McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth

[rebeccajo 14]

How hard is it to understand that a share is a percentage?

You are not misinterpreting the charts. You are just having trouble wrapping your brain around the concept of smaller and larger percentages taxed at different rates.

I think you are having trouble with this because it's hard to fathom that there is such a wide gap in income between the two groups.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How hard is it to understand that a share is a percentage?

You are not misinterpreting the charts. You are just having trouble wrapping your brain around the concept of smaller and larger percentages taxed at different rates.

I think you are having trouble with this because it's hard to fathom that there is such a wide gap in income between the two groups.

RJ, can you post the link to where the charts are? I'm having a heckofa time finding your original thread.

Ah, nevermind...found it. Sorry.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

According to Paul Krugman, the Tax Foundation is not a reliable source. Are there any other sources out there?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/2...eliable-source/

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

According to Paul Krugman, the Tax Foundation is not a reliable source. Are there any other sources out there?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/2...eliable-source/

No, I don't.

IMO it doesn't matter if they ARE trying to paint a picture that favors those at the upper end of the spectrum. The data is still clear.

Edited November 4, 2008 by rebeccajo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

According to Paul Krugman, the Tax Foundation is not a reliable source. Are there any other sources out there?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/2...eliable-source/

No, I don't.

IMO it doesn't matter if they ARE trying to paint a picture that favors those at the upper end of the spectrum. The data is still clear.

I agree. I'll try to look for some other sources...might be tomorrow though. Goodnight everyone...at least for now.

[dalegg 143]

How hard is it to understand that a share is a percentage?

You are not misinterpreting the charts. You are just having trouble wrapping your brain around the concept of smaller and larger percentages taxed at different rates.

I think you are having trouble with this because it's hard to fathom that there is such a wide gap in income between the two groups.

You need to look again.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

According to Paul Krugman, the Tax Foundation is not a reliable source. Are there any other sources out there?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/2...eliable-source/

No, I don't.

IMO it doesn't matter if they ARE trying to paint a picture that favors those at the upper end of the spectrum. The data is still clear.

Correct, the data is crystal clear. You cannot run from mathematics.

[dalegg 143]

Look- this is a direct quote from the article you posted-

"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

Its right there. Trust me. They did not include a bunch of statistics that contradicted their own statement.

[rebeccajo 14]

Look- this is a direct quote from the article you posted-

"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

Its right there. Trust me. They did not include a bunch of statistics that contradicted their own statement.

Oh absolutely. I agree.

This is done by increasing the RATE of taxation for people at the upper end of the adjusted income spectrum.

What I am trying to get you to see is that people at the lower end of the adjusted income spectrum have a higher exposure to the SHARE of the spectrum. They have a higher PERCENTAGE of their dollars taxed.

Look at Table 8 if you want confirmation. The average share of adjusted gross income that was taxed for all taxpayer groups in 1998 was 14.42%. How do you think we could come to that much of a variable without averaging?

Edited November 4, 2008 by rebeccajo

[dalegg 143]

Look- this is a direct quote from the article you posted-

"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

Its right there. Trust me. They did not include a bunch of statistics that contradicted their own statement.

Oh absolutely. I agree.

This is done by increasing the RATE of taxation for people at the upper end of the adjusted income spectrum.

What I am trying to get you to see is that people at the lower end of the adjusted income spectrum have a higher exposure to the SHARE of the spectrum. They have a higher PERCENTAGE of their dollars taxed.

Look at Table 8 if you want confirmation. The average share of adjusted gross income that was taxed for all taxpayer groups in 1998 was 14.42%. How do you think we could come to that much of a variable without averaging?

No they do not!! There is no data on that link that supports that statement AT ALL. And from Table 8, 1998, the whole of the US has an average tax rate of 14.42%

The top 1% are taxed at an average rate of 27.12%

The box bottom 50% are taxed at an average rate of 4.44%

Now I ask you. Is my calculator off? 27.12 is still higher than 4.44 isn't it?

[rebeccajo 14]

Your calculator is doing just fine.

[dalegg 143]

Your calculator is doing just fine.

Okay, then what is it that I am not seeing?? Honestly, I am not trying to support the top 1% of our country. I'm just seeking the truth. Look,

These statements you made tell me that you are misunderstanding these charts. PLEASE read my explanations and tell me you don't see where I am coming from here.

In the case of 1998, the lower 95% of wage earners were taxed on 71 cents out of each dollar they earned. The upper 5% were taxed on 33 cents of every dollar they earned.

From Table 5. Top 5% of wage earners - adjusted share of AGI - 32.85%. Year 1998.

Alright look.

On table 5, 1998 where you get the number 32.85%. That's the top 5%.

Lets look at the other numbers in that row:

1%=18.47%

2-5%=14.38%

6-19%=10.92%

11-25%=21.86%

26-50%=20.70%

Add all these up and you come up with the number 86.33

It is not just a coincidence that that happens to be the percentage listed under the "Top 50%"

And it is also not just a coincidence that the number listed under the "Bottom 50%"- 13.67 will total 100%

when added to the other 86.33%

These numbers add up to 100% in every single row. That is because they are simply telling you that the top 1% of the wage earners in this country- those with an AGI of $269,496 or more in 1998 accounted for 18.47% of the countries Total AGI.

That's it. This is just an additive chart of each groups contribution and this particular charts speaks nothing to with their actual tax rate.

Do you see where I'm coming from here? I'm not sticking up for Bill Gates. I'm just reading the numbers.

[Ling Ling 22]

Shouldn't HAL 9000 be answering these complex numerical questions

Obama to the left, McCain to the right.

You can vote however you like.

You can vote however you like.

TRUCE

[rebeccajo 14]

No it doesn't speak to their tax RATE.

It speaks to their exposed taxable dollars as a percentage of the whole.

Shouldn't HAL 9000 be answering these complex numerical questions

Obama to the left, McCain to the right.

You can vote however you like.

You can vote however you like.

TRUCE

JUST VOTE!

[dalegg 143]

No it doesn't speak to their tax RATE.

It speaks to their exposed taxable dollars as a percentage of the whole.

Not in table 5 it doesn't. That comes in table 3.

Edited November 4, 2008 by dalegg