Facts? Or How To Lie With Statistics?
Glen whines about the fact that the top 1% of households now pay 40% of the federal income taxes. Sadly, he doesn’t bother to think about why that might be, instead choosing to parrot right-wing talking points.
Well, if Glen wants facts, how about these?
- Between 2005 and 2006, the average income (before taxes) of the top 1 percent of households increased by $73,000 (or 7 percent), after adjusting for inflation,[2] while the average income of the bottom 90 percent of households increased by just $20 (or 0.1 percent). (In 2006, the top 1 percent of households were those with incomes above about $375,000.)
- 2006 marked the fourth straight year in which income gains at the top outpaced those among the rest of the population. Since 2002, the average income of the top 1 percent of households has risen 44 percent, or $335,000, after adjusting for inflation. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of households has risen about 3 percent, or about $1,000.
- As a result, the share of the nation’s income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006. Not since 1928, just before the Great Depression, has the top 1 percent held such a large share of the nation’s income. In 2000, at the peak of the 1990s boom, the top 1 percent received 19.3 percent of total income in the nation.
- Income gains have been even more pronounced among those at the very top of the top 1 percent. The incomes of the top one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1 percent) of U.S. households have grown more rapidly than the incomes of the top 1 percent of households as a whole, rising by 60 percent, or $1.9 million per household, since 2002. The share of the nation’s income flowing to the top one-tenth of 1 percent increased from 6.5 percent in 2002 to 9.3 percent in 2006. This is the highest level since 1928.
So why, then, is the top 1% carrying such a large portion of the federal income tax burden? Because they’re controlling a much, much larger share of the total income. The gap between rich and poor is larger than it’s been since before the Great Depression. (Say, how did that work out for us?) Even the anti-tax National Taxpayer’s Union’s figures illustrate this trend. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% grew by 8.8% from 2001 to 2005, while the threshold to get into that top 1% club grew by 25.3% during that same time. In other words, the income of the top 1% is growing at a substantially faster rate than their share of the tax burden.
And, as I noted in the comments to Glen’s thread, all of these statistics take a highly selective view, choosing only to look at federal income taxes while ignoring often regressive taxes like FICA, sales taxes, state taxes, etc. Once those are factored in, the playing field levels out a bit more. For example, the lowest guy in the top 1% in 2005 paid an effective 1.5% tax to support social security. The top guy in the bottom 90% paid an effective 5.4% tax. Everyone at or below about the top 15% paid 6.2%.
Of course, for libertarians like Glen, income inequality simply isn’t a problem at all. Indeed, it’s the goal. For all their talk of rising tides and ships, the real goal isn’t to advance everyone, it’s to get ahead of everyone.
Glen didn’t whine. Glen just pointed out the facts. And he knows
Your damn right. I don’t have a problem with people making money? You do though. You seem to not know a damn thing about economics and seem to have the common lib misconception that economies are fixed pies. You seem more consumed with keeping rich people from getting richer than you do with making poor people richer. You don’t want more revenue to spend on social programs. Revenue isn’t what its about. It’s about sticking it to people who have money. The tax cuts brought in revenue Tgirsch. Of course if tax cuts bring in revenue, that means that the taxpayers are making more. Good grief, you aren’t telling anybody anything. You are verifying supply-side economics.
When you were a little boy Tgirsch, did your mom visit the neighbor’s mom and complain that her kid had more Hot Wheels than you and that it wasn’t fair, and that rather than buy more Hot Wheels for you, the neighbor should get rid of a few of her son’s? Your logic is sick. It’s rooted in envy. Even if sticking it to somebody else has no benefit for you, and actually hurts your efforts to redistribute wealth, you still want to do it. No wonder you love Obama so much. He wants to make everybody equal too, equally miserable that is.
Btw, I say lower regressive taxes. I have even called for doing so here in Tennessee with the food tax. Guess who opposed that idea. Unbefreakinglievable.
Glen pointed out cherry-picked facts.
But in any case, you seem to have it in your head that I have it in for rich people or that I oppose wealth, and neither could be further from the truth. I’ve only ever argued two things: that it’s completely reasonable to expect the most wealthy among us to shoulder a greater share of the costs of society; and that it’s a bad thing for the gap between the rich and everyone else to become too wide. This is not the same thing as wanting to outlaw wealth, or to “stick it to” the wealthy.
You don’t want more revenue to spend on social programs.
You keep saying this, but you’re dead wrong, and you never put up even a shred of evidence to support this allegation, other than to parrot oft-debunked right-wing talking points about how more taxes equals less revenue and vice versa. See my bet in the other thread for more on this.
You don’t care if the rich get richer. Frankly, neither do I. I do care, however, if the rich are effectively the only ones getting richer, and that’s precisely what the statistics show. Why you can’t see this difference is beyond me.
Finally, I have no desire in “redistributing wealth.” With the notable exception of social security, and a very few rare exceptions outside of that, I simply do not support taking money from person A and giving it to person B. What I support is funding programs that enable people to get ahead, and especially programs that remove barriers from people getting ahead. That’s not wealth redistribution, it’s looking out for the greater good. Something Christians are supposed to know all about, by the way (although, apparently, it’s unChristian to collectively decide to support the greater good — it all must be done at an individual level and on a completely voluntary basis, “render unto Caesar” be damned…).
No wonder you love Obama so much. He wants to make everybody equal too, equally miserable that is.
Yes, because everyone knows that taxing AGIs over $250K at 39% instead of 35% is going to “make everyone equal.” That extra 4% in marginal tax rate (much less in effective tax rate) will put them in ruin! Ruin, I tell you!
I have even called for doing so here in Tennessee with the food tax. Guess who opposed that idea.
Hey, I’m all in favor of reducing or eliminating the food tax, as long as we can do so in a fiscally responsible fashion. But that means either cutting spending to compensate for the loss in revenue, or raising taxes elsewhere. But I won’t support an unconditional cut that relies on the Tax Fairy to magically make everything balance.
(Frankly, I’m in favor of eliminating the food sales tax, reducing the state sales tax on other items, and implementing a progressive state income tax, thus repairing what’s currently one of the most regressive state tax structures in the country. But I don’t see that happening here in TN.)
Your whole argument Tgirsch is about this gap. You have such a problem with this gap. You never mentioned that people were forced into Hoovervilles. You just seem to have a problem with the gap. And now you deny it and say you don’t care if people get rich. Amazing.
Where’s the evidence that glen wants there to be inequality?
But where, tgirsch, do you get off cramming your morality about greed pr wealth or charity down our throats?
Tgirsch writes, “So why, then, is the top 1% carrying such a large portion of the federal income tax burden? Because they’re controlling a much, much larger share of the total income.”
Controlling? Jesus. Are you a social democrat?
Glen:
And now you deny it and say you don’t care if people get rich.
But I already said that I do care about the rate at which they do so. You seem to think that my position is self-contradictory, when in fact it is not.
nedwilliams:
Where’s the evidence that glen wants there to be inequality?
It may be an overstatment to say that he wants inequality, but he certainly doesn’t mind advocating for — even championing — policies that inevitably result in inequality. A distinction without a difference, in my mind. When judging the impact of various policies, the intent is far less important than the results. And the result of economic policies from about the mid-70’s forward has been growing income inequality, a fact which is beyond dispute. Glen says he doesn’t have a problem with this. Why shouldn’t I take his word for it?
Number 9:
Controlling? Jesus. Are you a social democrat?
Would it be better if I said “owning?” Does it really make that big a difference to you? And what do the Nazis have to do with anything?
I’m amazed at the disdain some cast on making an income. Speaking in lefty type terms…if someone’s contribution to society is great, why should they not be compensated for it? …furthermore, why should they be punished for it?
All this equality/inequality garbage is mis-aimed. Glen, among others, is about equality on the playing field…not a guaranteed tie as a result.
Equality should not be about the result, it should be about the rules of the game…and yes we have that, it’s called the market.
Nathan:
if someone’s contribution to society is great, why should they not be compensated for it? …furthermore, why should they be punished for it?
Who says they shouldn’t be compensated for it? Who says they should be punished for it? Saying that taxing higher incomes at a higher rate amounts to “punishment” is silly at best, and stupid at worst. I suppose having higher property taxes in nice neighborhoods is “punishing” people for living there, too.
All this equality/inequality garbage is mis-aimed. Glen, among others, is about equality on the playing field…not a guaranteed tie as a result.
Equality of outcome is a popular straw-man on the right these days, but I’m aware of nobody — absolutely nobody — who argues for this. I defy you to show me anyone who seriously argues for anything of the sort.
And Glen is decidedly NOT about equality on the playing field. If he is, he certainly hasn’t expressed as much. Unless, of course, you think “equality on the playing field” means “dealing with the cards you’re dealt no matter how good or bad, and whether or not they’re in any way your fault.” Most of us wouldn’t recognize that as equality of any kind. Glen and his ilk argue for equality of opportunity on paper, but seem to have absolutely no concern for whether or not that translates into anything like equality of opportunity in practice.
Some of us, however, really DO argue for equality on the playing field, in the form of less inequality of opportunity. And unless you think a kid born in Camden, NJ has anything on the order of the same chance of success as a kid born in the Hamptons, we don’t have anything even close to the sort. I don’t even argue that we should have exact equality of opportunity — only that we should strive to reduce the inequality. I want the American dream to be real, rather than myth. I want a country in which anyone, irrespective of financial or ethnic or demographic background, has a fair crack at making it. As it is right now, though, by far the best predictor of what your economic status will be is the economic status of your parents.
Social mobility is the exception, not the rule. A poor kid may do all the right things, make all the right decisions, get sick at the wrong time, and she’s right back where she started, or maybe even worse off. A rich kid might slack off, skip out of his military obligations, fail at virtually every business venture he’s ever undertaken, and wind up president of the USA. You may not think that’s a problem, but I do.
But it’s typical of the right to erect straw men, rather than try to engage me seriously on this topic.
Yeah, that’s it.
To paraphrase Milton Friedman. Whenever a government seeks to promote fairness, at the expense of liberty, they end up with neither.
Governments don’t make things fair Tgirsch. It is impossible.
Again, it’s a skewed perception that you have when you classify progressive taxation as a mortal affront to “liberty.”
Exact fairness is impossible, you’re right. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for less unfairness.
And again, unlike you, I don’t have a boner for Friedman.
I never said I opposed progressive taxation. Read my comments thoroughly. See other thread. There is a point though when it becomes excessive and harms economic growth. Even Robert Reich probably agrees with that. We just differ on what that point is.
But back to the point. Fairness can not be achieved and government should not be in the business of trying to achieve it. That is empowerment of government, not the individual, and it doesn’t ever achieve its aim. Individuals and charitable organizations are good for helping people when they are down. That is most assuredly a good thing. But they are not trying to achieve some sort of justice. They are just helping. I did not come from money and was not a legacy to a Harvard grad, but I harbor no resentment to somebody who did and was. I don’t understand people that do. I honestly can not relate to that type of resentment. Some of those people born to wealth and privilege may have also been born blind or deaf. I sure am not going to gouge out my eyes or ruin my hearing to “level the playing field” for them.
Milton Friedman is an idiot.
Tgrish, you’re simply jealous. Green with envy. Wishing it was money, but it’s not.
And your jealousy and class envy shows.
If you had put as much effort into earning a living as you had into developing this hand-me-down whine line, whimpering about the fact that you’ve underachieved, then maybe you could’ve succeeded beyond your wildest dreams. But wishing failure on those just because they were ‘born in the Hamptons’ is petty. And naive. Because who do you think employs the majority of Americans? Surely not the level of people you tend to feel so sorry for.
A fair tax is a flat tax, across all lines of income. If you wish to tax the ‘uppers’ above what you do the middle- and lower-class earners, then you are punishing them for being successful. They could easily move their money, assets, and businesses overseas to escape the unfairness of over taxation. And, to escape the other liberal ‘hate the successful and rich’ pet memes like unionization and out-of-control environmental regulations.
Could move their businesses overseas? Hmmmm…don’t see much of that, now do we?
A fair tax is a flat tax, across all lines of income. If you wish to tax the ‘uppers’ above what you do the middle- and lower-class earners, then you are punishing them for being successful.
The insurance you have on your Bentley and property tax on 6000^2-ft. house is unfair, too… but it ain’t.
They could easily move their money, assets, and businesses overseas to escape the unfairness of over taxation.
They usually do that to escape all kinds of laws (minimum wage, being a biggie), not just taxation.
But would any of these people prosper in a country without the physical and intellectual infrastructure of this great nation?
You can figure that out by how many brave patriots cheer wars from the safety of Mom’s basement in the U.S., vs. moving to a flat tax paradise like Iraq to stand in line for the unaccounted mountains of cash that have “vanished” from the U.S. Treasury.
.
Glen:
There is a point though when it becomes excessive and harms economic growth. Even Robert Reich probably agrees with that. We just differ on what that point is.
Except that the overwhelming majority of economists are closer to me on where than point is than they are to you. Assuming the validity of the Laffer Curve for a moment, it’s hard to imagine that we’re to the right of T. When the income tax on the top bracket was 70% or 90%, we may have been, but not at 35% or even 45%. I’ve seen the value of T estimated at anywhere between 50% and 70%, depending on who you ask. (And, a good case can be made for there being a non-singular peak in the Laffer Curve, which is to say different values of T depending on different ranges of income.)
Fairness can not be achieved and government should not be in the business of trying to achieve it.
So the abolition of slavery and civil rights laws were bad ideas? These are all things that government did in the service of increased fairness. I tell you what, based on your “if things are bad for you, tough shit, unless you’re lucky enough to find some philanthropist” attitude, I’m glad we don’t live in a more libertarian country!
By the way, do you know what another word for “fairness” is? Justice. It’s interesting that you don’t think that the government should be in the business of preserving justice…
I did not come from money and was not a legacy to a Harvard grad, but I harbor no resentment to somebody who did and was.
See, you keep wanting to make this about resentment, which is, in my estimation, supremely intellectually dishonest. How the hell you get from “justice” and “fairness” to “resentment” is beyond me. For one thing, there are plenty of wealthy people (including Buffett and Gates) who agree with me on this stuff. Do they resent themselves?
I sure am not going to gouge out my eyes or ruin my hearing to “level the playing field” for them.
Again with the demagoguery! Only one of us is doing that, and it ain’t me! I didn’t realize “paying 40% instead of 35%” was akin to “gouging out your eyes and ruining your hearing.”
Serr8d:
Your comment is hilarious for its sheer ignorance. For starters, I do quite well for myself, thank you very much. I consider myself part of the group who should be paying a larger share of taxes than I/we currently do. So it’s not “envy” that makes me do anything. It’s a belief that I and others like me ought to bear a larger part of the responsibility, especially in war time.
But wishing failure on those just because they were ‘born in the Hamptons’ is petty.
You must have an incredibly warped mind to get that out of what I wrote. At no time have I ever wished failure on anyone for their birth or upbringing. I only wished for those who weren’t so fortunate to have a greater chance at success. What’s funny is that you supply-siders are the ones who constantly insist that “a rising tide lifts all ships,” but you only seem to feel that way when the benefit is going to the top. But when it goes to the bottom, you suddenly act as if this comes at the direct expense of those on top. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either it isn’t a zero-sum game, or it is. You choose.
A fair tax is a flat tax, across all lines of income.
So if somebody who lives below the poverty level is taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates, you consider that fair? You have a very different idea of “fair” than I do.
And, to escape the other liberal ‘hate the successful and rich’ pet memes like unionization and out-of-control environmental regulations.
Your insistence upon assigning the worst possible motives to those who disagree with you says a lot more about your character than it does about mine, chum.
tgirsch:
LOL
You need to hang out here more often so you can get the full picture on what “ignorance” and “warped” really means! It’s a real magical mystery tour.
But seriously, to assert that government, i.e., The People, have no legitimate role in regulating business with an eye towards leveling the field is beyond absurd. But the ignorant, warped mind insists that those that purport that the possibility that the deck has a tendency to be stacked illegitimately in favor of those that control the means of production are necessarily Marxists, and are motivated solely by envy, when the father of market economics, Adam Smith, recognizes the principle. Unbefreakinglievable.
Folks, were just trying to have a civilization here.