Tax Cut Charts and Reality

[Annie]

About time! Charts and remainder of article at link:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0408/27/a09-255537.htm

Bush fails to get deserved credit for tax cut benefits

Despite reporting distortions, a congressional report shows the rich pay proportionately more in taxes while all income earners do better

By Donald Luskin

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry claiming it proves that “Over the last four years, the burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class.”

Those are politically motivated lies that distort the findings of the report. Here’s the truth.

The report proves that what President Bush said about his tax cuts is true: “Tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.”

It’s true for the rich, and it’s true for the not-so-rich. Across 109.4 million tax-paying households — from the wealthiest 1 percent with incomes averaging over $1 million to the lowest-earning 20 percent of people with incomes averaging $14,900 — the report shows that all income classes have seen their income tax rates lowered thanks to Bush’s cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The CBO report shows how 2004 income tax rates have dropped for everyone compared with tax laws in force in 2000.

The report also shows that Bush’s tax cuts have been “progressive” — that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income tax burden toward the wealthy and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cutes, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other group now pays a smaller share of the total income tax burden.

Another part of the CBO report shows how the income tax burden has shifted upward for the rich and downward for everyone else.

[...]

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'd like to know what the income level for the top 20% range is. did anyone find it in the article?

 

[freeandfun1]

I heard on TV the other day that the top 20% is any person or couple filing jointly that makes, I believe it was, $184,000 or 187,000 a year. Something like that. I will see if I can find out.

 

[Annie]

I'd like to know what the income level for the top 20% range is. did anyone find it in the article?

Thank you DK! Someday you must teach me how to do that!

 

[freeandfun1]

Thomas Sowell - Work pays!

This is the best I could find quickly.

High-income people are typically people who have reached their peak earning years in middle age. What does it take to reach the top 20 percent in income? In 2001, it took a little less than $85,000 -- for a whole household! (This is a different Census publication: "Current Population Reports," P60-218.)


How many yachts these people are going to buy, even if they get those "tax cuts for the rich" we hear about, is another story.


To reach the top 5 percent, you need an income of about $150,000 -- again, for a whole household. A middle-aged couple who have worked their way up in middle-class jobs, over a period of decades, can reach this peak -- and have much of it taxed away.


These publicly available numbers may be surprising news to some because neither in the media nor in academia do the envy zealots like to talk about actual dollars and cents. Or about work -- one of the few four-letter words that remains taboo.

 

[DKSuddeth]

by the article you posted free, it seems that I incurred a larger portion of the tax burden, even with a tax break.

 

[freeandfun1]

The problem I see with the tax rates is that we still consider anybody or household making over $150,000 as being "rich". There should be tax brackets for those making $1,000,000 per year or more and then the next break should be at $500,000 and then $250,000. People making $150,000 are truly middle class these days. Guys like Clinton like to lump those of us making $200,000 a year in whith the same crowd as himself while he is making $12,000,000 a year. They need to look at reality instead of continually using class warfare.

Sure, my $200,000 + a year makes me very rich when compared to some, but is also makes me very poor when compared to others.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

The problem I see with the tax rates is that we still consider anybody or household making over $150,000 as being "rich". There should be tax brackets for those making $1,000,000 per year or more and then the next break should be at $500,000 and then $250,000. People making $150,000 are truly middle class these days. Guys like Clinton like to lump those of us making $200,000 a year in whith the same crowd as himself while he is making $12,000,000 a year. They need to look at reality instead of continually using class warfare.

I agree. I think it's a complete joke to lump people who make $200,000 a year with the millionaires. $200,000 a year is obviously good and it's more than a lot of people make, but I don't consider someone who makes that to be that rich and a lot of small business owners make that and they aren't too thrilled about Kerry raising their taxes.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

by the article you posted free, it seems that I incurred a larger portion of the tax burden, even with a tax break.

The tax "burden" is really given more importance than it should have, or at least doesn't have the importance that some make it out to have. If I understand everything right, they take the total amount of taxes paid and determine what percentage each category (class, whatever you want to call it) pays of the total amount. When there is a tax cut, obviously the total amount goes down. The percentage, however, will stay about the same, or drop a little bit, or maybe even go up a hair. Whichever way it goes, everybody pays less in taxes. That's the point.

Maybe I have that wrong, but it just seems some people twist it out of proportion.

 

[insein]

Tax brackets add to the confusion and the loopholes. We need to simplify the tax system. We need to implement one singular flat tax and get rid of all other taxes. No sales tax. No property tax. NO Business taxes. No inheritance tax. No tax on dividends. One income flat tax that makes everyone pay the same rate as everyone else. No one can say they pay more or less, because they pay the same rate. No one can accuse the Rich of stealing because the system is simple. You pay this amount of what you earned. No offshore holding accounts hiding money. No running money through swiss banks. You earned it, you keep it. You pay your percentage to uncle Sam every check and then you don't have to worry about April 15th anymore.

Government makes money, and everyone is happy. :usa:

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Tax brackets add to the confusion and the loopholes. We need to simplify the tax system. We need to implement one singular flat tax and get rid of all other taxes. No sales tax. No property tax. NO Business taxes. No inheritance tax. No tax on dividends. One income flat tax that makes everyone pay the same rate as everyone else. No one can say they pay more or less, because they pay the same rate. No one can accuse the Rich of stealing because the system is simple. You pay this amount of what you earned. No offshore holding accounts hiding money. No running money through swiss banks. You earned it, you keep it. You pay your percentage to uncle Sam every check and then you don't have to worry about April 15th anymore.

Government makes money, and everyone is happy. :usa:

I agree. Bob Dole had it right and not enough people listened.

 

[5stringJeff]

The tax "burden" is really given more importance than it should have, or at least doesn't have the importance that some make it out to have. If I understand everything right, they take the total amount of taxes paid and determine what percentage each category (class, whatever you want to call it) pays of the total amount. When there is a tax cut, obviously the total amount goes down. The percentage, however, will stay about the same, or drop a little bit, or maybe even go up a hair. Whichever way it goes, everybody pays less in taxes. That's the point.

Maybe I have that wrong, but it just seems some people twist it out of proportion.

Jimmy, you have made a great observation. The "tax burden" is an irrelevant statistic - or at least not very relevant. What is relevant to a taxpaying family (i.e. most of us on this board) is the bottom line - how much did you pay in taxes on your 1040?
Under Bush, we are all paying less - and that's a good thing. I personally could care less about tax burden on the 2nd quintile of earners or anything like that.

 

[dmp]

If somebody making $150,000 year doesn't consider themselves "wealthy" or 'upper class' they MUST live two doors down from Bill Gates.


$150,000 for a household is a CRAP LOAD of money. With a household making $150,000 they can have a HUGE home, on acerage, and kids in private school. They can afford a vacation trip EVERY YEAR. They can afford a $50K Luxury SUV for 'her' and a $50K Corvette for 'Him'.

please - if you make that kind of money, don't insult those of us who make nearly 2/3 less by saying you're 'Merely middle-class'. Mary and I live pretty well; have a nice house, two cars, motorcycle, lots of 'comforts' and junk. If we added $90K to our income we'd be so f'ing wealthy we'd not be able to spend it all.

wow.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If somebody making $150,000 year doesn't consider themselves "wealthy" or 'upper class' they MUST live two doors down from Bill Gates.


$150,000 for a household is a CRAP LOAD of money. With a household making $150,000 they can have a HUGE home, on acerage, and kids in private school. They can afford a vacation trip EVERY YEAR. They can afford a $50K Luxury SUV for 'her' and a $50K Corvette for 'Him'.

please - if you make that kind of money, don't insult those of us who make nearly 2/3 less by saying you're 'Merely middle-class'. Mary and I live pretty well; have a nice house, two cars, motorcycle, lots of 'comforts' and junk. If we added $90K to our income we'd be so f'ing wealthy we'd not be able to spend it all.

wow.

no kidding, 150k would be wealthy for me.

 

[CSM]

What constitutes "wealth" is very dependent on a lot of factors. A family making 150k a year does indeed seem wealthy to some, however, if the area in which they live has a high cost of living then they may not be so wealthy after all, especially if they are paying for children in college, etc.

 

[freeandfun1]

If somebody making $150,000 year doesn't consider themselves "wealthy" or 'upper class' they MUST live two doors down from Bill Gates.

As I said, it is wealthy, but is it as wealthy as Bill Gates or Bill Clinton? No it is not, but the democrats want to act like somebody making $150K a year is equal to somebody making $1.5 million a year.

$150,000 for a household is a CRAP LOAD of money. With a household making $150,000 they can have a HUGE home, on acerage, and kids in private school. They can afford a vacation trip EVERY YEAR. They can afford a $50K Luxury SUV for 'her' and a $50K Corvette for 'Him'.

Really depends on where you live. If you live on Long Island, you will find that $150K a year does not go very far. Same if you live in Orange County, San Jose, etc. On Long Island a two bedroom home can cost $625,000 and your property taxes alone can run $25,000 a year. Again, $150K a year in Des Moines or even Dallas is not $150K in New York or LA.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

If somebody making $150,000 year doesn't consider themselves "wealthy" or 'upper class' they MUST live two doors down from Bill Gates.


$150,000 for a household is a CRAP LOAD of money. With a household making $150,000 they can have a HUGE home, on acerage, and kids in private school. They can afford a vacation trip EVERY YEAR. They can afford a $50K Luxury SUV for 'her' and a $50K Corvette for 'Him'.

please - if you make that kind of money, don't insult those of us who make nearly 2/3 less by saying you're 'Merely middle-class'. Mary and I live pretty well; have a nice house, two cars, motorcycle, lots of 'comforts' and junk. If we added $90K to our income we'd be so f'ing wealthy we'd not be able to spend it all.

wow.

While I do think $150,000 a year does justify someone being called "rich", a lot of it depends on where you live. Where I am, I live in relative comfort and don't make anywhere near $150,000 a year. Making that much would pretty much mean no finincial worries whatsoever. Now, take that same $150,000 a year and put that person in California. Suddenly, $150,000 doesn't seem like so much. I'm not saying they'll be living in poverty, but considering that amount of money wouldn't even buy a decent house in a decent part of, say, San Diego, I don't know how wealthy or "rich" someone would be either.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Really depends on where you live. If you live on Long Island, you will find that $150K a year does not go very far. Same if you live in Orange County, San Jose, etc. On Long Island a two bedroom home can cost $625,000 and your property taxes alone can run $25,000 a year. Again, $150K a year in Des Moines or even Dallas is not $150K in New York or LA.

Great minds think alike. LOL

 

[dmp]

I live in WA... in WA $150K buys a LOT...I'd hazzard a guess that $150k/year buys a LOT of stuff in places where 90% of the readership of this board live too!

 

[freeandfun1]

I live in WA... in WA $150K buys a LOT...I'd hazzard a guess that $150k/year buys a LOT of stuff in places where 90% of the readership of this board live too!

I understand your point. But if a person making $150K a year was RICH, then they would not have to worry about WHERE they live. Guys like Bill Gates, John Kerry, George Bush, Bill Clinton, etc., that make a LOT more than $150K are rich. Hell, if you make $50,000 a year you are considered RICH by somebody that is making $20,000 a year.

I would be willing to bet there are a LOT more families making $150,000 a year than there are making $30,000 a year. If that is the case, wouldn't they make up the middle class? They are not the super rich, but they are not considered lower income either.