Wiseacre
Retired USAF Chief
There is an interesting piece in the WSJ today entitled "Millionaires Go Missing", sorry no link, it's proprietary. The thrust of it is that this month the IRS released more detailed tax data for 2009, where the decline in numbers and revenue of the taxpaying rich is indicated.
In 2007, some 390,000 taxpayers reported over 1 million in earnings and paid $309 billion in taxes. In 2009, there were only 237,000 such taxpayers, a decline of 39%, and they paid only $178 billion, which is a drop of 42%. So, first question: all you lib/dems oughta be jumping for joy right, WOO HOO, less income inequality! Do you how stupid this line of reasoning is?
Further, those with 10 million or more in earning fell from 18,394 to 8,274, and their tax payments dropped by 51%. The loss of revenue during these 2 years from the Ms and Bs is about $130 billion, which is one reason why US tax revenue has sunk to nearly 15% of GDP. So how come so many fewer rich guys? Maybe some said screw it, I'm off to Aruba or Costa Rica or somewhere. Maybe some stuffed their money into gold, real estate, foreign markets, mattresses, who knows. That's what happens when you create a business unfriendly climate, part of which includes taxes on business and investments. It's also what happens when you have a recession without an accompanying recovery, but that's another argument.
Now for the fun part - Those who make a million or more in 2009 accounted for 0.2% of all tax returns, but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with AGI above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of all filers but paid 50.1% of $866 billion in total personal income taxes. So, the top 3% paid more taxes than the bottom 97%. Before the recession the $200,000 group paid 54.5% of all income taxes. And you're going to tell me these guys aren't already paying their fair share? It is beyond imagining how any rational person can look at these numbers and ask for more taxes.
The real answer for increased revenues is to persue tax reform and LOWER tax rates. Check out this snippet from the link below:
Despite the evidence, Calmes [refers to another writer's column in the NYT] mentions that there are few precedents for paying down debt through spending cuts alone. But this is due to political, rather than economic reasons. In the current debate, tax increases are viewed as a “cost of doing business” with the Administration on deficit reduction, but this has nothing to do with the economics. When looking at the long-run budget situation, revenues are expected to climb well above their historical average of about 18.5% of GDP within the next ten years. In fact, as CBO notes in its 2011 Long Run Budget Outlook, current law already builds in more massive tax increases on American households than has been contemplated by any previous Congress in history. Although revenues have historically “average[ed] 18.0 percent [of GDP], with no evident trend over time,” under current law:
Revenues would rise from about 15 percent of GDP in 2011 to nearly 19 percent in 2013, about 21 percent in 2021, and about 23 percent in 2035, for a total increase of more than 8 percentage points over that period. By 2035, the tax system would be quite different from what it is today. Households at all points on the income scale would pay a higher share of their income in taxes than similar households pay today, and a much larger share of households—nearly half—would be subject to the AMT.
The new phenomenon driving the deficit is entirely on the spending side, with current spending one-quarter larger as a share of the economy as has been the U.S. historical experience. Future deficit growth is driven almost entirely by entitlement spending. If one assumes that revenues are slightly above their long run average (18.4%) over the next 25 years and no changes are made to entitlement programs, the public debt grows from 70% of GDP currently to 187% in 2035. The money available on the revenue side is trivial compared to the entitlement explosion, even if one wishes to take tax receipts to never before seen levels.
Road Map to a Growth Economy | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century
In 2007, some 390,000 taxpayers reported over 1 million in earnings and paid $309 billion in taxes. In 2009, there were only 237,000 such taxpayers, a decline of 39%, and they paid only $178 billion, which is a drop of 42%. So, first question: all you lib/dems oughta be jumping for joy right, WOO HOO, less income inequality! Do you how stupid this line of reasoning is?
Further, those with 10 million or more in earning fell from 18,394 to 8,274, and their tax payments dropped by 51%. The loss of revenue during these 2 years from the Ms and Bs is about $130 billion, which is one reason why US tax revenue has sunk to nearly 15% of GDP. So how come so many fewer rich guys? Maybe some said screw it, I'm off to Aruba or Costa Rica or somewhere. Maybe some stuffed their money into gold, real estate, foreign markets, mattresses, who knows. That's what happens when you create a business unfriendly climate, part of which includes taxes on business and investments. It's also what happens when you have a recession without an accompanying recovery, but that's another argument.
Now for the fun part - Those who make a million or more in 2009 accounted for 0.2% of all tax returns, but paid 20.4% of income taxes in 2009. Those with AGI above $200,000 a year were just under 3% of all filers but paid 50.1% of $866 billion in total personal income taxes. So, the top 3% paid more taxes than the bottom 97%. Before the recession the $200,000 group paid 54.5% of all income taxes. And you're going to tell me these guys aren't already paying their fair share? It is beyond imagining how any rational person can look at these numbers and ask for more taxes.
The real answer for increased revenues is to persue tax reform and LOWER tax rates. Check out this snippet from the link below:
Despite the evidence, Calmes [refers to another writer's column in the NYT] mentions that there are few precedents for paying down debt through spending cuts alone. But this is due to political, rather than economic reasons. In the current debate, tax increases are viewed as a “cost of doing business” with the Administration on deficit reduction, but this has nothing to do with the economics. When looking at the long-run budget situation, revenues are expected to climb well above their historical average of about 18.5% of GDP within the next ten years. In fact, as CBO notes in its 2011 Long Run Budget Outlook, current law already builds in more massive tax increases on American households than has been contemplated by any previous Congress in history. Although revenues have historically “average[ed] 18.0 percent [of GDP], with no evident trend over time,” under current law:
Revenues would rise from about 15 percent of GDP in 2011 to nearly 19 percent in 2013, about 21 percent in 2021, and about 23 percent in 2035, for a total increase of more than 8 percentage points over that period. By 2035, the tax system would be quite different from what it is today. Households at all points on the income scale would pay a higher share of their income in taxes than similar households pay today, and a much larger share of households—nearly half—would be subject to the AMT.
The new phenomenon driving the deficit is entirely on the spending side, with current spending one-quarter larger as a share of the economy as has been the U.S. historical experience. Future deficit growth is driven almost entirely by entitlement spending. If one assumes that revenues are slightly above their long run average (18.4%) over the next 25 years and no changes are made to entitlement programs, the public debt grows from 70% of GDP currently to 187% in 2035. The money available on the revenue side is trivial compared to the entitlement explosion, even if one wishes to take tax receipts to never before seen levels.
Road Map to a Growth Economy | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century
Last edited: