Top 1% pay more taxes than bottom 95%

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's nonsense. But the point aside, it certainly dents the argument that the rich aren't paying their "fair" share.

Uh...since taxes are a % of your income, if you make more you'll pay more. Not that complicated.

[ChinoCoug]

Oh gee, I wonder why the top 1% are paying a greater share in taxes?



Could it be they are making a greater share?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Oh gee, I wonder why the top 1% are paying a greater share in taxes?

Could it be they are making a greater share?

It certainly could in part, and to that extent I cheer it. What I find nonsense is that the middle class hasn't.

I'm no economist, but I'm a decent Googler, so I drummed up a few stats. This 2002 study on middle-income tax burden finds:

The Treasury data show that in 1999, the typical family of four with two children was paying a smaller percentage of its income in federal income taxes than at any time since 1966.

Add in the Bush tax cuts, and ...

This analysis' update of the Treasury data shows that in 2001, the year for which Americans are now filing income tax returns, a median family of four will pay a smaller share of its income in federal income taxes than in any year since 1957.

There are graphs accompanying the conclusion.

Then, of course, it's important to consider income as a function of demographic, as this Wall Street Journal article does. For example, while acknowledging that as a percentage of GDP the portion consumed by the poor has shrunk .7% over 35 years, yet:

But the "pie" has grown enormously. This year's real GDP of $14 trillion is three times that of 1970. So the absolute size of the slice received by the bottom 20% has increased to $476 billion from $181 billion. Allowing for population growth shows that the average income of people at the bottom of the income distribution has risen 36%.

And then there's this guy who, inspired by the above quoted WSJ article, used Census Bureau stats to work up this graph:



He then quotes one economist who observes:

Even a "stagnant" average household income implies a higher standard of living for the average household member.

In other words, the picture is a lot more complex than the tired bumpersticker "rich get richer, poor get poorer."

All of this, of course, distracts from the original issue, which is how much of the tax burden is shouldered by so few. RedHeadGirl cites "much is given", as though those paying taxes are "given" what they earn. What nonsense.

Here's a better graph illustrating the problem:



Just under half of all tax "payers" actually pay taxes--and they pay almost ALL of them. The bottom 50% pay next to nothing. This is part of the reason why they don't get tax cuts. Because they don't pay them! Next time someone whines about how the top 10% get all the tax benefits, I'm going to show them this graph.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Then, of course, it's important to consider income as a function of demographic, as this Wall Street Journal article does. For example, while acknowledging that as a percentage of GDP the portion consumed by the poor has shrunk .7% over 35 years, yet:



And then there's this guy who, inspired by the above quoted WSJ article, used Census Bureau stats to work up this graph:

Good find, Tex, I'll concede this one to you since you believe in reducing family sizes through abortion on demand and female infanticide.

But the "pie" has grown enormously. This year's real GDP of $14 trillion is three times that of 1970. So the absolute size of the slice received by the bottom 20% has increased to $476 billion from $181 billion. Allowing for population growth shows that the average income of people at the bottom of the income distribution has risen 36%.

What the heck? 36% growth when GDP grew 200%? You call that robust growth?
36% in 40 years? Let's do a little algebra:

1.36 = 1(1+g)^40

that's less than 1% growth every year. Wow! The poor's not doing so bad after all. They should so pay more of their share in taxes.

All of this, of course, distracts from the original issue, which is how much of the tax burden is shouldered by so few. RedHeadGirl cites "much is given", as though those paying taxes are "given" what they earn. What nonsense.

Here's a better graph illustrating the problem:



Just under half of all tax "payers" actually pay taxes--and they pay almost ALL of them. The bottom 50% pay next to nothing. This is part of the reason why they don't get tax cuts. Because they don't pay them! Next time someone whines about how the top 10% get all the tax benefits, I'm going to show them this graph.

First of all, I suggest you read further into the study you so love:

Increased Concentration of Taxes among High-income Households Not a Sound Justification for Reducing Their Taxes

Second, all conservatives who cry the "tax cuts for those who don't pay taxes is socialism" canard need to remember that the originator of this idea was the Great Muslim Socialist Milton Friedman.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Good find, Tex, I'll concede this one to you since you believe in reducing family sizes through abortion on demand and female infanticide.

You disappoint me, Chino, I really was expecting something a little more sophisticated than this. If that's what you want to bring to this conversation, I'll happily bow out.

Regards.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You disappoint me, Chino, I really was expecting something a little more sophisticated than this. If that's what you want to bring to this conversation, I'll happily bow out.

Regards.

That part was TIC, the rest of my post was serious.