tax burden lowest since 1958

[deafskeptic]

The word overburdened was a giveaway.

 

[jillio]

The word overburdened was a giveaway.

No doubt.

 

[Beach girl]

The source of the revenue statistics is the Internal Revenue Service. That seems like a decent source to look to for that information. Where else would you go?

 

[jillio]

The source of the revenue statistics is the Internal Revenue Service. That seems like a decent source to look to for that information. Where else would you go?

And the organization you linked to can't manipulate those statistics, now can they? That is why one needs to see methodolgy used to analyze the numbers.

 

[Beach girl]

The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

Here's a table from the Tax Foundation, showing the same thing (for 2007, so percentages are very slightly different). There is more explanatory detail here.

Something from an outfit called "Allegromedia" which has more of an ax to grind in advocating for lower taxes. U.S. Income Tax Burden

Lots more charts and details, and it's an older paper (from 2000) but shows much the same percentages.

The highest 20% of earners have consisently paid more than 70% of all income taxes collected since 1987. The lowest 20% actually get money back, in credits.

Show me anything that finds differently.

Note I'm not arguing that the distribution should or should not be that way. Just saying this is what the numbers show.

 

[jillio]

Posting the same thing without methodology does not make the information any more valid. It just makes it repetitive. Those percentages reek of manipulated statistics.

 

[Beach girl]

Why so? Where do you think the manipulation is? Do you have a source that shows a fundamentally different distribution?

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Posting the same thing without methodology does not make the information any more valid. It just makes it repetitive. Those percentages reek of manipulated statistics.

How much do the top 1% takes out of the economy anyway?

I know even if I land a land a job under $100 an hour, I will never be able to come close to some of the pensions the Bloc Quebecois are getting. So sure, my tax bracket may not contribute much to the government as those who are bringing home more, but I don't have room to play with.

 

[jillio]

Why so? Where do you think the manipulation is? Do you have a source that shows a fundamentally different distribution?

Not immediately available, but I will certainly find one.

The manipulation is in reporting the percentages without the methodology used to arrive at those percetages. Obviously, they are not including variables that greatly affect the actual dollar amounts of taxes paid by various groups. They are only using a standard tax rate.

 

[jillio]

How much do the top 1% takes out of the economy anyway?

I know even if I land a land a job under $100 an hour, I will never be able to come close to some of the pension the Bloc Quebecois are getting.

Right.

 

[jillio]

The burden tables are supposed to shed light on the tax system or the effect of a new tax proposal, but they often do more to obfuscate than to illuminate the facts.

The true measure of the burden of a tax is the change in peoplersquo;s economic situations as a result of the tax. The changes should be measured as the effects on everyonersquo;s net-of-tax income after all economic adjustments have run their courses. The burden measure should include not only changes in peoplersquo;s after-tax incomes in a single year, but the lifetime consequences of the tax change as well. Unfortunately, policymakers are not presented with this type of comprehensive information on the true burden of taxation and must make policy judgments based on incomplete and misleading statistics.

One cannot tell the true burden of a tax just by looking at where or on whom it is initially imposed, or at what it is called. taxes affect taxpayersrsquo; behavior, triggering economic changes that regularly shift some or even the entire economic burden of a tax to other parties, and alter total output and incomes. taxes reduce and distort the mix of what people are willing to produce in their roles as workers, savers, and investors. taxes increase what these producers seek to charge for their services or products. Changes in the prices and quantities of output in turn affect people in their roles as consumers when they try to spend their incomes. The lost output and other consequences of taxation impose additional costs on the taxpayers that are not reflected in the mere dollar amounts of the tax collections.

Tax Incidence, Tax Burden, and Tax Shifting: Who Really Pays the Tax? | The Heritage Foundation

Very interesting read. And please note, this is a .org and not a .com. I think most of you know the importance of this difference.

 

[Beach girl]

Interesting article, and in the end they come out in favor of a flat tax and a tax on consumption rather than on income.

"It is well understood in the Economics profession that the current tax system imposes heavier taxes on income used for saving and investment, and on the formation of human capital, than on income used for consumption. Today, most economists would agree that these tax disincentives to save and invest, to work and take risk, have consequences. They lead people to undersave and overconsume and to work less and play more. These modern advances in economic understanding strongly urge us to dispose of the current income tax structure and replace it with a flat rate tax that is neutral in its treatment of saving and consumption."

(Italics mine.)

So the basic point of the article is that high income taxes on the wealthy indirectly hurt the poor as those taxes on capital are passed on to consumers. That is generally the conservative position on tax theory; not surprising coming from the Heritage Foundation.

The article doesn't negate at all the basic tables I linked to, which show the current proportion of income taxes paid by the various groups. The conclusion to the article supports the idea that the rich pay too much in taxes, and that this hurts other groups.

Is that really the argument you want to make? I'm a little surprised.

 

[jillio]

Interesting article, and in the end they come out in favor of a flat tax and a tax on consumption rather than on income.

"It is well understood in the Economics profession that the current tax system imposes heavier taxes on income used for saving and investment, and on the formation of human capital, than on income used for consumption. Today, most economists would agree that these tax disincentives to save and invest, to work and take risk, have consequences. They lead people to undersave and overconsume and to work less and play more. These modern advances in economic understanding strongly urge us to dispose of the current income tax structure and replace it with a flat rate tax that is neutral in its treatment of saving and consumption."

(Italics mine.)

So the basic point of the article is that high income taxes on the wealthy indirectly hurt the poor as those taxes on capital are passed on to consumers. That is generally the conservative position on tax theory; not surprising coming from the Heritage Foundation.

The article doesn't negate at all the basic tables I linked to, which show the current proportion of income taxes paid by the various groups. The conclusion to the article supports the idea that the rich pay too much in taxes, and that this hurts other groups.

Is that really the argument you want to make? I'm a little surprised.

The article does negate the tables you showed, and also explained why those tables alone, without methodolgy, are useless. I quoted such in the post where the link is. Please start with the first sentence. Then move on down the quote.

Please show the topic sentence that supports what you believe to be the basic premise of the article.

I made no remarks regarding either a flat tax or an income tax and their benefits and drawbacks. My issue was numbers being quoted that are extremely misleading by a .com site that states they are non-partisan, but whose home page indicates something entirely different.

 

[rolling7]

No, I don't want to know what socialism is. I already know what socialism is. Obviously, you don't.

Rob hard working Paul, who pays his fair share of tax, to give to do_nothing Peter, who pays absolute no taxes. Which given his way is what Obama wants to do. Don't be playing the race card, that is a low blow.

 

[jillio]

Rob hard working Paul, who pays his fair share of tax, to give to do_nothing Peter, who pays absolute no taxes. Which given his way is what Obama wants to do. Don't be playing the race card, that is a low blow.

Nope, that is not socialism, nor is it in Obama's plans. What race card?

 

[Beach girl]

This article is not at all disputing the current distribution of taxes as paid. What they are disputing is the long-term effects of taxes on capital and how such taxes change behavior.

Main thesis: "A better understanding of the economic consequences of taxation would also benefit the Treasury and the Congress as they plan the federal budget and contemplate changes in the tax system. It should lead to more accurate revenue forecasting. It might also encourage the adoption of tax bills that are more concerned with increasing national and individual income and less concerned with redistributing the existing level of national product."

Again, italics are mine.

People who want to increase taxes on the rich want to "redistribute the existing level of national product." This article says such redistribution should not be the ultimate goal of our tax system.

I made no remarks regarding either a flat tax or an income tax and their benefits and drawbacks.

No, you didn't, personally, but then you chose an article to support your point which definitely does support a flat tax on consumption. Hence my surprise.

 

[jillio]

This article is not at all disputing the current distribution of taxes as paid. What they are disputing is the long-term effects of taxes on capital and how such taxes change behavior.

Main thesis: "A better understanding of the economic consequences of taxation would also benefit the Treasury and the Congress as they plan the federal budget and contemplate changes in the tax system. It should lead to more accurate revenue forecasting. It might also encourage the adoption of tax bills that are more concerned with increasing national and individual income and less concerned with redistributing the existing level of national product."

Again, italics are mine.

People who want to increase taxes on the rich want to "redistribute the existing level of national product." This article says such redistribution should not be the ultimate goal of our tax system.

And again, your italics support the fact that your tax tables are useless.

Who wants to increase taxes on the rich? The only people I know what them to be subject to the same laws that middle and lower income people are.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Rob hard working Paul, who pays his fair share of tax, to give to do_nothing Peter, who pays absolute no taxes. Which given his way is what Obama wants to do. Don't be playing the race card, that is a low blow.

That's not how socialism works.

Go to Germany first and see for yourself. At least, unlike you, I am saving up to see Finland for a month or two stay before running at the mouth how a political system works.

 

[Beach girl]

And again, your italics support the fact that your tax tables are useless.

They may be "useless," because they do not show long-term effects (according to the article), but they are not wrong as a snapshot of what is currently being paid by what groups.

I think we've reached the point where we're just going round and round, so I'll bow out now. I've said my bit and the Gentle Readers may decide for themselves.

 

[jillio]

They may be "useless," because they do not show long-term effects (according to the article), but they are not wrong as a snapshot of what is currently being paid by what groups.

I think we've reached the point where we're just going round and round, so I'll bow out now. I've said my bit and the Gentle Readers may decide for themselves.

Nope, not even useful as a snapshot. Important variables are not included.