parties involved.

i would care less about tax rates if incomes for the bottom increased at a faster rate than those at the top for a change. At this point, increasing tax rates for the very top woudl be good just to keep inequality from spiraling out of control, the trends are bad enough already.

 

[StageLeft]

True of course but it's also not fair that I was born into a family that was middle class and I didn't get a $5M nestegg.

In any case, capitalism is really a big pyramid scheme anyway, isn't it? The rich invest, whether it's money or their business and we, the bricks in that building work hard and send some of that up, so the higher up and richer you are it is somewhat like a snow ball. The rich have this over me, I have it to a smaller degree to those below me, who may serve me food at a restaurant for much less money and probably work harder than I do. As said above, fair is a hard thing to quantify.

What we could more easily, but still with difficulty, quantify is what's "right". Is it right that somebody is so rich in our world that he can buy a massive airliner and customize the inside and fly around like a buffoon with his wealth while others are literally so poor they cannot eat? I would say it's not right at all.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That's not to mention that I haven't seen anyone post any actual figures of what that top .1% pays in taxes. If you have that information, feel free to provide a link.

From a column by Pulitzer-Prize winning tax writer David Cay Johnston:

- Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.

- Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000...

From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000...

[A]n Internal Revenue Service study found that the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.

But a Treasury spokesman, Taylor Griffin, said the income tax system is more progressive if the measurement is the share borne by the top 40 percent of Americans rather than the top 0.1 percent...

The Times analysis shows that by 2010 the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts. For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.

But because of the way it is devised, the tax affects far fewer of the very richest: about a third of the taxpayers reporting more than $1 million in income. One big reason is that dividends and investment gains, which go mostly to the richest, are not subject to the tax.

Another reason that the wealthiest will fare much better is that the tax cuts over the past decade have sharply lowered rates on income from investments.

As for some numbers, here is a chart showing what Bowfinger said.

The tax cuts only get better for the wealthy, since they're designed to give most Americans most of their cuts in the first few years, and the big bucks to the wealthy later.

Err, that chart displays projections for 2015 and talks about shoulda, woulda, coulda. Talk about smoke and mirors. Sheesh. And nice that you throw a little appeal to authority in there too. Pulitzer Prize winner. Well surely nobody can question such a person, eh?

That's not to mention that the people who pay the most taxes SHOULD get the biggest tax cuts. What do you suggest? That we cut taxes for that lower 50% that pay little to nothing already? Also, as I already stated the very wealthy, that .1%, SHOULD get some good tax breaks as an incentive to invest their money in areas where they receive associated tax deductions. That's why those deductions are there in the first place.

No, I'm afraid the smoke-blowing is yours, coupled with the usual side of changing the subject. You claimed the richest Americans paid "a much higher percentage of their income in taxes". The data above shows you are wrong. They corroborate what I already told you, that the richest Americans pay proportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class. Indeed, the actual data shows America's highest-paid, the elite 400, pay essentially the same rate as a modestly middle class family earning $50K-$75K per year. People in the $100K to $200K bracket pay at a higher rate than those making more than $10M per year. These rates exclude sales taxes, highly regressive, and are based on taxable income as reported to the IRS, i.e., income left after deductions and exclusions like tax shelters. This means this data actually understates the actual tax gap between the upper middle class and the very wealthy.

Since Cad won't acknowledge the information from the other thread, I'm going to repost one key piece from it here. As I already mentioned in both threads now, the misdirection tactic used is to take data granularity only as far as the top 1%, then pretend that this represents America's rich. It doesn't, of course. The truly rich are those people in the top tenth of a percent, or even the top 400. Both are broken out in the link above. Both have benefited disproportionately under the Bush tax loans.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

since you apparent missed it, the income share of the top 1% grew faster than the income share for the bottom 50%

(31,987-26,415)/26,415= .2109 or 21% increase

(388,806-293,415)/293,415= .3251 or 35% increase

from this we can presume that the top 1% earn 14% more relative to the bottom 50% as compared to 10 years ago.

in that time spawn their share of income tax paid has increased from 36.18 to 39.89

(39.89-36.18)/36.18 = .1025%

so that top 1% now pay a 10.25% greater share relative to 10 years ago while their relative share of income increased by 14%, so the top 1% are paying a smaller burden per income than 10 years ago.

now it will be interesting to see if this gets a response or any criticism at all, other than some other random link with a set of numbers with no analysis.

Did you miss the part where there are more millionaires? Do you not understand that it increases the AGI of the top 1%? Ofcourse their AGI has increased more than the bottom 50% - so?

 

[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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
snipped the BS

Do you not understand that this is about Income taxes? NOT effective tax rate? It's also NOT about more tax cuts for the "rich". Also, as I stated earlier in the thread - much of what you are whining about is due to the bracketed system we have.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

Look at the link I just posted. Sheesh. top 1% went from a 33.89 share in 2001 to a 39.89 share in 2006. The other tops have increased shares as well but not that big. the top 50% went from 96 to 97.01. Thus since all their shares have gone up - the bottom 50% has gone from a 4% share to 2.99.

What more do you want? the top 1% to pay a 50% share? 60%? What is going to make you people happy?
Also, it's difficult to discuss this when people don't agree on what "middle class" and "upper middle class" are. They are really a poor categorization unless agreed upon by all parties involved.

They are still not paying a higher rate than before. The top 1%'s income went up 35.29% during that timeframe while the bottom 50% went up 12.1%. I can see why their share of taxes went up but their RATES went down.

Click me!

As a result, the share of the nation?s income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006.

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.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

since you apparent missed it, the income share of the top 1% grew faster than the income share for the bottom 50%

(31,987-26,415)/26,415= .2109 or 21% increase

(388,806-293,415)/293,415= .3251 or 35% increase

from this we can presume that the top 1% earn 14% more relative to the bottom 50% as compared to 10 years ago.

in that time spawn their share of income tax paid has increased from 36.18 to 39.89

(39.89-36.18)/36.18 = .1025%

so that top 1% now pay a 10.25% greater share relative to 10 years ago while their relative share of income increased by 14%, so the top 1% are paying a smaller burden per income than 10 years ago.

now it will be interesting to see if this gets a response or any criticism at all, other than some other random link with a set of numbers with no analysis.

Did you miss the part where there are more millionaires? Do you not understand that it increases the AGI of the top 1%? Ofcourse their AGI has increased more than the bottom 50% - so?

good god.

no shit there are more millionaires, see the bold. The point is, that relative taxes paid to income has decreased in the last 10 years for the top 1%, giving very strong evidence that the top 1% pays a smaller portion of their income than 10 years ago, making it less progressive. This mirrors the data in the link provided by craig, and for that matter most information dispersed by people who aren't charlatans like the wsj editorial board.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
snipped the facts Cad's trying to evade

Do you not understand that this is about Income taxes? NOT effective tax rate? It's also NOT about more tax cuts for the "rich". Also, as I stated earlier in the thread - much of what you are whining about is due to the bracketed system we have.

I fully understand how you want to frame the discussion, because that's the only way your disinformation sells. The fact remains that the richest Americans pay proportionately less in taxes than the upper middle class and much of the middle class. Indeed, the actual data shows America's highest-paid, the elite 400, pay essentially the same rate as a modestly middle class family earning $50K-$75K per year. People in the $100K to $200K bracket pay at a higher rate than those making more than $10M per year. These rates exclude sales taxes, highly regressive, and are based on taxable income as reported to the IRS, i.e., income left after deductions and exclusions like tax shelters. This means this data understates the actual tax gap between the upper middle class and the very wealthy.

That's the true picture, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

Look at the link I just posted. Sheesh. top 1% went from a 33.89 share in 2001 to a 39.89 share in 2006. The other tops have increased shares as well but not that big. the top 50% went from 96 to 97.01. Thus since all their shares have gone up - the bottom 50% has gone from a 4% share to 2.99.

What more do you want? the top 1% to pay a 50% share? 60%? What is going to make you people happy?
Also, it's difficult to discuss this when people don't agree on what "middle class" and "upper middle class" are. They are really a poor categorization unless agreed upon by all parties involved.

They are still not paying a higher rate than before. The top 1%'s income went up 35.29% during that timeframe while the bottom 50% went up 12.1%. I can see why their share of taxes went up but their RATES went down.

Click me!

As a result, the share of the nation?s income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006.

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.

Ofcourse their rates went down. Hello tax cuts(you know - rate cuts for every bracket).

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

Look at the link I just posted. Sheesh. top 1% went from a 33.89 share in 2001 to a 39.89 share in 2006. The other tops have increased shares as well but not that big. the top 50% went from 96 to 97.01. Thus since all their shares have gone up - the bottom 50% has gone from a 4% share to 2.99.

What more do you want? the top 1% to pay a 50% share? 60%? What is going to make you people happy?
Also, it's difficult to discuss this when people don't agree on what "middle class" and "upper middle class" are. They are really a poor categorization unless agreed upon by all parties involved.

They are still not paying a higher rate than before. The top 1%'s income went up 35.29% during that timeframe while the bottom 50% went up 12.1%. I can see why their share of taxes went up but their RATES went down.

Click me!

As a result, the share of the nation?s income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006.

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.

Ofcourse their rates went down. Hello tax cuts(you know - rate cuts for every bracket).

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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

since you apparent missed it, the income share of the top 1% grew faster than the income share for the bottom 50%

(31,987-26,415)/26,415= .2109 or 21% increase

(388,806-293,415)/293,415= .3251 or 35% increase

from this we can presume that the top 1% earn 14% more relative to the bottom 50% as compared to 10 years ago.

in that time spawn their share of income tax paid has increased from 36.18 to 39.89

(39.89-36.18)/36.18 = .1025%

so that top 1% now pay a 10.25% greater share relative to 10 years ago while their relative share of income increased by 14%, so the top 1% are paying a smaller burden per income than 10 years ago.

now it will be interesting to see if this gets a response or any criticism at all, other than some other random link with a set of numbers with no analysis.

Did you miss the part where there are more millionaires? Do you not understand that it increases the AGI of the top 1%? Ofcourse their AGI has increased more than the bottom 50% - so?

good god.

no shit there are more millionaires, see the bold. The point is, that relative taxes paid to income has decreased in the last 10 years for the top 1%, giving very strong evidence that the top 1% pays a smaller portion of their income than 10 years ago, making it less progressive. This mirrors the data in the link provided by craig, and for that matter most information dispersed by people who aren't charlatans like the wsj editorial board.

You, like Bowfinger don't seem to understand that this isn't about effective rate. Do you understand what effect a bracketed rate structure has? Do you not understand that the effect is magnified at the very top due to it's infinate range?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

Look at the link I just posted. Sheesh. top 1% went from a 33.89 share in 2001 to a 39.89 share in 2006. The other tops have increased shares as well but not that big. the top 50% went from 96 to 97.01. Thus since all their shares have gone up - the bottom 50% has gone from a 4% share to 2.99.

What more do you want? the top 1% to pay a 50% share? 60%? What is going to make you people happy?
Also, it's difficult to discuss this when people don't agree on what "middle class" and "upper middle class" are. They are really a poor categorization unless agreed upon by all parties involved.

They are still not paying a higher rate than before. The top 1%'s income went up 35.29% during that timeframe while the bottom 50% went up 12.1%. I can see why their share of taxes went up but their RATES went down.

Click me!

As a result, the share of the nation?s income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006.

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.

Ofcourse their rates went down. Hello tax cuts(you know - rate cuts for every bracket).

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.

Comprehension problems?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Ofcourse their rates went down. Hello tax cuts(you know - rate cuts for every bracket).

Any guesses as to who's effective rate went down the most?

You don't seem to grasp that their income gains (as a pecentage of all income) FAR OUTPACED their income tax gains (as a percentage of all taxes). If your income goes up, your tax goes up...usually linear but not in this case. It's not MORE progressive than it was before....the top 1% have a lower RATE than they had before. Just because their income growth was so much larger than the bottom 50% does not make the taxing of them even more progressive than it was before....unless you can now define "progressive tax RATES" in terms of % of total national taxation.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)

Yes, but as was shown in the other thread, taxes have shifted more and more to the upper middle class and middle class, to the benefit of both the poor and the rich.

Look at the link I just posted. Sheesh. top 1% went from a 33.89 share in 2001 to a 39.89 share in 2006. The other tops have increased shares as well but not that big. the top 50% went from 96 to 97.01. Thus since all their shares have gone up - the bottom 50% has gone from a 4% share to 2.99.

What more do you want? the top 1% to pay a 50% share? 60%? What is going to make you people happy?
Also, it's difficult to discuss this when people don't agree on what "middle class" and "upper middle class" are. They are really a poor categorization unless agreed upon by all parties involved.

They are still not paying a higher rate than before. The top 1%'s income went up 35.29% during that timeframe while the bottom 50% went up 12.1%. I can see why their share of taxes went up but their RATES went down.

Click me!

As a result, the share of the nation?s income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006.

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.

Ofcourse their rates went down. Hello tax cuts(you know - rate cuts for every bracket).

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.

Comprehension problems?

yes, you appear to be having them.

you make statement saying the system is more progressive than before the tax cuts.

all sorts of analysis and stats show the opposite

you dodge and derail.

/thread

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
yes, you appear to be having them.

you make statement saying the system is more progressive than before the tax cuts.

all sorts of analysis and stats show the opposite

you dodge and derail.

/thread

A nice little example to clarify this all...

Let's say EVERYONE is paying the same RATE of income taxes from the bottom 1% to top 1%.

Over a period of time, the top 1%'s total income share doubles and therefore, their total % of tax doubles. Because of this, it's now MORE PROGRESSIVE because they pay a higher % of the total national taxes. Everyone still has the same rate...but it must be more progressive since the rich are now paying double the share they were before. Nevermind that the rates are exactly the same AND the rich's income doubled. This is esentially what Cad is stating above.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
yes, you appear to be having them.

you make statement saying the system is more progressive than before the tax cuts.

all sorts of analysis and stats show the opposite

you dodge and derail.

/thread

A nice little example to clarify this all...

Let's say EVERYONE is paying the same RATE of income taxes from the bottom 1% to top 1%.

Over a period of time, the top 1%'s total income share doubles and therefore, their total % of tax doubles. Because of this, it's now MORE PROGRESSIVE because they pay a higher % of the total national taxes. Everyone still has the same rate...but it must be more progressive since the rich are now paying double the share they were before. Nevermind that the rates are exactly the same AND the rich's income doubled. This is esentially what Cad is stating above.

exactly, except in this case income goes up 50%, taxes paid go up 30% and its MORE PROGRESSIVE because the top 1% pays an even bigger share, even though they are now paying less in taxes. Or at least it is in cad's world.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Engineer

A nice little example to clarify this all...

Let's say EVERYONE is paying the same RATE of income taxes from the bottom 1% to top 1%.

Over a period of time, the top 1%'s total income share doubles and therefore, their total % of tax doubles. Because of this, it's now MORE PROGRESSIVE because they pay a higher % of the total national taxes. Everyone still has the same rate...but it must be more progressive since the rich are now paying double the share they were before. Nevermind that the rates are exactly the same AND the rich's income doubled. This is esentially what Cad is stating above.

It just comes from the fact that he doesn't even seem to understand the definitions of the words he is trying to argue. Not that this will stop him from flailing wildly and doggedly sticking to his position no matter how wrong until people give up in disgust and frustration, but at least it's pretty well documented in this thread.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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