Federal Individual Income Tax Data

[HowardRoark]

It's raw data........I am not spinning it. Just trying to unravel the lies of certain candidates perhaps.

It's NOT raw data, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It has been selectively--and quite likely inaccurately--calculated by a "non-partisan" institute that is known to misrepresent tax data. Whether you're using it to "spin," or just unaware of the problems with this institute, is another issue entirely.

OK

Tell me how the data is wrong.

The data.

How the fuck do I know where they go wrong? I don't have access to the "raw data", nor do I have the time or expertise to go over it. What I do know is that the Tax Foundation has been questioned by serious, reputable sources--yes, like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In other words; you don't have a point.

Maybe David Letterman will talk about it tonight.

[mraynrand]

Oh, I'm sure there are lots of good "excuses" for their plight. But I'm a bottom line sort of guy. They contribute to the common good at an unacceptable rate, and require the rest of us to pick up their slack.

And I think people with your attitude just act as enablers, making you partly responsible for their plight in my eyes. But I guess you mean well.

What are you talking about? What common good? If people like you had their way there would be no "common good" but instead a return to the barbaric world portrayed by Charles Dickens.

In any case, don't speak too harshly of the lower crust. If it weren't for them you'd be pulling weeds, taking out garbage and cleaning your toilets yourself.

What is "The common good?"

For the record, I clean toilets, pull weeds, and take out garbage. And I'm a barbarian.

[HowardRoark]

Oh, I'm sure there are lots of good "excuses" for their plight. But I'm a bottom line sort of guy. They contribute to the common good at an unacceptable rate, and require the rest of us to pick up their slack.

And I think people with your attitude just act as enablers, making you partly responsible for their plight in my eyes. But I guess you mean well.

What are you talking about? What common good? If people like you had their way there would be no "common good" but instead a return to the barbaric world portrayed by Charles Dickens.

In any case, don't speak too harshly of the lower crust. If it weren't for them you'd be pulling weeds, taking out garbage and cleaning your toilets yourself.

What is "The common good?"

For the record, I clean toilets, pull weeds, and take out garbage. And I'm a barbarian.

My kids mockingly call me Pip as I cut the lawn and trim the hedges.

[Scott Campbell]

What are you talking about? What common good?

Oh don't play stupid. Common good = Pay taxes. Build roads. Etc.


Make money - not excuses.

[Scott Campbell]

In the spirit of Liberal tax policy, I think Jerry Jones should have to give the Ford family 2 of his Lombardi trophies, Tony Romo and their next 6 first round draft choices. And anyone who disagrees with me is a cold hearted hater with no compassion for the "lower crust" Lions.

[hoosier]

In the spirit of conservative Dickensian social policy I think the NFL should abolish the salary cap and do away with revenue sharing. Watch the Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots and a few other teams establish permanent monopolies while the Packers and other small market teams become permanent bottom feeders. Let the markets regulate themselves!

[Scott Campbell]

Life won't be fair until everyone is 8-8, and gets a 1/32nd share of each Lombardi trophy.

It's not the Lions fault that Millen was so telegenic that they fell in love with the guy. Show some compassion for those franchises less fortunate.

And why should just the big cities get NFL teams? It's not Nephi's fault that more people don't live there. I HEREBY DEMAND A NFL FRANCHISE FOR EAGLE RIVER - in the name of all that is holy, and liberal compassion.

[retailguy]

It's raw data........I am not spinning it. Just trying to unravel the lies of certain candidates perhaps.

It's NOT raw data, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It has been selectively--and quite likely inaccurately--calculated by a "non-partisan" institute that is known to misrepresent tax data. Whether you're using it to "spin," or just unaware of the problems with this institute, is another issue entirely.

OK

Tell me how the data is wrong.

The data.

How the fuck do I know where they go wrong? I don't have access to the "raw data", nor do I have the time or expertise to go over it. What I do know is that the Tax Foundation has been questioned by serious, reputable sources--yes, like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In other words; you don't have a point.

Maybe David Letterman will talk about it tonight.

And this is how it goes.... I don't believe the data (I don't know why, but once, sometime in the past they got it wrong, so I won't listen to ANYTHING any longer). Therefore we cannot have a debate, unless, you agree to use my data. (Incidentally, another group of people have claimed that the other data is similarly biased and flawed, so in reality, we have ZERO good data that everyone else agrees with). Oh, and, by the way, the fact that I don't agree with your data should be damn good enough. Don't expect me to tell you WHY!. I said so, dammit, that should be good enough!

Sheesh.

[rdanomly]

So what does every one think is fair? Do you want a flax tax?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It's raw data........I am not spinning it. Just trying to unravel the lies of certain candidates perhaps.

It's NOT raw data, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It has been selectively--and quite likely inaccurately--calculated by a "non-partisan" institute that is known to misrepresent tax data. Whether you're using it to "spin," or just unaware of the problems with this institute, is another issue entirely.

OK

Tell me how the data is wrong.

The data.

It is wrong because it the two leading sources of tax information for Congress — the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation say the info isn't correct.

It is inaccurate when applied to typical or average middle-class families. The Tax Foundation computes what it describes as the percentage of income that Americans, on average, pay in taxes and converts this to the portion of the year that Americans have to work to pay their tax bills. This methodology draws a misleading picture; it substantially exaggerates the amount of taxes that average middle class families pay.

Under the methods the Tax Foundation uses, an increase in taxes solely on high-income taxpayers increases the taxes that the average taxpayer pays and thereby advances "Tax Freedom Day" to later in the year. This methodology can produce particularly sharp distortions when taxes are raised primarily on affluent taxpayers, as they were under the 1990 and 1993 deficit reduction laws, and when, as at present, large increases in the stock market cause wealthy investors to reap huge capital gains profits and pay more capital gains taxes on them.

There is more, but i'm sure that this is sufficient for you to ignore and stick to your guns.

[HowardRoark]

It's raw data........I am not spinning it. Just trying to unravel the lies of certain candidates perhaps.

It's NOT raw data, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It has been selectively--and quite likely inaccurately--calculated by a "non-partisan" institute that is known to misrepresent tax data. Whether you're using it to "spin," or just unaware of the problems with this institute, is another issue entirely.

OK

Tell me how the data is wrong.

The data.

It is wrong because it the two leading sources of tax information for Congress — the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation say the info isn't correct.

It is inaccurate when applied to typical or average middle-class families. The Tax Foundation computes what it describes as the percentage of income that Americans, on average, pay in taxes and converts this to the portion of the year that Americans have to work to pay their tax bills. This methodology draws a misleading picture; it substantially exaggerates the amount of taxes that average middle class families pay.

Under the methods the Tax Foundation uses, an increase in taxes solely on high-income taxpayers increases the taxes that the average taxpayer pays and thereby advances "Tax Freedom Day" to later in the year. This methodology can produce particularly sharp distortions when taxes are raised primarily on affluent taxpayers, as they were under the 1990 and 1993 deficit reduction laws, and when, as at present, large increases in the stock market cause wealthy investors to reap huge capital gains profits and pay more capital gains taxes on them.

There is more, but i'm sure that this is sufficient for you to ignore and stick to your guns.

Does this qualify as one of your Straw Men arguments? When did I talk about Tax Freedom Day? All I am doing is showing the tables of where Tax Receipts come from and who pays these taxes.

Take your Tax Freedom Day (or whatever they call it) argument somewhere else.

[mraynrand]

Tell me how the data is wrong.

The data.

It is wrong because it the two leading sources of tax information for Congress — the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation say the info isn't correct.

OK, I'll take you at face value. If the numbers are wrong, then correct them. Here they are:

1. The top 1% account for 39.89 % of all tax receipts.
2. The top 10% account for 70.79% of all tax receipts.
3. The top 50% account for 97.01% of all tax receipts.
4. The top 50% are paying more and more every year during the Bush years.
5. The average tax rate for the bottom 50% is 3.01%
------------------
Either change the percent taxes paid by each percentage group or change the top xx% that pay the listed percent, to reflect the correct numbers. If they are wrong, and you know it, it should be possible to present the correct numbers and your source. Please do so for our benefit.

[SkinBasket]

It is wrong because it the two leading sources of tax information for Congress — the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation say the info isn't correct.

Are these the same people hiding the recession? You're going to trust them now?

[texaspackerbacker]

Whether the figures Howard cites are exactly right or just close is of little relevance. There can be little or no rational argument against the idea that upper income people pay an inordinately high percentage of income.

As for whether that percentage is INCREASING during the Bush years, if it is, there's one OBVIOUS reason: that these high income people are making more money. Is that a bad thing? Hell No--certainly not if other income groups are also doing better--as they clearly did throughout the Bush years--with the possible exception of right after 9/11. Any other gripes people could have would be purely based on class warfare/class envy--two emotions which liberals actively and shamelessly promote.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tell me how the data is wrong.

The data.

It is wrong because it the two leading sources of tax information for Congress — the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation say the info isn't correct.

OK, I'll take you at face value. If the numbers are wrong, then correct them. Here they are:

1. The top 1% account for 39.89 % of all tax receipts.
2. The top 10% account for 70.79% of all tax receipts.
3. The top 50% account for 97.01% of all tax receipts.
4. The top 50% are paying more and more every year during the Bush years.
5. The average tax rate for the bottom 50% is 3.01%
------------------
Either change the percent taxes paid by each percentage group or change the top xx% that pay the listed percent, to reflect the correct numbers. If they are wrong, and you know it, it should be possible to present the correct numbers and your source. Please do so for our benefit.

It isn't possible to do the math because they use tax items that aren't really tax items.

These include: optional Medicare premiums that older Americans pay if they wish to receive coverage for physician's services under Medicare; intra-governmental transfers that are solely bookkeeping devices and not taxes; employee and employer contributions to state and local government pension plans, some of which results in the double-counting of taxes; and rental payments that individuals or businesses pay to state or local governments to rent property those governments own. The Foundation's inclusion of items that are not taxes overstates state and local tax burdens by about one-seventh.

The whole methodology is flawed.