The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM
Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM
Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM
Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM
The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM
From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM
Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008
Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008
The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006
Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008
Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007
Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006
A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006
Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori
WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):
The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 452 -- Is America's Tax Structure Fair?
"Tax Cuts For The Rich" Not Supported By Latest IRS Data-
"The tax cuts for the rich must go."
We're still hearing this same tired refrain from Presidential candidates on the left, more than four years after President Bush signed the major tax relief that left more money in the pockets of taxpayers and jump-started the ailing economy.
Four years after Nancy Pelosi declared of the "tax cuts for the rich":
“None of these tax cuts is affordable. None of them creates jobs, and they are not fair. All of them do damage to our long-term economic growth and contribute to the national deficit.”
... we are now seeing the longest uninterrupted period of job growth on record. The federal budget deficit is now below historical averages, relative to the size of the economy-- and it's still shrinking. Meanwhile, GDP growth following the tax cuts has been robust and continuous, despite ongoing war and housing bubbles and unprecedented natural disasters.
But what of the fairness argument? Speaker Pelosi argued that the tax cuts were not fair. Maybe she was right. Let's look at some numbers and find out.
The Tax Foundation has the latest IRS data, and notes that those at the top pay more than their fair share of taxes:
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
So, as it turns out, the tax code has become more progressive under the Bush administration. Unfortunately, when Nancy Pelosi argued that the 2003 tax cuts were unfair, she didn't mean that they weren't flat enough. She meant that the tax cuts were not progressive enough.
The only really fair tax code is one that taxes people evenly.
15% of a million bucks is $150K.
$150K, the last time I checked, was still quite a bit higher than $1.5K. While some might say that 150 thousand dollars is way too much for anyone to pay in taxes, regardless of income, others clamor for a heavy progressive or graduated income tax on the wealthy.
Instead of 150 thousand dollars, how about 300 thousand dollars. Or 500 thousand. Or, more than a Twilight Zone-worthy 900 thousand dollars.
It gets us back to the parable of the buddies at the bar, splitting the bill amicably based on income/wealth, until the bar owner lowers prices a bit:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
Well, based on the Tax Foundation's latest data, here are some visuals of the American tax code:
In the wake of "tax cuts for the rich," the share of income taxes paid by those at the top has actually grown, while record numbers of people at the bottom now owe no income taxes whatsoever. My guess is that the tens of millions of American workers not paying anything in income taxes are now less likely to support additional tax relief because there is simply no incentive to do so. After all, taxes already seem pretty low to them.
Is any of this fair?
Fairness is such a strange and subjective concept, but maybe we can ask whether the current tax system is best for America. Does the current tax system incentivize success, or punish it? Does the current tax system promote prosperity and innovation and the creation of new wealth? Does the current tax system optimize America's position in the increasingly globalized economy? Does the current system make any sense at all?
Our tax rates ought to be flatter and lower, not higher and more progressive than they already are. If we are going to have a national income tax, everyone ought to feel the burden of paying taxes. That burden should be proportional. Taxes ought to be easy to understand. Taxes should not bankrupt anyone, or dissuade anyone from working harder or from taking more risks. Taxes should not force anyone to take their business offshore or underground.
Is today's tax code fair? Absolutely not.
Is the solution to roll back the 2003 tax cuts? No way, unless that plan involves completely scrapping the current tax code and replacing it with a simpler, flatter, lower one.
Previous Trivia Tidbit: Capital Gains Tax Cuts Produce More Revenue.
Posted by Will Franklin · 8 October 2007 07:49 PM
Well, it seems that, by definition, any and all tax cuts are going to be 'tax cuts for the rich'.
The poor are not paying their share of taxes, so it is impossible to have 'tax cuts for the poor'.
Posted by: Ken McCracken at October 8, 2007 06:09 PM
I would love to know Nancy Pelosi's defintion of "the rich" in this country. Once she figures that out, she needs to call John Edwards and let him know so they can all be on the same page.
The EITC and Child Tax Credit reduces taxes on the poor counted as an offset of SS taxes paid.
Posted by: John in IL at October 8, 2007 08:37 PM
Another thing I would ask Nancy. If you're so in favor of taxing the rich, why fund your expansion of the SCHIP program on the backs of the poor.
Posted by: John in IL at October 8, 2007 08:50 PM
Will, you don't really emphasize something in your statistics as much as you should;
That 41% of the country earns money, but pays $0 in income taxes, or gets money BACK from the government. I wish there was a statistic to show what percent of the nation's income they earn.
Yes...Shamelessly plugging my page, but the post makes a VERY good point.
Posted by: GOP and College at October 8, 2007 11:49 PM
“Taxes should not dissuade anyone from working harder”
The chairman of Exxon who retired a couple of years ago got a $400,000,000 bonus. If the tax rate is 33% he paid $132 MM in tax and kept $268 MM. Suppose the tax rate was 38%, then he would have paid $152 MM in tax and have taken home $248,000,000. Do you think that if when he was offered the job of chairman and was also told the tax rate might be 38% when he retired, he would have said. “Nah, I don’t want the job, $248,000,000 vs $268,000,000 is just not worth having to fly around the country in the corporate jet to attend all those board meetings”?
If we reduced the tax rate on the Astros, do you think those bums might actually try to play hard and win next year? LoL
Posted by: ChrisR at October 9, 2007 11:56 AM
Forget about "Fair." Let's look at what is "BEST" for all concerned. Rather than focusing on what is Fair, perhaps we should be focusing on the "Bottom Line."
Since the IRS data shows that the top-earning 1% of taxpayers are paying almost double their share of taxes, based upon income and that they pay almost 40% of the total tax load, doesn't it make you wonder why they stay around and accept such abuse from their government, when there are jurisdictions with much friendlier tax (and weather) climates all over the world? After all, the rich are the people who really can afford to pick up home and live wherever they want.
Well, here's a news flash. According to the former INS, over 250,000 US citizens and permanent residents permanently leave the USA every year. So, ask yourself how many of those people you think were poor. Then ask yourself who gets to pay the taxes that those expats no longer pay. (HINT: YOU and ME)
We can try to be Fair and continue driving away the people who pay the lion's share of the taxes, which only hurts those who stay or we can build a somewhat fair tax structure that will encourage more rich people to domicile in the USA, thus reducing the tax load for all of us. After all, one way the rich get rich is to forget about being nit-picky about fairness in every deal and keep their eye on the BOTTOM LINE.
Posted by: John Gaver at October 10, 2007 05:33 AM