Skip to main content

View Diary: How are the rich getting richer? The more they make, the lower income tax rates they pay. Face palm. (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is not correct with respect to federal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pat bunny, VClib

    individual income taxes.  That is the SECOND chart here.

    And, the chart you cited shows that the top are paying less now than before Reagan took office (top 1%, top quintile, etc.) Check it again.
    In 1979, the top 1% paid an effective federal individual income tax rate of 22.7%.  Again, individual income taxes are the SECOND chart at that link.  That chart only goes up to 2009, because it is historical effective federal individual income tax rates.  But if you look at the Clinton years, the top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 24% or slightly above.  After the fiscal cliff deal, we returned to the Clinton rates on the top 1% (with a few less deductions that have been phased out) so your estimates that they will pay starting this year 24% or a little more is accurate.  And that's higher than the 22.7% they paid before Reagan.
    •  What I find most interesting in the charts you (4+ / 0-)

      link to are the top 1% Average Corporate Income Tax rates.
      1979...11%. 2009...5.2%. The big drop started with Reagan.
      Went down to 4.2% in 1982.
      And now with offshoring.

      -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

      by pat bunny on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:25:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who cares about corporate taxes (0+ / 0-)

        All "corporate income" becomes regular or capital gains income to someone eventually. And is taxed as such.

        Besides, corporations are the organizations who make the products upon which our civilization depends, so even with zero taxes they contribute quite a lot.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:07:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The article I linked to gives the data (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pat bunny, Capt Crunch, greengemini


      It shows that even just between 2001 and 2009, the 2009 rate is among the lowest. The drop is huge after the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

      The chart you cited does not have the word "effective" in it. So, I don't know exactly if it's apples to apples. The NYT article gave the data to back up what it is saying, and cited the IRS as the source. I'll stand by that.

      •  Here's the problem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, VClib

        Your chart shows ONLY the 400 richest Americans. The top maybe .0001%.  You are talking annual income in 10's or maybe 100's of millions a year.

        The chart I am relying on is the to 1% -- which starts  at household (2 earners) income around $350,000 - $400,000.

        The 400 richest Americans get most of their income through capital gains, not earned income.  And sure you can point to 400 households, but if you imposed the Buffett Rule on those 400 households -- an effective rate of 30%, the highest effective rate on income ever (at least since the CBO began tracking in 1979) you'd probably raise a billion a year or so.  As I said, the Buffet Rule -- 30% effective rate on all income over $1 million -- totals only about $3 - $4 billion a year.

        Someone in the top 1%, in contrast (two earners totaling between $350,000 - say $1 million) is probably paying at least a 26% effective tax rate (due to the AMT).  Some families in the $150,000 to $350,000 range pay that much due to the AMT.

        And look at the notes to that chart, which says how effective rates are calculated.  

        •  Your source is tied to ALEC - a fringe right group (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Your source is tainted from the git go. It's like linking to the Heritage Foundation.

          The Tax Foundation's President, Scott A. Hodge, participated in the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting, speaking on the "Corporate Taxes and International Competitiveness Panel" in front of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force, and the Foundation's Vice President of Legal and State Projects, Joe Henchman, introduced the "Resolution Urging Congress to Cut the Federal Corporate Tax Rate" model policy at the same meeting.[2]
          That's right folks. Coffeetalk is using figures from an organization dedicated to cutting taxes for corporation.
          What a surprise!
          Once again - thanks for the right wing propaganda.
          •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

            All those articles link bank to IRS tables and graphs which completely support Coffeetalk's assertions. Dismissing all the data out of hand because an organisation you don't like used that data in a way that contradicts your world view is lazy frankly facile. The "figures" are not "from the organisation" you refer to.  They are just using them. So yeah, you pretty much just made that part up.

            So if a conservative web site quotes the weather forecast saying it's going to be a sunny day from the American Meteorological society on their masthead, you're going to, what, say it's actually going to rain and sunny days are a conservative conspiracy?

            Closing your eyes and pretending that your ideology trumps reality isn't exactly reality based.

            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

            by Pi Li on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And he can't even read correctly. (0+ / 0-)

              His link was to the Tax Foundation.  

              My link was to the Tax Policy Center. Completely different organization.  

              •  You need some real coffee (0+ / 0-)

                if you don't even know there your links are going.

                Yeah that's it. And it sure ain't the Tax Policy Center.

                You see - if you happen to look at the logo in the title banner you'll see Tax Foundation - 1937. And, if you had the brains, you'd have read my link which refers to the Tax Foundation - established in... wait for it... 1937.

                Damn - you don't even know where your own bull shit comes from.


              •  You linked to the Tax Foundation (0+ / 0-)

       longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                by TFinSF on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:00:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Three times he linked to the tax policy foundation (0+ / 0-)

                  Y'know, even Hitler drank water and breathed air ... that doesn't make water and air anti-semitic.

                  •  Not sure what you're going on about. (0+ / 0-)

                    If your claim is that coffeetalk did not link to the Tax Foundation, you're wrong. Obviously. If you think I am claiming she didn't also link to the tax policy foundation, you're wrong about that as well.

           longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                    by TFinSF on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:33:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm "going on" about Capt Crunch demonizing (0+ / 0-)

                      coffeetalk, who is simply citing IRS statistics. If you want some credibility, then address the bad actor for his bad acts.

                      •  I pointed out a fact. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Capt Crunch

                        I don't give a shit about the slap fight between Crunch and Coffee. Crunch correctly (if rudely) claimed Coffee linked to the Tax Foundation. Coffee denied it. I pointed out she was wrong.

                        If you find those facts inconvenient, that's your problem.

               longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                        by TFinSF on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:49:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  As for "going on about", that's pointlessly (0+ / 0-)

                      rude, and your failure to understand my point, and your offering up a claim that I clearly never made and suggesting that I think something clearly false that I of course don't believe is your problem, not mine.

                      •  You're the one that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Capt Crunch

                        pointlessly brought Hitler into the conversation.

                        Look, I get that you are embarrassed about your false accusation of lying. Get over it.

                        your offering up a claim that I clearly never made
                        Read it again -- I made no such claim. I stated that if you thought I was claiming she didn't link to the tax policy foundation, you were wrong. I never stated that you thought that, only if you thought that, you were wrong.

               longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

                        by TFinSF on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:55:03 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Welcome to Kos (0+ / 0-)

              Always good to have the right wingers drop by.

              It's entertaining - like watching a dog chase it's tail.

              Dismissing all the data out of hand because an organisation you don't like used that data in a way that contradicts your world view is lazy frankly facile
              What a load. The Tax Foundation, the Heritage Foundation and Fox News have a long and rich history of spewing twisted garbage and trying to sell it as "fact".


              So yes, it is indeed something to dismiss out of hand as tainted when it comes from a well documented propaganda factory.

              You would think a decent lawyer could figure that out.

              •  LOL2 (0+ / 0-)

                Well, thanks for the "Welcome to Kos", but I have more comments on here than you, and would still be a TU if I hadn't stepped back from posting on here

                And yeah, the facts behind these articles come from a pretty reliable source...the IRS. But again, it's just easier to not engage on the facts, but dismiss facts because you don't agree with them (or more likely, don't understand them).

                Anyway, always nice when someone with 735 comments "welcomes" me to Daily the question is, who were you before you were Capt. Crunch?  Based on your comment history, which is primarily composed of insults, I'm guessing you were banned at least once previously.

                Don't worry, your secrets safe with me, Captain. ;)

                Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                by Pi Li on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:00:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bwaaahaha 01 (0+ / 0-)

                  Since you like to number things.

                  Welcome - never bothered to write a diary. And for a "lecturer' I would think that would come natural.

                  But let's get back to you beloved "facts".

                  First, shall we acknowledge that the chart does indeed come from the Tax Foundation? How's that for a starter?

                  Do you think you could acknowledge at least the source of the chart?

                  That might be nice to hear from the lawyer/lecturer.

                  Let's start there.

                  Could you at least handle that?



                  •  Hey - this is fun! (0+ / 0-)

                    My first tangle with you and you assume the welcome is based on number of posts. That's so cute!

                    And you never even acknowledge that the chart comes from a post that you didn't have a clue about. You either didn't know the source that created the chart or you conveniently left that out of your response.

                    LOL - check that out! Here was the source staring in your face and you were too stupid to see it.

                    Let's try it again:

                    My goodness! Look at that! It's the Tax Foundation!

                    Heavens! Guess you didn't bother to click on the link and read - just like your mentor - coffee.

                    Anyway - just want to say - WELCOME!

      •  Exactly. He's twisting words (0+ / 0-)

        and posting twisted data.

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:09:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site