The IRS lies, but not about the "rich" paying more under Democrats than supply-siders

[Anarchist420]

As the top marginal rate increases, loopholes go up disproportionately.

For example, Reagan brought in much more revenue than before when he reduced the top marginal rate from 50% to 28%.

Real revenues increased ~15% under Bush: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...truth_about_the_bush_tax_increases_98625.html

Then, in spite of high unemployment, the FDR/Hoover tax hikes resulted in much less income tax revenue. They had to repeal prohibition so that they could tax the poor. During the Coolidge years, 98% of the people paid no income tax, and unemployment was super low. When Wilson hiked the top marginal income tax rate to 72%, it was mostly the middle class who paid the income tax.

No wonder most wealthy people vote Democrat. It's because the poor pay more under Democrats like FDR and Clinton than did under Bush 43. I know that Reagan raised taxes on the poor, but Bush didn't.

My question is as follows: does the MSM have an agenda or are they just plain dumb? It's a fact that the graduated income tax was by the wealthy and for the wealthy. I know that a lot of rich people pay excessive income tax and they shouldn't have to, but I don't know if the liberals have an agenda, or WTF their problem is.

If there has to be a national tax that's centralized, then I wish they'd just go to non-protectionist tariffs (avg. ad valorem rate of 15%), a 15% flat rate export income tax, and excise taxes (but no firearms taxes). That's the fairest way to go, and if the Federal government didn't spend so damn much, it would work fine. They shouldn't even be spending 15% of what they're currently spending. Maybe 10% ($~380B, which would be 25B for actual defense, 300B for veteran's pensions and benefits, and the rest for Congressional, Executive, and Judicial salaries, travel allotment, a few Federal buildings and their maintenance (5B), Dept. of State (5B), and Treasury (5B), and 40B for reserve, but not any more Federal spending than that.

 

[HendrixFan]

US Federal revenue from individual income tax (not corporate) during the Bush years.

Whatever gains (not inflation adjusted) were made in those last few bubble years were not enough to offset the losses in the previous years.

 

[matt0611]

US Federal revenue from individual income tax (not corporate) during the Bush years.

Whatever gains (not inflation adjusted) were made in those last few bubble years were not enough to offset the losses in the previous years.

You know those losses were partially caused by a bubble too right?
Our economy is nothing but bubbles and recessions now.

 

[Jhhnn]

The linked article engages in massive contortions and outright falsehoods mixed with a little bit of truth.

Add your own raving to create a jumbled mess of garbagio.

Effective tax rates for top earners fell substantially during the Bush years, contrary to the contentions made in the linked article. Table 8-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

This is a Right oriented anti-tax organization, so if they're distorting the data, it's to claim that people are paying higher rates than they really are, particularly top earners...

Sheesh. The linked article is really lousy propaganda, given the ease with which one of the basic foundations can be refuted.

 

[HendrixFan]

You know those losses were partially caused by a bubble too right?
Our economy is nothing but bubbles and recessions now.

The OP's post claimed that Bush tax cuts increased revenue. I showed that did not happen even without adjusting for inflation. Adjusted for inflation, there were no gains at all in any year.

 

[Anarchist420]

Bush tax cuts may not have increased revenue, but the decreased amount of revenue was due to the poor paying less, not the rich paying less.

 

[HendrixFan]

Bush tax cuts may not have increased revenue, but the decreased amount of revenue was due to the poor paying less, not the rich paying less.

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

Also included were sweeping changes to the estate tax.

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

JGTRRA accelerated the gradual rate reduction and increase in credits passed in EGTRRA. The maximum tax rate decreases originally scheduled to be phased into effect in 2006 under EGTRRA were retroactively enacted to apply to the 2003 tax year. In addition, the capital gains tax decreased from rates of 8%, 10%, and 20% to 5% and 15%.

Since the tax rates are marginal, the rich get the same tax cuts as everyone else, plus their own tax cuts.

Depending on what you classify as "rich", the top 1% of earners had 17% of adjusted gross income (which already subtracts deductions that are heavily weighed towards the wealthy) and the top 5% had 32% of AGI in 2001. The bottom 50% had 14% of AGI.

By 2008 (last year I have data for) the top 1% had risen to 20% of AGI, the top 5% had risen to 35% AGI, and the bottom 50% had fallen to 13%. The poor made less, so they would pay less even if the tax rates had remained unchanged.

There was a $7B drop in income tax paid after credits for the bottom 50% each year after the Bush tax cuts. As you can see from the chart there was nearly $200B in income tax revenue some years after the Bush tax cuts. How does $7B come close to equaling $200B?

The tax cuts heavily favored the wealthy and helped to contribute to a more uneven distribution of wealth over the past decade. Everyone paid less, thats what the tax cuts were for.

The OP's premise was that tax cuts raised revenues and that simply is not true.

 

[fskimospy]

My favorite part is how our good friend Anarchist420's OP is asking why other people are so stupid for not believing his incredibly stupid argument.

 

[Rainsford]

I feel like this entire article, and the OP's argument, is a case of arguing that correlation equals causation. The idea that cuttings tax rates during economic booms might still raise tax revenues isn't an argument for lower taxes, it's a matter of simple math.