#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Please, explain for the stupid(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
MHB

My source shows the effective rates at around 7% using CBO data.  Your explanation doesn't seem to account for any tax credits or deductions.

Let's look more closely at your numbers.  That 42,500 in 2007 is equivalent to 47,750 in 2013.  That is less than the IRS limits for qualifying for the EITC.  A married couple, filing jointly with 2 children could get up to \$5300 back from the government at that level.

Even using your simplistic calculations, that results in a true tax bill of ~\$6000 (using your calculations).  That is an effective tax rate of ~12%, not 22% and significantly less than the 20% or so that our rich guy is making.

Starting to become apparent that you aren't even close to calculating true effective tax rates?  And if nothing else, your math doesn't even add up.  You are counting the employer contribution to FICA taxes in the numerator without counting it in the denominator.

Yeah, I'm being stupid...  You should call me more names, it might draw less attention to your math.

• ##### Because you're using averaged data(0+ / 0-)

My examples are a real life examples.  YMMV.

"Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

[ Parent ]

• ##### Now I see(0+ / 0-)

So, your point is that you know one person who makes exactly 50k, who has no deductions/credits/anything, who pays exactly the published rates, who doesn't have an IRA or own a home or get child credits or have health insurance or anything that would affect pre-tax income or anything...  You know this snowflake, this one in a zillion who actually uses only 4 pages from the million pages worth of tax law...  This is the person you use as 'proof' of some aspect of our tax code.  You don't want to use meaningful averages, you want to use this one particular person and act like they represent millions of taxpayers.

Ok, just making sure.

• ##### Nice try(0+ / 0-)

I used an example of someone with a 50K income and some usual sorts of deductions, resulting in a 35K taxable income (I guess  you missed that part, eh?).  My assumptions were realistic.  Not everyone gets the EITC (especially if they don't have children);  not everyone itemizes. Your claim that this person is a "snowflake" is ludicrous.

What is lost in using averages is granularity; at the high end, for example, well-paid doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who earn a lot of ordinary income get averaged in with the few that earn their income in the form of capital gains.  This obscures the fact that the latter pay an astonishingly low rate of tax.

"Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

[ Parent ]

• ##### That is why it is broken into quintiles(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
MHB

Why is this math so confounding for you?  Using your contrived example proves nothing, other than that you can contrive an example.  You say that 'Not everyone gets the EITC'.  Right, but some people do.  Do you use them in your example?  No, you use the people who don't.

http://taxfoundation.org/...

Almost 20% of the entire population claims the EITC.  Almost 75% of the people eligible for the EITC claim it.  But, I can see why you would invent an example, to prove a point you invented, that doesn't use it.

Congratulations, you have demonstrated to everyone how to come to a conclusion in the absence of evidence and then make up evidence that supports your conclusion.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...
More proof of you ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions...  The CBO breaks out the highest quintile into sub-blocks, so you can see how the 95-99% block does, separately from the
80-85% block.  You know, so that the well paid doctors don't get averaged in with the few that earn their income in the form of capital gains.  'Cause, that would be wrong...  Interestingly, you can see that the higher the income, the higher the effective taxes.  The rate for the top 1% is actually the highest rate.  So, despite your assertion that the latter pay an astonishingly low rate of tax, the upper quintile actually obscures the fact that "the latter" pay an astonishingly high rate of tax.

So, yeah, I can see why you keep wanting to argue this.  I mean, the data doesn't support these examples that you make up, so the data must be wrong.  Your imaginary examples must be a better representation of effective tax rates for millions of people, than the actual data on the effective tax rates for millions of people.

• ##### You are kidding me(0+ / 0-)

So, despite your assertion that the latter pay an astonishingly low rate of tax, the upper quintile actually obscures the fact that "the latter" pay an astonishingly high rate of tax.
No, that isn't what I said.  I said that some--not all, but some--pay low rates.  In fact, you already conceded that the rate of tax on someone who receives only long-term capital gains is 20%.  It would have been 15% last year, and remember that Romney had a tax rate of even less than 15%--that, my friend, is astonishingly low.

Your first link shows that childless couples don't get an EITC when their income is above \$20,020.  I hope you're willing to concede the existence of childless couples--or maybe you think that through the magic of averaging, everyone has at least a fraction of a child.

You don't understand your second link either--or averages, apparently.  Some wealthy people have tax rates at about the long-term capital gains tax rate.  Some don't.  They average together.  Got that?

Similarly for less wealthy people.  Some pay at a rate less than the average; some more.  I gave you an example of how it could be more.

The facts are that those who make the most pay the highest tax rates (their payroll taxes rates are just slightly lower than everyone else, but their overall tax rates are significantly higher than everyone else)
That is deeply unserious claim, and you have to be some special kind of dense to keep pushing it.  Again, you simply fail to comprehend the fact that using average rates masks a wide range in rates within any income group.

Let me try to make it simple for you:  some wealthy people pay taxes at a lower rate than some much less wealthy people.  Forget averages--they are of no use in determining what the range of rates within a quintile is.

"Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

[ Parent ]

• ##### No, that isn't what you said(0+ / 0-)

You said

well-paid doctors, lawyers, and other professionals who earn a lot of ordinary income get averaged in with the few that earn their income in the form of capital gains.  This obscures the fact that the latter pay an astonishingly low rate of tax.
That doesn't sound at all like:
I said that some--not all, but some--pay low rates.
You don't have the slightest idea how many pay low rates.  And you keep thinking that because you can make up something that fits, that you have provided some proof or something.  You said that the well paid doctors and lawyers have their rates averaged in with those that pay "an astonishingly low rate of tax".  You couldn't possibly have been more wrong.  Reality is exactly the opposite of what you keep saying.

So, your point is really that in a country of 300 million people, there are exceptions to everything.  Somewhere out there, despite the fact that the overall average tax rate for the super wealthy is higher than it is for any other income range, you want to keep harping one something you made up, or (gasp) the one guy you read pays a lower tax rate.  Seriously!  That is what you want to emphasize and misrepresent to anyone who doesn't know the facts?  Congratulations.  You've made Hannity look smart and ethical.

• ##### Whatevs(0+ / 0-)

"Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

[ Parent ]

• ##### Not surprised(0+ / 0-)

You started out calling me stupid.  You ended up telling me to fuck off.  You refer to facts as 'right-wing blather'.  You know way less about this than you originally let on, don't you?

• ##### I'm not surprised that you're surprised(0+ / 0-)

Based on your comments, you likely hear that you're wrong and stupid a lot.  And based on your dogged persistence in being wrong and stupid, you probably get told to fuck off a lot, too.

"Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

[ Parent ]

• ##### Weird(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
MHB

Given multiple opportunities to present a fact of any kind, anything, in fact, that isn't something you acknowledge just making up, and you refuse at every turn.  Yet you still keep calling names and insisting that you are making some point relevant to adults in this world (as opposed to the voices no one else can hear telling you how smart you are).

Why do you think that making things up and insisting that some small, unknown number of exceptions to documented trends involving millions of people is something you should be trying to fool people about?

Again, I'll give you another chance here to show some facts and really make me look bad by totally putting me in my place with logic and reason.  I suspect you'll call me more names, hoping no one is really paying attention to the point you're trying to make any more...  How's that working?  Anyone still paying attention to the stuff you are making up?