Article
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
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.
Rich pay greater share of Income Tax after Reagan Tax CutsMyth: 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
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
