CBO: Top 20% of Earners Pay 94% of Taxes

[/dev/null]

Thanks, Dev. I was working up to getting him to agree that the Bush Tax Cuts should stay in their entirety.

If it makes you feel any better, he wouldn't have. His -how-he's-supposed-to-think-o-meter would have redlined.

 

Dude would be MotherJones'ing for a fix of MSNBC/CurrentTV to figure out how to get the conversation to moveon.org to more important things, like Swiss Bank accounts or dogs on a hot tin roof

[NoSaint]

What's the income split at that percentile? You know, for context.

[DC Tom]

Income=net worth?

 

Oh, come on. That confusion was entirely predictable.

[Park]

Income=net worth?

No, do all taxes = income taxes?

[TakeYouToTasker]

At some point it's simply going to make more sense to shoot than to argue. I'm starting to believe that a pile of dead socialists has much more value than a room full of live ones.

[/dev/null]

At some point it's simply going to make more sense to shoot than to argue. I'm starting to believe that a pile of dead socialists has much more value than a room full of live ones.

And it only took 3 weeks worth of PPP to figure that out

[GG]

No, do all taxes = income taxes?

They are when the OP is about INCOME TAXES.

 

Gerbils make better trolls than you.

[TPS]

Reminds me of a Pearl Jam song, "Spin! Spin! Spin the black circle..."

 

So someone quotes data from a press release off of a republican's website and everyone accepts it without question. I know what the response would've been if it was the other way around. Portman simply cherry picked data to spin his points.

 

Regarding the first point. No one denies that the "great recession" has been the single greateast contributor to increased deficits and debt since 2001. That is, of the $11.7 trillion swing the CBO notes, 2/3 of that was caused by the recession--the years 2008-2011. A more accurate depiction of the impact of the Bush tax cuts would be to look at the changes from 2001 to 2007. Over this period of more normal economic growth the swing from surplus to deficit was about $4.2 trillion. I'm not sure precisely what Portman's boys used to get their 16% figure, so my rough estimate of their method shows that the tax cuts were responsible for about 30% of the roughly $4.2 trillion swing from surplus to deficit over the 2001-2007 period. So of course once you throw in the impact of the GR from 2008, it makes the impact appear lower...duh!

 

On the second point, we've certainly seen this argued many a time here. Yes, the rich (if you want to say the top 20%=rich) pay more federal INCOME taxes because they earned almost 51% of the pre-tax income in 2009. Of course their share of federal INCOME taxes increased (to 94%) because more people unemployed in the lower 80% means lower taxes paid by that group. Even the top 20% share of taxes fell because everyone's income declined. According to the report, the average Federal INCOME tax rate of 7.2% was the lowest rate ever over the entire period observed, 1979-2009--in fact, it fell 2% from 2007. Meanwhile, payroll taxes as a share of income increased over the same period, and, as the report stated, in 2009, again for the first time ever, federal payroll taxes generated more revenue than federal income taxes. When you include ALL federal taxes, from 2008 to 2009, the share of taxes paid by the bottom 80% actually increased from 30.8% to 32.1%, which means the tax burden of the top 20% declined by 1.3%.

 

Final point, the income measure used in the second report include government transfer payments such as healthcare, foodstamps, etc. Only market income is taxed, not transfers. Here's one impact: for the poorest 20% in 2009, the average market income was $7600, but transfers added $22,500 to their "pre-tax income" for an average of just over $30,000. Guess what that does to their average tax rate...

What this also does is lower the share of pre-tax income at the top. If one only counted market income--the only kind that is taxable, then the top 20% had 56.8% of total income in 2009 vs the reported 50.8%. Gosh, why did the top 20% pay more INCOME taxes in 2009? That's where all of the market income is!

 

Spin! Spin!

[DaveinElma]

What this also does is lower the share of pre-tax income at the top. If one only counted market income--the only kind that is taxable, then the top 20% had 56.8% of total income in 2009 vs the reported 50.8%. Gosh, why did the top 20% pay more INCOME taxes in 2009? That's where all of the market income is!

 

Spin! Spin!

 

And the reason all the income is at the top is because the top is taxed to death preventing them from creating jobs and increasing wages.

[The Big Cat]

And the reason all the income is at the top is because the top is taxed to death preventing them from creating jobs and increasing wages.

 

I'll see your spin, and you raise you more spin.

[/dev/null]

I'll see your spin, and you raise you more spin.

I don't like spin!

 

You should have the spin, spin, bacon, and spin, there's not much spin in that

[The Big Cat]

I don't like spin!

 

You should have the spin, spin, bacon, and spin, there's not much spin in that

 

I came here for an argument!

[uncle flap]

Reminds me of a Pearl Jam song, "Spin! Spin! Spin the black circle..."

 

So someone quotes data from a press release off of a republican's website and everyone accepts it without question. I know what the response would've been if it was the other way around. Portman simply cherry picked data to spin his points.

 

Regarding the first point. No one denies that the "great recession" has been the single greateast contributor to increased deficits and debt since 2001. That is, of the $11.7 trillion swing the CBO notes, 2/3 of that was caused by the recession--the years 2008-2011. A more accurate depiction of the impact of the Bush tax cuts would be to look at the changes from 2001 to 2007. Over this period of more normal economic growth the swing from surplus to deficit was about $4.2 trillion. I'm not sure precisely what Portman's boys used to get their 16% figure, so my rough estimate of their method shows that the tax cuts were responsible for about 30% of the roughly $4.2 trillion swing from surplus to deficit over the 2001-2007 period. So of course once you throw in the impact of the GR from 2008, it makes the impact appear lower...duh!

 

On the second point, we've certainly seen this argued many a time here. Yes, the rich (if you want to say the top 20%=rich) pay more federal INCOME taxes because they earned almost 51% of the pre-tax income in 2009. Of course their share of federal INCOME taxes increased (to 94%) because more people unemployed in the lower 80% means lower taxes paid by that group. Even the top 20% share of taxes fell because everyone's income declined. According to the report, the average Federal INCOME tax rate of 7.2% was the lowest rate ever over the entire period observed, 1979-2009--in fact, it fell 2% from 2007. Meanwhile, payroll taxes as a share of income increased over the same period, and, as the report stated, in 2009, again for the first time ever, federal payroll taxes generated more revenue than federal income taxes. When you include ALL federal taxes, from 2008 to 2009, the share of taxes paid by the bottom 80% actually increased from 30.8% to 32.1%, which means the tax burden of the top 20% declined by 1.3%.

 

Final point, the income measure used in the second report include government transfer payments such as healthcare, foodstamps, etc. Only market income is taxed, not transfers. Here's one impact: for the poorest 20% in 2009, the average market income was $7600, but transfers added $22,500 to their "pre-tax income" for an average of just over $30,000. Guess what that does to their average tax rate...

What this also does is lower the share of pre-tax income at the top. If one only counted market income--the only kind that is taxable, then the top 20% had 56.8% of total income in 2009 vs the reported 50.8%. Gosh, why did the top 20% pay more INCOME taxes in 2009? That's where all of the market income is!

 

Spin! Spin!

 

It must suck to take the time to write that only to have it misunderstood and/or ignored.

[/dev/null]

I came here for an argument!

I'm sorry, this is abuse

[DC Tom]

Reminds me of a Pearl Jam song, "Spin! Spin! Spin the black circle..."

 

So someone quotes data from a press release off of a republican's website and everyone accepts it without question. I know what the response would've been if it was the other way around. Portman simply cherry picked data to spin his points.

 

Regarding the first point. No one denies that the "great recession" has been the single greateast contributor to increased deficits and debt since 2001.

 

Except EVERY SINGLE RAVING LIBERAL LUNATIC WHO STILL BLAMES BUSH'S WAR SPENDING.

 

That is, of the $11.7 trillion swing the CBO notes, 2/3 of that was caused by the recession--the years 2008-2011. A more accurate depiction of the impact of the Bush tax cuts would be to look at the changes from 2001 to 2007. Over this period of more normal economic growth the swing from surplus to deficit was about $4.2 trillion. I'm not sure precisely what Portman's boys used to get their 16% figure, so my rough estimate of their method shows that the tax cuts were responsible for about 30% of the roughly $4.2 trillion swing from surplus to deficit over the 2001-2007 period. So of course once you throw in the impact of the GR from 2008, it makes the impact appear lower...duh!

 

On the second point, we've certainly seen this argued many a time here. Yes, the rich (if you want to say the top 20%=rich) pay more federal INCOME taxes because they earned almost 51% of the pre-tax income in 2009. Of course their share of federal INCOME taxes increased (to 94%) because more people unemployed in the lower 80% means lower taxes paid by that group. Even the top 20% share of taxes fell because everyone's income declined. According to the report, the average Federal INCOME tax rate of 7.2% was the lowest rate ever over the entire period observed, 1979-2009--in fact, it fell 2% from 2007. Meanwhile, payroll taxes as a share of income increased over the same period, and, as the report stated, in 2009, again for the first time ever, federal payroll taxes generated more revenue than federal income taxes. When you include ALL federal taxes, from 2008 to 2009, the share of taxes paid by the bottom 80% actually increased from 30.8% to 32.1%, which means the tax burden of the top 20% declined by 1.3%.

 

Final point, the income measure used in the second report include government transfer payments such as healthcare, foodstamps, etc. Only market income is taxed, not transfers. Here's one impact: for the poorest 20% in 2009, the average market income was $7600, but transfers added $22,500 to their "pre-tax income" for an average of just over $30,000. Guess what that does to their average tax rate...

What this also does is lower the share of pre-tax income at the top. If one only counted market income--the only kind that is taxable, then the top 20% had 56.8% of total income in 2009 vs the reported 50.8%. Gosh, why did the top 20% pay more INCOME taxes in 2009? That's where all of the market income is!

 

Spin! Spin!

 

It's not spin...it's the manipulation of statistics to get the answer you want. Honestly, I trust the CBO's numbers and yours equally (i.e. not much).

[The Big Cat]

I'm sorry, this is abuse

 

My favorite part of this exchange is that it happened MOMENTS after I finished watching:

 

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

but wait, isnt this a bad thing? this means the economy has incredible stratfication... ie, the market cannot support this type of wage gap. left or right, we dont want the wealthy paying all the taxes and the other 80-90% on govt assistance...

 

no?