Tax studies by income brackets (research needed, please)

[JuniorPlankton]

Today's WSJ (Editorial) carries a pretty disgusting piece of propaganda how much the rich pay now vs CLinton, and how much more they started paying AFTER * cuts. Also, as a side note it shows how effective the cuts were to the economy. I am too repulsed to post it here, but would appreciate a reference to a real study on the subject.

Thanks for helping fight the b/s!

:kick:

[unblock]

1. sorry no links, but i do know a few things:

the rich are realizing their long-term investments while tax rates are low. i.e., they're taking income that they otherwise would have had in later years and bringing them forward so that they sell and realize the gain in a year of low tax rates.

another factor is that the rich ARE making more money, it's just coming at the expense of the rest of us.

[Inland]

2. Research Citizens for Tax Justice.

http://www.ctj.org/

[papau]

3. Rich now make a greater percentage of total income-so their percent of tax

should also increase.

The Wall Street Journal is very good with partial truth statements which honest folks call lies.

Meanwhile the taxes the rich would be paying under Clinton tax rates is being borrowed from Social Security and from future generations via the deficit being financed by the selling of still more government bonds - bond that will require higher tax rates on the grandkids.

Treat the WSJ Editorials as if they were the "WSJ comics" - albeit unfunny unless you enjoy irony and bald face blatant lies/partial truth.

[LiberalPartisan]

8. I love this argument - it's just so.......BOGUS!!!

They pay more in real dollars because they are making more.

N% of ten million is always going to be more in dollars than N% of ten thousand.

Editorial note: I have always believed a progressive tax system is always the fairest. Rich people should be taxed more than poor and middle class people. Unfortuanately today the middle class pays the most - by percentage of income. And today a person in the middle class has a 50% chance of either ending up rich or poor. Now that will keep you up at night!!!

[scipian]

9. Middle class pays more %?

No. The higher you go in income the higher % you pay.

The Proof- Below...
$10,450 10%

$39,800 15%

$102,800 25%

$166,450 28%

$326,450 33%

The rich pay more in real and relative amounts. As it should be. But in the 1960s the top bracket was 91%. A little bit much? Now it's 35%. Makes sense doesn't it? We shouldn't penalize the people who have succeeded.

BTW-The top 5% pay 39% of the taxes and the bottom 40% pay 8%.

BTW2- No, I'm not one of the really rich. I've just done some research because I'm intersested in this stuff.

[anoraksia53]

10. but these are just the tax rates

and it doesn't say anything about all the loopholes that the wealthy with high-power accountants can take advantage off. For starters tax breaks and loopholes on certain kinds of investment, and then the whole matter of state and local taxes and how they're distributed.

If you look at someone's total income and then look at what they actually ended up paying you see a different story......Don't underestimate the impact of all those tax loopholes!!! That's why some people suggest a flat tax with NO loopholes for anyone........not saying I agree with this but it's just to make the point that what the wealthy actually pay is not the same as the percentage you quote.

Some people suggest if a person makes enormous amount of money that the amount above a certain high limit like XX million be taxed at 100% now hows that for a paradigm shift.

[unblock]

11. except that the richer you are, the more your income comes from cap gains

and dividends, which are now taxed at only 15%.

nevermind that payroll taxes stop around $90,000 of salary.

nevermind that state taxes are usually not progressive.

nevermind that sales taxes also are a higher percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's income.

[rasputin1952]

12. You have not mentioned that these "high rate" individuals can

afford tax atty's and accountants that can find a hundred loopholes to gain even more liquid assets.

The quoted rates are before any deductions, and there are plenty of them, for those that make gobs of cash.

Let's say 10% of $300,000...that equals $30,000 in tax, before deductions. So this person can't live on $270,000, while most live on $35,000?????? But then we have to take deductions, which will reduce the tax burden further...let's just say to $15,000, (mortgage, family deductions, charitable deductions, Bonds/T-Bills, etc). Eventually, this tax gets down to near zero if he/she has a good tax atty. This is why there was initially a minimum tax. Most people cannot even come close to reducing their tax burden like the wealthy, so I have little sympathy for their crying about the pinch.

Every one I know, could live quite well on $270,000...but they will never see that kind of income.

[FogerRox]

13. Effective tax rates

Rich ........16%
Middle class 17%
working poor 15%

[seasat]

4. Here's the two studies that you need.

The CBO presents Effective Federal Tax Rates while ITEP has the state taxes (CBO Link1 and Link2). However since the results of cuts at the Federal level are increases in needs for state services, here is the link to State Taxes (LINK). If you combine the effective rate for State and Federal taxes then you will find a basically flat tax rate. I suspect that the CBO study may underestimate investmate income so the total effective rate is probably even lower for the wealthy.

[stevebreeze]

5. even not seeing the WSJ editorial my guess is they focus on ONLY

federal income taxes which remain at leas marginally progressive. That also means the likely have ignored the regressive payroll tax and regressive state taxes. If all taxes are taken into account taxes are effectively flat from top to bottom at the very least and are probably regressive.

[ticktockman]

6. Distribution of the Bush tax cuts

Today's WSJ (Editorial) carries a pretty disgusting piece of propaganda how much the rich pay now vs CLinton, and how much more they started paying AFTER * cuts. Also, as a side note it shows how effective the cuts were to the economy. I am too repulsed to post it here, but would appreciate a reference to a real study on the subject.

Thanks for helping fight the b/s!

I didn't see the WSJ editorial but the Treasury Department did release several highly misleading examples in support of the Bush tax cut. As you might recall, the Bush tax cut included an increase in the child tax credit and a reduction in the so-called "marriage penalty". Now, I think most people would agree that all qualified taxpayers should receive the same dollar benefit from these particular changes. However, this constant amount will be a larger percentage of the lower-income worker's taxes, making it look as though the tax cuts favor them. Not surprisingly, all six of the Treasury Department's examples were married, one had one child, and three had two children. I don't recall that anyone compared single, childless taxpayers, at least nobody who was trying to defend the tax cut. In any case, there is an article that goes into much more detail on this topic at the following URL:

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/tax03ex.html

In addition, the following URLS contain some general information on the current distribution of taxes:

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/richpay.html
http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/distax.html

[oscar111]

7. Wages lower than in 'eighty.. Toss trickledown

wages are the real economy, .. they show how most of us actually live. }wages lower, when adjusted for inflation}

Framework for viewing all this... In 'fifty two,...Truman had a top rate of ninety one percent. We had prosperity as a result.

Toss trickledown

Hoover's trickledown caused the Great Depression.

Toss trickledown.