Members of the Democrat Congress are dusting off their handy rubber stamps (or unwrapping new ones, inscribed with the new Presidential motto, "Vero Possumus") in preparation for the round of tax hikes their assumed President-in-Waiting is promising to send down the pipe next Spring in the name of "making the rich pay their fair share."
Not to let real facts get in the way of their red-headed stepsibling KnownFacts™, but the latest tax data from the IRS have been released and, as a Wall Street Journal editorial says today, "it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do."
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, which released a summary of new tax information this morning, "The new IRS data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history."
According to the IRS data, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40 percent of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years.
Further, the top 10 percent of income-earners paid 71 percent, and the top 50 percent in income paid 97.1 percent.
On the other end of the spectrum, Americans with an income below the median paid a record-low 2.9 percent of all income taxes. So much for the fabled unbearable tax burden on the lower-middle and lower classes, from whom the "rich," who refuse to "pay their fair share," are so wantonly stealing.
More very revealing information is available to the open-minded below the fold.
According to the WSJ, "We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1 percent are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes." So much for the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the lines between "class" in America becoming impenetrable ceilings and floors.
"But the most amazing part of this story," continue the WSJ's editors, "is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006"
According to the IRS data, the number of millionaires in the U.S. nearly doubled in the three years after the Bush tax cuts, from 181,000 to 354,000. The Left might call this the "rich getting richer," but the economically honest would more likely refer to this as the hard-working getting over the hump and creating more wealth for themselves and for others.
Unfortunately for the newly (and already) "rich," another result of Bush tax policy was a doubling in the amount of taxes paid by millionaire households, from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 -- an increase in tax payments that, according to the WSJ, explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006 from 3.5 percent in 2003."
As we've known for quite some time now, "the idea that [the Bush tax cuts have] been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination," the WSJ editorial concludes. "No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts."
It's not "Unfortunately" at all!
mcg July 21st, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (link)
Given that the marginal tax rates were reduced under the Bush tax cuts, the only possible way for there to have been a "doubling in the amount of taxes" paid by millionaire households is that the taxable income in that bracket more than doubled There's nothing "unfortunate" about that!
There is another explanation MCG...
Brian Hibbert July 21st, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (link)
"the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006"
There are FAR more people who fit into that income class now. Yes, that does more than double the income in that bracket, but it's not "the rich getting richer" it's more people getting rich.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering). Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Not only have they taken God out of the Classroom
speciallist July 21st, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (link)
But what happened to Civics and Economics...
Civics was Mandatory when I was in school..and Economics would have been more stimulating than say Ceramics...The only thing we made in Ceramics was 'vases' with little holes in the side...The teacher always wondered what the hole was for...digression...
If kids were exposed to these issues a little more I think they would have a better grasp when grown up.
Neil I think you should go see the doctor ...speciallist
Oh they still teach economics, the problem is
The_Gadfly July 21st, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (link)
the only text book is Marx. Mr. Smith's books were all tossed on the last bonfire.
The average joe doesn't get it.
Lance Kates July 21st, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (link)
Or, if they do get it, they support anyone but them paying more in taxes, especially if they are promised free stuff in return for supporting higher taxes for people who arent them.
We have learned to vote ourself more 'free stuff' and that is when society starts to crumble.
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
I think the average Joe gets it, he just isn't
The_Gadfly July 21st, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (link)
as motivated to do something about it. The cost to him is say $10/year. The interest group who gets cut is small but highly motivated. Their cost is their $10,000; $100,000; or $1,000,000 dollar grant.
Of course the motivation you speak of is also there, and is one of the reasons I am opposed to removing low income workers from the tax rolls. I think that if we are going to tax income, EVERY worker in the US should pay the same rate of taxes. The rich will still pay more in taxes than they consume in government goods, and the poor will still receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. But because all of them will have to pay for additional programs, I think it keeps everyone appreciative of the moral hazards of raising taxes to give money to someone for something other than that which is truly in the national interest.
To be fair...
shooflyguy68 July 21st, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (link)
This means that the wealthy had very large increases in income (a good thing) and therefore they paid more in taxes even as the rates were lower.
Also, this seems to analyze only the impact of income taxes and not of payroll and other user fees which impact the middle and lower classes to a much larger degree.
Finally, the claim that the wealthy would be hard pressed to pay more is patently false. Of course they could pay more. The question is - why should they?
Fair?
Lance Kates July 21st, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (link)
There is nothing 'fair' in defending this overtaxing of the rich.
It is little more than the old communist/socialist tactic of redistribution of wealth, with the Government reaping the benefits.
Reducing taxes for all is what will aid our economic upturn. When the poor pay less taxes, they have more money to spend on food and clothing.
When the rich pay less taxes, they have more money to invest in their business, which allows them to hire more people to provide THEM with more income.
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
Uh, I didn't defend it.
shooflyguy68 July 21st, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (link)
Try reading my post again. I only pointed out some other facts to be considered and then made a point to say that there isn't a good reason to raise taxes on the "rich".
Heh.
Lance Kates July 21st, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (link)
Ahh, so you didn't defend it, per se....
you just provided a context in which those who speak against highly taxing the rich may not have a full picture.
Then graciously, and perhaps token-ly, acknowledged that there is no 'good reason' to tax them.
But, you weren't providing any defense....
nope...
Nuance I say!
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
Chill, Lance
Jeff Emanuel July 21st, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (link)
We're gunning for an educational discussion, and you appear to be gunning for a fight. Let's stick to the former, okay? :-)
Hmm.
Lance Kates July 21st, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (link)
I do apologize if I seem a bit more on edge than usual.
It has not been a great month and I am under incredible amounts of stress with work and school.
I have little patience for some things, it seems, even less so in this current situation.
I do not seek to 'pick a fight' . . . I just have little empathy for any defense, direct or otherwise, of the left's rhetoric.
Dependence is Slavery.
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.85
I'm not trying to be mean
Pi Over Three July 21st, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (link)
but you seem to be morphing into a concern troll. I read most of the stuff here (I just don't post very often) so I have seen this several times before where you attack someone for appearing to be more the left than you. I know we have had polite disagreements in the past, but that does not have anything to do with this.
I used to be over at Dkos when I was young, stupid, and thought liberalism was the answer. Believe me when I say that the entire atmosphere over there is filled with paranoia. Ironically, they are literally the physical embodiment of the fascist police state they imagine we want to create.
Every new user expressing ideas that are not hard-core left are harassed, accused of being trolls, and some are driven away before they can be banned (which happens much quicker there then here). On top of that, any comments that do not fit their narrative are hidden from view - something we don't do here.
Lets not go down that road here. Relax, and chill a little. I strongly believe that people should be challenge on their ideas - it builds the "mental muscle" that JS Mill wrote of. Doing this proved what a sham contemporary liberals are (its not to hard to see why they have to be paranoid about being their ideas being challenged). But accusing everyone to the left of you of being a leftist is not the same thing.
On the same note, no ideology is perfect, they are all just attempts to model the world. Just like using science to model the world, no model is perfect. If you really think that your particular worldview is best for model for social interaction in every possible way, you are either seriously deluded, or the greatest philosopher in all humanity. Guess which is more likely.
Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today? Former user of Google I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.
Not McCain's Strong Suit
Jason_Wolf July 21st, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (link)
McCain's shifting position on the tax cuts is not going to be a bright spot in the days ahead. Hopefully his mind is made up by now!
Again, to be fair...
shooflyguy68 July 21st, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (link)
Sen McCain didn't categorically oppose President Bush's tax cuts. He merely wanted any tax cuts to be preceeded by meaningful government spending cuts. I think he was correct on that position.
However, Sen McCain has been clear for more than a year that he believes that allowing the tax cuts to lapse would be an effective huge tax increase on the American people.
Nope. He opposed them because they were "tax cuts for the rich."
Martin_A_Knight July 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 a.m. (link)
I know. I was there and there are links to prove it.
"First you win the argument, then you win the vote." - MARGARET THATCHER.
So let's start winning the argument.