Taxing the "Rich"

[HowardDeanSux]

Explains why Obama's tax policies are complete and utter nonsense:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

 

[WFFaithful]

Just a thought, but couldn't the increase in tax share even with the massive tax cuts have something to do with the extreme growth in the top 1% income?

 

[RJKarl]

Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board- what a shock that this is his opinion.

 

[WFFaithful]

The top 1% has seen their tax rates drop by almost half, while their income is over 350% of what it was in 1979. Cry me a river.

 

[WFFaithful]

Their income rises at a much higher rate than the rest of the country so therefore their tax share increases. Simple indeed.

 

[WFFaithful]

If the rest of the country's income would have risen at the same rate, the tax share of the top 1% would be significantly less due to the reduction in tax rates.

 

[Spot the Wonder]

Just a thought, but couldn't the increase in tax share even with the massive tax cuts have something to do with the extreme growth in the top 1% income?

Bingo, we have a winner. That's exactly what's happened. Read something about it over the last few weeks, but I'm having trouble locating it

 

[ChrisL68]

I have seen quite a bit of Stephen Moore, and I think very little of him.

 

[Spot the Wonder]

Bingo, we have a winner. That's exactly what's happened. Read something about it over the last few weeks, but I'm having trouble locating it

Found it

Here's the math

And here it is with data

 

[Spot the Wonder]

Just for fun, let's throw this into it

CBO: Ending High-Income Tax Cuts Would Save Almost $1 Trillion, CBPP: The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) new report shows that allowing President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts on income over $250,000 to expire on schedule at the end of 2012 would save $823 billion in revenue and $127 billion on interest on the nation’s debt, compared to permanently extending all of the Bush tax cuts. Overall, this would mean $950 billion in ten-year deficit reduction, a significant step in the direction of fiscal stability.

 

[Junebug]

The top 1% has seen their tax rates drop by almost half, while their income is over 350% of what it was in 1979. Cry me a river.

He doesn't deny this. His point is that the lowering of the tax rate has caused this income increase and, therefore, that raising the tax rate would paradoxically result in less tax revenue.

 

[RJKarl]

Lowering the tax rates have nothing to do with income increases. It's a BS and false premise.

 

[WFFaithful]

He doesn't deny this. His point is that the lowering of the tax rate has caused this income increase and, therefore, that raising the tax rate would paradoxically result in less tax revenue.

If cutting tax rates increases income, then why make point #7?

 

[ChrisL68]

This analysis is just repackaged right wing talking points.

 

[Junebug]

If cutting tax rates increases income, then why make point #7?

The first reason that comes to mind is that 0% of anything is still 0. The burden for those paying nothing is being shifted to the rest of us.

 

[Spot the Wonder]

The burden for those paying nothing is being shifted to the rest of us.

The burden for anyone paying less than they should be is shifted to the rest of us.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/derive.pdf

 

[TR1982]

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/derive.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577376041258476020.html

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577376041258476020.html

For subscribers. Plus the WSJ opinion pages are where Chicago professors go to make asses out of themselves, so I'm inclined to believe the stuff behind the paywall is just more of that.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

The author looks like this

Clearly a ginger dwarf