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

[P@triot]

The evidence continues to mount that liberals are lying about everything. The numbers are pretty astounding (and sad):

CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share"

 

[Widdekind]

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:

The figure plots data from the CBO & TPC, as well as their average:

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households​

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:

 

[Wiseacre]

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

 

[expat_panama]

...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
...The CBO on Falling Incomes and Rising Tax Shares of the Top 1% | Cato @ Liberty

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:

Census Br.'s been taking a lot of heat for a left wing bias.

 

[Widdekind]

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?

 

[Trajan]

The evidence continues to mount that liberals are lying about everything. The numbers are pretty astounding (and sad):

CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share"

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.

 

[P@triot]

The evidence continues to mount that liberals are lying about everything. The numbers are pretty astounding (and sad):

CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share"

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.

"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".

 

[Widdekind]

"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

...the government created "ARPANET" as a means of ensuring communications through redundancy in the event of a nuclear attack.

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?)

 

[expat_panama]

"The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet..." - Barack Obama...

...should taxes be raised, forevermore, in perpetual gratitude, for past successes?

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.

 

[Widdekind]

"The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet..." - Barack Obama...

...should taxes be raised, forevermore, in perpetual gratitude, for past successes?

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.

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".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.

so what??? do you want to set up a Nazi liberal panel in Washington to track down all the people who helped so they can be compensated? But then the people who helped were also helped in order to be in a position to help, and so on. Even the Nazis would find that a difficult problem for bureaucrats to solve.

Then of course lets not forget the parents who get most of the credit. Should we have a law that they get 70% of their children's fortune above $500,000??


Then of course MDs help us all stay alive which is pretty special. So must they get all of everyone's income since you can't help more than they do?

 

[Moonglow]

more twisted idealogs than taffy

 

[Moonglow]

The same CBO that repubs said lied about cost of Obamacare!?

 

[Widdekind]

that was "there-and-then", what about "here-and-now" ?

 

[daveman]

Government contracts are funded from taxes ?

Yes. Where else would the money come from?

 

[uscitizen]

About Your Liberty Trading Group Traders

About Your Traders
James Cordier

James Cordier is Principal and Founder of Liberty Trading Group in Tampa, Florida. With over 20 years of trading experience, he is quoted regularly on the futures markets in several national and international publications including the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Forbes, CNN Money and Dow Jones Newswires. He is a regular guest analyst on CNBC, Bloomberg Television and Fox Business News.

Mr. Cordier and his firm specialize in option writing and have developed a strategy of selling out of the money options on futures contracts that they share with clients of their brokerage.

Mr. Cordier manages portfolios for private clients on six continents and hosts his own website Managed Stock Option Selling with Option Trading Strategies.

Hmm one of the traders whose companys are missing over 200 mill of "investors" money.

Must have paid it all in taxes....

 

[Widdekind]

Government contracts are funded from taxes ?

Yes. Where else would the money come from?

then Pres. Obama & Senator-candidate Warren can legitimately point to the internet, as a past success, of Publicly funded projects. Yet, successes "there-and-then" do not imply that new-and-different government programs "here-and-now" will by successful. In sports analogy, some team winning a championship, years ago, does not imply that they will win the championship, this year. Would anybody bet like that, with their own private money? Then why bet like that, with Public Money? More than "what have you done for me lately", those who advocate taxing & spending should present some cogent proposal, for some well-reasoned Public project, which would be beneficial, if funded. The internet was not funded, by blindly approving grants "for any old thing". Neither should "any new-fangled thing" be automatically pre-approved, and pre-funded, on blindly-raised taxes.

one of the traders whose companys are missing over 200 mill of "investors" money

technically, buyers & sellers of futures contracts are speculating, not investing. Speculation can be beneficial, e.g. farmers can lock in a lower-but-guaranteed price; and (most years) the speculators can profit on the margin. Speculation can be akin to insurance.

But, speculation is very different from investing (in productive capital assets). Asset price "bubbles" are caused by rampant speculation, not by investing. (Rampant investing would only lower the interest-rates businesses must pay, when they borrow, by increasing the supply of loanable money to them.)

 

[daveman]

Government contracts are funded from taxes ?

Yes. Where else would the money come from?

then Pres. Obama & Senator-candidate Warren can legitimately point to the internet, as a past success, of Publicly funded projects. Yet, successes "there-and-then" do not imply that new-and-different government programs "here-and-now" will by successful. In sports analogy, some team winning a championship, years ago, does not imply that they will win the championship, this year. Would anybody bet like that, with their own private money? Then why bet like that, with Public Money? More than "what have you done for me lately", those who advocate taxing & spending should present some cogent proposal, for some well-reasoned Public project, which would be beneficial, if funded. The internet was not funded, by blindly approving grants "for any old thing". Neither should "any new-fangled thing" be automatically pre-approved, and pre-funded, on blindly-raised taxes.

Okay. So where else would the money come from?

one of the traders whose companys are missing over 200 mill of "investors" money

technically, buyers & sellers of futures contracts are speculating, not investing. Speculation can be beneficial, e.g. farmers can lock in a lower-but-guaranteed price; and (most years) the speculators can profit on the margin. Speculation can be akin to insurance.

But, speculation is very different from investing (in productive capital assets). Asset price "bubbles" are caused by rampant speculation, not by investing. (Rampant investing would only lower the interest-rates businesses must pay, when they borrow, by increasing the supply of loanable money to them.)

I did not write what you quoted. Please learn how the quote function works before you try it again.

 

[rdean]

Only Republicans could work to ship American jobs overseas, devastate the Middle Class and then complain it is they who "pay too much".

 

[Widdekind]

Government contracts are funded from taxes ?

Yes. Where else would the money come from?

then Pres. Obama & Senator-candidate Warren can point to the internet, as a past success, of Publicly funded projects. Successes "there-and-then" do not imply that new-and-different government programs "here-and-now" will by successful. In sports analogy, some team winning a championship, years ago, does not imply that they will win the championship, this year. Would anybody bet like that, with their own private money? Then why bet like that, with Public Money?

one of the traders whose companys are missing over 200 mill of "investors" money

technically, buyers & sellers of futures contracts are speculating, not investing. Speculation can be beneficial, e.g. farmers can lock in a lower-but-guaranteed price; and (most years) the speculators can profit on the margin. Speculation can be akin to insurance.

But, speculation is very different from investing (in productive capital assets). Asset price "bubbles" are caused by rampant speculation, not by investing. (Rampant investing would only lower the interest-rates businesses must pay, when they borrow, by increasing the supply of loanable money to them.)