Posted on 05/04/2006 11:15:45 AM PDT by MikeA
With the House and Senate preparing to vote on extending George W. Bush's investment tax cuts, it's no surprise the cries against "tax giveaways to the rich" grow increasingly shrill. Just yesterday Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid charged that the Bush tax plan "offers next to nothing to average Americans while giving away the store to multi-millionaires"...
Oh really. New IRS data released last month tell a very different story: In the aftermath of the Bush investment tax cuts, the federal income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the backs of the wealthy. Between 2002 and 2004, tax payments by those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $200,000 a year, which is roughly 3% of taxpayers, increased by 19.4% -- more than double the 9.3% increase for all other taxpayers.
Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent data), the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those with $200,000 incomes and above has risen to 46.6% from 40.5%. In other words, out of every 100 Americans, the wealthiest three are now paying close to the same amount in taxes as the other 97 combined. The richest income group pays a larger share of the tax burden than at anytime in the last 30 years...
(snip)
The most astounding result from the IRS data is the deluge of revenues from the very taxes that were cut in 2003: capital gains and dividends...capital gains receipts from 2002-04 have climbed by 79% after the reduction in the tax rate from 20% to 15%. Dividend tax receipts are up 35% from 2002 to 2004, even though the taxable rate fell from 39.6% to 15%. This is as clear evidence of a Laffer Curve effect as one will find: Lower rates produced increased revenues.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
online.wsj.com/article/SB114670305012743294.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
This piece rebuts so well the claims that tax cuts only benefitted the rich and shows how they've had an incredible economic impact. We really must call our Senators and Congresscritters to urge them to vote for an extension of these tax cuts. The economy will tank without that.
The Dems wanted a tax increase and the results would have been less revenues and a recession, probably paid for with many years of pain.
Because of the Tax Cuts, we all are in a different economy than the democrats would have us. Boo Hoo! (/Sarcasm OFF)
BTTT
Some Americans understand that an economy is a CYCLE--you get that money to change more hands and it's better for everyone. When you put it in the hands of the government, though, it changes hands unnaturally, against the "rules" of supply and demand. (Ex: You tax money I would normally spend at my local store and send it to a do-nothing federal or state worker, you've got too much money on loafing laborers while my local store, which I need to have, going broke and out of business.)
Bush is the best tax cutter we've had since first term Reagan. (I hope he does better than second term Reagan.)
bump
Yep. He doesn't seem to get much credit for that around here, though.
good point(s).
"out of every 100 Americans, the wealthiest three are now paying close to the same amount in taxes as the other 97 combined."
The elimination of dividend taxes and capitol gains taxes would be an enormous benefit to our economy.
We must not let the democRATS steal yet another hard faught economic recovery only to take credit for it again.
Steve Moore is the goods. If anyone watches him regularly on Kudlow, it's easy to see he's twice the gentleman of that Krugman clone Reich, who like most all lefties, is an interrupting moron with no manners.
Steve is a font of reason and one who deserves respect for his dead on analysis and free market prescriptions.
I got none of the tax cuts this year because of the AMT. So when liberals talk about how much the so-called rich got in tax cuts (getting their own money back)--they obviously aren't taking into account the NEW 'soak the rich' plan--which now extends down to income levels that only a democrat could possibly describe as RICH.
>>Between 2002 and 2004, tax payments by those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $200,000 a year, which is roughly 3% of taxpayers, increased by 19.4% -- more than double the 9.3% increase for all other taxpayers.
Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent data), the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those with $200,000 incomes and above has risen to 46.6% from 40.5%.<<
Statistics are the tools of liars.
Thought experiment: 1) Let every member of that 3% income bracket enjoy a TRIPLING of their annual income during the specified time period, and 2) let all others experience absolutely NO CHANGE in annual income. Result: No one moves into or out of the top (+$200,000 per annum) bracket. The members of the top bracket manage (by means of clever loopholes) to suffer a mere 19.4% increase in tax burden, and their share of the total burden of all tax payers increases from 40.5% to a (still) paltry 46.6%
Mind you, I'm not saying that this is what actually happened. I'm merely pointing out that the rich could have benefited from an enormous increase in income in the stated time frame. This article tells us only how much taxes their are paying - not how much more they are earning (and avoiding paying taxes on).
"Only the rich got tax cuts!!!!"
That's an old rope-a-dope line that the Democrats use on their dumbass voter base who fall for it everytime.
I am middle class and due to the reduction in the marginal tax rate I now pay 2.5% less federal taxes per year.
What the heck does it matter how much they are making? The gist of the article (as if you didn't know), is that the top 3% are paying most of the tax burden of this country. While the Democrats are saying that the tax cuts unfairly target the rich and hurt the "poor". So, what "statistic" in the article is a lie, exactly?
It could also be inflationary creep, since more people earn aboove $200k than before, even if they are not generating more value.
>>What the heck does it matter how much they are making? The gist of the article (as if you didn't know), is that the top 3% are paying most of the tax burden of this country. While the Democrats are saying that the tax cuts unfairly target the rich and hurt the "poor". So, what "statistic" in the article is a lie, exactly?<<
The article's IMPLICATION is that the rich are (simply) being forced to pay more taxes, i.e. that their tax burden is (simply) rising. It does not even hint at the REASONS/CAUSES for this increase. It is implying that the increase was arbitrary and unfair.
But it might, in fact, be eminently fair.
After all: If I, a millionaire, claim that my taxes rose by 20%, or that my fellow-millionaires and I now bear nearly 50% of the total tax burden of all tax-payers - but NEGLECT to mention that we rich folks experienced an ENORMOUS rise in income - then I am guilty of misrepresenting the facts. But who would shed a tear for a millionaire who becomes a multi-millionaire, whereupon he pays a paltry 20% more taxes?
bttt
The higher the tax rate the more need to shield it.
When tax rates are lowered you are more likely to report.
Your point that statistics can be twisted is valid. But in this case, the point is that while democrats complained that these tax cuts only benefited the wealthy, a few relevant FACTS demonstrate that the democrat claim is false:
1 - tax revenues are up.
2 - of these higher tax revenues, the highest income earning 3% of taxpayers bears a higher percentage of the higher tax burden than before.
3 - tax payments increased for this group at a higher rate than for other taxpayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.