The Myth of Class Warfare, Tax Policy

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
Article
Myth: The rich don't pay their fair share.

Reality: According to IRS data (Chart), the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 29 percent of the income tax burden (based on 1997 data, post-Bush tax cuts, the top 1% pays 34% of taxes) , the top 10 percent pay more than 59 percent, and the top 20 percent pay more than 74 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay less than 5 percent of the income tax revenue.
Myth: Lower tax rates mean the rich will pay less.

Reality: This outcome depends on how much tax rates are reduced. History indicates that the revenue-maximizing rate is less than 30 percent. In other words, when marginal rates are higher than 30 percent, the rich probably will pay more if rates are lowered. The reason? Because incentives to hide, shelter, and underreport income are reduced.

Consider what happened the three times this country enjoyed significant tax rate reductions:

1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928.
1960s: President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In the ensuing three years, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise by 57 percent, and their share of the tax burden climbed from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988
Rich pay greater share of Income Tax after Reagan Tax Cuts
Myth: Only millionaires should care about the tax-the-rich issue.

Reality: Like fairness, "rich" is a subjective term. Some in Washington, D.C., think you are wealthy if your income rises much beyond $56,200. According to a Tax Foundation analysis of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the cutoff point for the top 20 percent of tax returns is $56,262. This top quintile of income earners is also the group that those who oppose pro-growth tax policies commonly refer to as the "rich." It also includes the vast majority of small businesses that use the personal income tax instead of the corporate income tax. (See Chart 3)
Myth: Lower tax rates mean the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Reality: President Kennedy was right: A rising tide lifts all boats. Census Bureau data show that earnings for all income classes tend to rise and fall in unison. In other words, economic policy either generates positive results, in which case all income classes benefit, or it causes stagnation and decline, in which case all groups suffer. As Chart 4 illustrates, the high tax policies of the late 1970s and early 1990s are associated with weak economic performance, while the low tax rates of the 1980s are correlated with rising incomes for all quintiles.
Myth: Lower tax rates will lead to a repeat of the failed policies of the 1980s.

Reality: In the 1980s, tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent, and the economy enjoyed its longest peacetime expansion in history. This is the very antithesis of failure. (See Chart 6)
Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.
Myth: Lower taxes on capital--savings and investment--represent "trickle down" economics.

Reality: Because every economic theory, including Marxism, agrees that capital formation is the key to faster growth and higher standards of living, attaching odious labels to policies designed to reduce or eliminate the tax code's bias against savings and investment is particularly counterproductive. Chart 11 illustrates that increases in real wages over time are closely correlated with the amount of capital per worker. In other words, if workers are paid on the basis of what they produce, it makes sense to adopt tax policies that encourage investment in the tools, equipment, machinery, and technology that help workers produce more.

I quoted the ones I liked most, there are a few more in that paper that are also good. There is a list of references at the end, in case you want to double check any of the stats.

Edit: fixed some links
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,447
216
106
Low taxes are fine
Big debt is not, so either tax or get your spending under control.
the rich truely rich although they do pay more they can afford it ,and the only ones who really pay are the ones who don't have decent enough accountants.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
I paid like 28% this year on my federal taxes, Cheney paid, what 18%? Ya, the system is real fair. You also used a very one sided conservative source.

So, if lower taxes lead to bigger tax revenues (which is completely couter intuitive), why the large deficits now? While I don't think the top rate should be 70% or 90%, it should be enough to pay the F$%#ing bills. The tax burdon on the poor (all taxes, not just income) is a much larger portion of their income. Living pay check to pay check and having some ring winger tell you we need a fourth or fith tax cut for millionaires is a bit of a hard pill to swallow.
 

villager

Senior member
Oct 17, 2002
373
0
0
I would not trust any article from the Heritage foundation. It is just political fodder for the GOP.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
are you guys really that short sighted, sure it "sounds" good to tax the rich more, but did you look at the stats? either all income brackets go up, or they all go down, even with huge disparities in the percentages.

And please dont pass this off as "very one sided conservative source", thats a cop out. Like I said, the refrences are listed. Either produce some stats that say otherwise, or accept these as true.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,587
82
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Train
ahh yes, using one couple's tax return to argue against an entire century's worth of IRS data, that works. :roll:

Anectdotal evidence worked for you before.
:roll:

steer steer steer conjur!

ancedotal evidence works against anecdotal evidence, not hard facts. and besides, just because I shared a single experience, I didnt say that specific experience proved anything did I? quit trying to infer things from other peoples words. do i have to remind you AGAIN: please stick to the OP
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
My point (you miss them a lot) is that the rich have many tax loop holes schemes that the normal middle class guy does not. Sure they are legal (most), but they were made by the rich for the rich.

when marginal rates are higher than 30 percent, the rich probably will pay more if rates are lowered. The reason? Because incentives to hide, shelter, and underreport income are reduced.

Great, lets lower the tax rates so they don't cheat the system! How patriotic is tax evasion? Maybe if we make it zero they will pay their share?

The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay less than 5 percent of the income tax revenue.

How much wealth does the bottom 50 percent own? How is their educational system compared to the top 5%? How did the top 5% make their wealth? Inherit it? did they make it off workers in the bottom 5%?

You can't tax the working poor at the same rates, they don't have it! Milk, gas, etc. is the same price for a guy making 15,000/year as the guy making $10,000,000/year. Sometimes fair isn't about a simple %, sometimes it's about giving everyone a chance.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
1920s: Tax cut the rich get much richer the poor well don't. Your numbers show that the rich's income relitive to the poor increased 3 fold just to pay for the tax cut and then almost doubled again to account for the increase in the percent of tax they pay.

1960s: Again the increase in the precent the rich pay shows that the rich benifited more then poor from the text cuts.

1980s: Again helps the rich more then the poor.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Hmm no "class warfare"? Tell that to the p1ssed off people in the projects 2 blocks from me getting tossed out of their homes for yuppie scum to move in to their "live work lofts"
Tell that to the mexicans in the mission losing their cultural centers to starbucks.
Tell this to the young artist types of san francisco who have been displaced from their homes by skyrocketing rents and cronyism of the elite landlords.
Every missing SUV you see a sign for on the telephone poles shows the poor are fighting back and the wealth will be redistrubuted in time.

The rich had better be locking their doors becasue the taxman cometh.
And I'm not talking about the crooks in D.C.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,406
19,791
146
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Hmm no "class warfare"? Tell that to the p1ssed off people in the projects 2 blocks from me getting tossed out of their homes for yuppie scum to move in to their "live work lofts"
Tell that to the mexicans in the mission losing their cultural centers to starbucks.
Tell this to the young artist types of san francisco who have been displaced from their homes by skyrocketing rents and cronyism of the elite landlords.
Every missing SUV you see a sign for on the telephone poles shows the poor are fighting back and the wealth will be redistrubuted in time.

The rich had better be locking their doors becasue the taxman cometh.
And I'm not talking about the crooks in D.C.

:roll:
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Wow really good paper which only focuses on one tax when there are thousands of others taxes to arrive at a persons tax burden:roll: Everyone of the other taxes are regressive but for one flat (medicare) and ONLY if you have earned income which most "rich" people have only a token amount because it's tax foolish to have any line 39 income.

This is why Todd can pay more than Dick Cheney in taxes.


If you really want to educate yourself on taxes in these united states and who pays more..or "fair share"... other than the BS marginal rates which Limbaugh and co love to quote read this:

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/03-10-Tax_Incidence.pdf
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,799
6,356
126
Assume Flat Tax of 10%

1 person earns $990,000 pays $99,000 in Income Taxes
100 people earn a total of $10,000 pays $1,000 in Income Taxes

OMG, the Rich pay 99% of Income Tax!!!!!!

Absurd, not really, those are the same statistics used in this fallascious(sp) arguement that the Wealthy pay too much and are unfairly burdened. Might also point out that this weak arguement is posted Monthly and still , after all this time it remains ridiculous.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
As far as cap gains...besides being not at all fair for some not to have taxes on passive income while a working stiff has to pay though the nose for his active income.

Bogus Conservative Idea #4. "Trickle down" economics. This is the underlying philosophy behind those "voodoo" tax cuts. Its simple really. Put more money in the pockets of the rich, and they will invest in business, creating jobs. So why didn't it work in the wake of Dubya's tax cuts? And why didn't Clinton's tax increases shut down economic growth? [Those are facts, conservatives. Sorry, if you can't handle them.]

The reason it didn't work is simple. It's horsesh!t. Investors don't invest in new businesses, expanding businesses, new equipment, research and development or anything else if there's no demand. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Why would you invest in greater production capacity if no one is out there with money to spend? Besides, there are plenty of other investments that send no money into increasing production facilities or new businesses. You can invest in commodities, foreign exchange, and government bonds. Even the stock market is mostly an aftermarket, with people buying stock owned by other people. No money goes into business expansion there. And of course, you can "short sell", that is, bet on the market to decline.

If the economic history of the United States proves one thing it is that money in the pockets of little man stimulates the economy. Why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up from the bottom.
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bogusideas.htm
 

xochi

Senior member
Jan 18, 2000
891
6
81
This Article appeared in the Dallas Morning News about a week ago.

Scott Burns - Who Pays the most in Taxes




Who pays the most in taxes?
When you add it up, we all get soaked by Uncle Sam





09:59 PM CDT on Monday, July 12, 2004

By SCOTT BURNS / The Dallas Morning News


Any discussion of Americans' relative federal tax burden must include this realization:

The tax we actually experience isn't just the federal income tax. It is the combination of the employment tax and the income tax. Add the two together and the tax burden as a percentage of income flattens dramatically across income levels.

That's the kicker to a puzzler from Q.L., a Dallas reader who e-mailed:

I always heard that the richest people in the United States do not pay much income tax because of all the loopholes. I also heard that it is the middle and upper-middle-income people that pay the most. Now I've heard different. What is the truth?



High income levels

The answer is that higher-income households pay the bulk of all federal income taxes.

In 2001, the last year for which this analysis from the Internal Revenue Service is available, the 1.3 million returns representing the top 1 percent of all taxpayers accounted for 17.5 percent of all income and paid 33.9 percent of all income taxes.

To be in the top 1 percent, you needed an adjusted gross income of at least $292,913.

In addition, their share of total taxes paid had risen steadily from 1986. It was 25.7 percent then.

So the well-off are paying more of the taxes collected, even though their average tax rate declined from 33.1 percent to 27.5 percent.

Households in the top 25 percent had adjusted gross incomes of at least $56,085 in 2001.

They paid taxes at an average rate of 18.1 percent. They earned 65.2 percent of the income and paid an impressive 82.9 percent of all income taxes.

The average tax rate for the top 25 percent declined slightly from the 1986 average of 18.7 percent.

I'll bet my next paycheck that $56,085 isn't the income most people have in mind when they imagine the fat cats at the top of the income pyramid.

But there it is.

Most of the glitzy life so visible in advertising is priced well beyond the purchasing power of that threshold earner or family.


Different rates

The same analysis shows something you would hope for: The average tax rate paid declines as income declines.

The top 1 percent paid at an average rate of 27.5 percent. The top 10 percent paid at an average rate of 21.4 percent.

The top 25 percent paid at an average rate of 18.1 percent.

The bottom 50 percent, meanwhile, paid at an average tax rate of 4.1 percent, down from 5.6 percent in 1986.

If your adjusted gross income was $28,528 or less, you were in the bottom 50 percent. The bottom half also paid only 3.97 percent of all income taxes collected.

The only true remaining "loophole" for very high-income people is that they can often control how their income is received.

They may, for instance, elect to collect more of it as dividends and capital gains.

These are taxed at only 15 percent. The top one-tenth of 1 percent ? those with incomes of at least $1.3 million ? paid at an average tax rate of 28.2 percent in 2001.

My bet is that the 2003 figures, when released, will show only a modest decline in average tax rate for this group.


Employment tax's effect

Are we missing something here?

Yes, quite a bit.

As I said, adding the employment tax to the equation makes the tax burden as a percentage of income flatten out. This is particularly true for the marginal tax rate paid ? the tax rate on the last dollar of income.

Why?

Because once your earned income exceeds the wage-base maximum ? $87,900 this year ? only the 1.45 percent employee portion of the Medicare tax comes out of the paycheck.

The 6.2 percent taken for Social Security stops coming out.

As a consequence, a household with a taxable income of $58,100 can pay taxes at a marginal rate of 32.65 percent (25 percent federal income tax rate plus 7.65 percent employee portion of the employment tax).

A household with six times the income pays taxes at a marginal rate of 36.45 percent (35 percent top marginal tax rate plus 1.45 percent Medicare portion of the employment tax).


Real burden

This comparison, by the way, would be worse if we considered the real burden of the employment tax.

While the employer portion is another 7.65 percent, it is a tax on labor. Those who are self-employed see the full burden of the tax, 15.3 percent.

Viewed this way, the $58,100 household pays taxes at a 40.3 percent rate (25 percent federal income tax plus 15.3 percent employment tax).

But the household with six times the income pays at a lower marginal tax rate, 37.9 percent (35 percent federal income tax rate plus 2.9 percent full Medicare tax rate).

Similarly, a household with only $25,000 of taxable income pays at a top marginal rate of 30.3 percent ? not that much lower than the 38.9 percent rate paid by the household earning about 13 times as much.

Neither political party discusses the combined marginal tax rate, because it isn't in their interest.

They do well when we point fingers at each other.

The last thing either party wants us to figure out is that they're fleecing us all.

Scott Burns answers questions of general interest in his Thursday columns. Write Scott Burns, The Dallas Morning News, P.O. Box 655237, Dallas, Texas 75265, or send an e-mail.

E-mail sburns@dallasnews.com
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Xochi ,

Even that article is focued almost entirely on wage income and wage tax.. while touching on the wealthy who tend to derive thier "income" from sources such as dividends, rents (passive income ie no SS/medicare), Long Term Capital Gains, etc, etc etc... they ignore the myrid of "business" deductions a wage earner never gets to take advantge of or even knows about like my country club memebership my dads company pay for...hey I do "business" there and I'm a officer. LOL.. Anyway I think that article does do a good job of dispelling people who just focus on marginal rates.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Umm, little criticism here:

Chart 4 and Chart 6 did not take into account inflation. If your income grows slower than inflation does, you lose. Many of those years in the 80s were high- inflation years.

Chart 9 did not say how the income of poor people was counted, nor did it say how it defined the poverty line. You don't even know if the definition of poverty was universal throughout the years counted. And you don't know if health care, education food stamps or other payments-in-kind are counted towards their income.

Also, the article noted the slow growth in the late 70s and early 80s, and it implied that high taxes were the cause. Umm, ever hear of OPEC?
 

CrazyHelloDeli

Platinum Member
Jun 24, 2001
2,854
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: steeplerot
Hmm no "class warfare"? Tell that to the p1ssed off people in the projects 2 blocks from me getting tossed out of their homes for yuppie scum to move in to their "live work lofts"
Tell that to the mexicans in the mission losing their cultural centers to starbucks.
Tell this to the young artist types of san francisco who have been displaced from their homes by skyrocketing rents and cronyism of the elite landlords.
Every missing SUV you see a sign for on the telephone poles shows the poor are fighting back and the wealth will be redistrubuted in time.

The rich had better be locking their doors becasue the taxman cometh.
And I'm not talking about the crooks in D.C.

:roll:


steeplerot, like Moonbeam, are from San Francisco. Something in the water there...
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Must be that anti-bullsh!t additive in the water again. *goes and watches fox to be a good american* :roll: