CBO report confirms wealthy is already paying MORE than their 'fair share'

Discussion in 'Economy' started by P@triot, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    23,470
    Thanks Received:
    2,771
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,776
  2. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    Federal Taxes

    The effective total Federal tax rate (all taxes, income & otherwise) increases with income. The poorest fifth of the population pays about 5% of their income to the Federal government, via some sort of Federal tax. Then, each succeeding quintile pays about 5% more than the previous:
    [​IMG]
    The figure plots data from the CBO & TPC, as well as their average:



    total Taxes (including State & Local)

    State & Local taxes exceed Federal taxes. The total tax burden is about half of received disposable personal income (PI less personal taxes less employer pension contributions). So, including State & Local taxes would (on average) more than double the numbers from the first figure above. The figure below plots the aggregate total tax burden:
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Odd that the lefties around here have no comment. But then a little thing like facts and data
    don't mean anything unless it supports their ideology. Consider this:


    snippet:

    New Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that the top 1% paid 21.3% of all federal taxes from 1993 to 2000, when Clinton was president, but they paid 25.1% from 2003 to 2008, after the Bush tax cuts. If 21.3% was a fair share in the Clinton years, then the top 1% has been paying much more than its fair share since 2003.
    .
    .

    Similarly, the CBO finds that after-tax median household income rose by 48.8 percent from 1980 to 2009, after properly adjusting for shrinking household size (more singles, fewer children). The table below, constructed from CBO data, shows what happened when.

    Changes in Real Median Household Income
    Adjusted for Household Size
    Before taxes After taxes
    1979-1983 0 0
    1983-1989 13.5 12.8
    1989-1992 0 0
    1992-2000 17.3 18.1
    2000-2007 10.3 13.9
    2007-2009 -4.7 -1.2

    In the CBO’s after-tax estimates, real median income rose 18.1% from 1992 to 2000 (thanks to the Internet and cellphone revolutions), but median income also grew by another 13.9 percent from 2000 to 2007. Comparing pretax and after-tax estimates shows the Bush tax cuts and refundable credits helped quite a lot, particularly in the crash from 2007 to 2009.

    The CBO’s Gini coefficient (a broad measure of inequality) was 0.426 in 2009 – essentially unchanged from 0.424 in 1988. Like the strong 1992-2007 increase in real median income, the absence of any sustained upward trend in such broad measures of inequality is unlikely to be treated as newsworthy during an election year.

    In late 2011, by contrast, the CBO grabbed a lot of media attention with a supposedly new report saying, “The share of income received by the top 1% grew . . . to over 17% in 2007.” In a Wall Street Journal article last December, I asked why the report stopped with the frothy cyclical peak of 2007, since I could easily calculate from IRS data that “the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009.” Now that the CBO has finally gotten around to releasing estimates for 2008 and 2009, it turns out that my estimate was almost exactly on the mark: the top 1 percent’s share of after-tax income fell to 11.5% in 2009.

    The CBO on Falling Incomes and Rising Tax Shares of the Top 1% | Cato @ Liberty
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. expat_panama
    Offline

    expat_panama Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,461
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +253
    What's interesting is that we now have both the CBO and the BEA agreeing that real middle class incomes soared from 2000 to 2007, and fell after 2008:
    [​IMG]
    Census Br.'s been taking a lot of heat for a left wing bias.
     
  5. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    how much of other people's money is it "fair" to take in taxes? If i pay X%, then is any higher percent "fair" for me to impose on others?
     
  6. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    nope, not according to our dear leader-

    [L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

    If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. P@triot
    Offline

    P@triot Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    23,470
    Thanks Received:
    2,771
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +8,776
    "The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." - Barack Obama

    This guy is either the biggest idiot ever or the biggest liar ever (I think it's pretty clear that it's both). The fact is, the government created "ARPANET" as a means of ensuring communications through redundancy in the event of a nuclear attack. It absolutely, positively did not create the internet "so that all the companies could make money off it".
     
  8. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    the internet derives from the post-Soviet privatization of the "arpanet". The internet boosts information exchange & productivity. The internet represents (ultimately) tax dollars "well spent".

    Spending tax dollars is not the same as raising tax dollars. Tax dollars are only "well raised", when they are then spent on something as valuable as the internet. "Once upon a time, the government spent tax dollars well" does not (logically) imply, that the government will ever do so again; or that taxes should be raised, in hopes thereof. If Pres. Obama presents a specific proposal, for "tax dollars well spent", then tax dollars would be "well raised" in furtherance thereof.

    Tax systems involve two things, taking money (revenues), and spending money (expenditures). Taking money is not the same as spending money.

    The internet was tax money well spent. Governments, on behalf of their Publics, can do good things, for their economies. So, what is the next government "internet-grade" spending project, warranting raising taxes again? (Or, should taxes be raised, forevermore, in perpetual gratitude, for past successes?)
     
  9. expat_panama
    Offline

    expat_panama Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,461
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +253
    The internet was not created by government researchers, it was developed by private researchers who sold their work to the Dept. of Defense. We are harmed when taxes are raised and redistributed by those who ignore the private sector and try to steal the private sector's accomplishments.
     
  10. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    Government contracts are funded from taxes ?

    Government spending, on infrastructure (energy, transportation, information) and education, have been beneficial "Public goods". Such Public investments produced productive physical & human capital. (Redistribution is not investing, in productive capacity, for the future.) Some taxes have been well raised-and-then-spent, in the past. That does not imply, that more taxes raised, today, will be well spent, tomorrow. (As with any private enterprise, Public enterprises should be considered & funded on a case-by-case basis.) "i once did a good job, yesterday" does not imply that "i will do another good job, again, tomorrow (trust me)". Having made valuable infrastructure investments, upkeep costs should (almost) certainly be funded. But, other, unrelated (and unspecified) Government projects are not "automatically sound investments", just because "once upon a time, long long ago" Government-funded Public investments were profitable. Profitable Public spending, on information networks, yesterday, does not imply, that taxing, today, on "something stimulating", just "must must must be good".
     

Share This Page