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

[rebeccajo 14]

I give up!

As LingLing says - Truce.

[Ling Ling 22]

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

Table 3 said they ordered the duck with sauce.

Obama to the left, McCain to the right.

Obama to the left, McCain to the right.

You can vote however you like.

You can vote however you like.

TRUCE

[dalegg 143]

I give up!

As LingLing says - Truce.

Word...

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

Table 3 said they ordered the duck with sauce.

So send them some extra Kung Pao.

[mawilson 2,133]

No it doesn't speak to their tax RATE.

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

Rebecca,

The higher the AGI, the higher the tax rate:

2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules

Are you saying that the top 1% are able to deduct more ####### than the bottom 99%, so their average effective tax rate (taxes divided by *gross wages* as opposed to AGI) is lower?

[rebeccajo 14]

No it doesn't speak to their tax RATE.

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

Rebecca,

The higher the AGI, the higher the tax rate:

2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules

Are you saying that the top 1% are able to deduct more ####### than the bottom 99%, so their average effective tax rate (taxes divided by *gross wages* as opposed to AGI) is lower?

Mark -

Yes, the higher the AGI, the higher the tax rate. I understand that.

LOL.

I'm not sure how to say it anymore, Mark. All I was trying to say is that they get more deductions, so in essence they can lower their tax rate (by lowering their AGI) MORE than other people. And that the charts prove it.

[HAL 9000 96]

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

HAL 9000 remembers arguing scientific concepts with certain forum members before and how acceptance was avoided commonly due to the intransigence of said folks of the terminology used, which was accurate.

While the math is correct, the contrary information is also correct.

*COMPUTERIZED LOL*

[IAMX 3,055]

The tax rate is very low on the lower classes, unless every document I've read and that anyone has ever posted is a lie.

What is the timeframe of your tax data based on?

1980-2006

Let me rephrase: How often is tax data, as well as taxable income, calculated?

Once per...

year. Obviously.

Ok, so what people misinterpret about tax burden is it's based upon end-of-the-year returns. It's not. Why? Because bills and other things aren't based upon the end of the year returns. It's based up a daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly income because that is taxed and directly relative to ability to afford things. If the burden lies upon the lower and middle class, they have more of a difficulty paying for goods and services. This also coincides with lower wages, because these costs are being transferred to them. This is what raising taxes on the highest incomes, and giving a tax break to the lower and middle class will relieve. Additionally, due to costs being transferred, it means the upper class can stomach the taxes with little to no economic movement, or, relatively, the least amount.

Look. We either accept the figures produced by Tax Foundation or you don't. You can manipulate this data and twist it around apparantly in some very complicated ways, but at the end of the day it states simply that in 2006

From Table 8, the average tax rate on the bottom 50% was a whopping 3%. 3 freakin percent. How much lower are you going to go?

From the same table, the average tax rate on the top 5% is 20.68%.

From Table 6, it says that the top 5%- those getting taxed at 20.68%, contributed 39.89% of the total tax revenue while the bottom 50%- those getting taxed at the average rate of 3 freakin percent, contributed only 2.99% of the total tax revenue.

Now, how it is that you are saying that the group paying 3% of the total taxes is carrying the burdon for the group that is contributing 39.89% is completely beyond me.

You're not reading.

Do people pay bills or go shopping once a year? Do they get taxes taken out of their check once a year? Maybe if they are 1099, but that's paying as they get all of their check, and most people aren't, so they get taxes taken from their income every check. If wages are less (the byproduct of lowering taxes on the rich in the long term), and if goods are more expensive (because their value of service has gone down), do the people who have the hardest time affording them have a burden? They sure as #### do. Who is that? The middle and lower class.

Is this sinking in yet?

*sigh* You are getting off topic. Do poor and middle class people have a harder time getting by than rich people. Well, duh. That doesn't mean that its because of the high taxes that they are paying to make up for the filthy rich who apparantly still aren't paying their share.

If I make $10,000,000 and you tax me 45%, I still have 4.5 Million and I'm not having a hard time paying the bills. #######, tax me 90% and I still have a million.

A guy making $20,000 getting taxed at 5% loses only $1000, and OF COURSE that $1000 is harder on him than the guy who went from $10,000,000 to $1,000,000 because you are struggling to get buy on $19,000 while you are still living high on $1,000,000. I GET IT!!

But that does not mean the guy on the bottom is paying the guy on top's share! What it means is that you think they guy on the bottom should probably not be getting taxed at all, and we should tax the guy on top to make up for it. Its that simple.

I'm not suggesting the rich aren't paying #######. I'm not suggesting the rich should carry everyone on their back. I'm suggesting the tax system fluctuates based upon who can stomach the tax increase with the least amount of burden, concurrently, and equally as important, decreasing tax levies on the class most burdened by the current tax system. Why? Because there is an intricate system of our economy balancing job stimulation, greedy corporate asshats, maintaining the national debt, and so on. There's far too many factors to attribute it to this to simply paint things in a broad brush of black and white, like, just because the rich pay more in taxes we need to give them a further tax break? You're mad if you think this will solve anything.

Simply giving everyone tax breaks, and giving the richest people tax breaks (you remember, the ones who pay most in quantity of dollars?), in the long term, fvcks up the economy as it skyrockets the national debt. These tax breaks on the rich, SUPPOSED to stimulate the economy to create jobs, and this usually works in the short term, but NOT in the long term, as the jobs created offset the fewer taxes in the short term, taxes rise again, eventually the government goes into a surplus. This is how it's SUPPOSED to work, but show me a Congressman who doesn't like spending money on useless earmark ####### nowadays or handing free money/legislation to corporate interests.

If you think about the housing crisis as well, consider, along with their wonderful ARM's, their tax burden increases, their money is worth less on the local market, their costs are rising, then they get a nice interest rate hike on top of it. Maybe then, the few thousand they may get back over the course of a year, not only helps them pay off their mortgage, or maybe refinancing away from an ARM. Even better, stimulates them to buy more things, which helps the local economy, i..e the economy that matters far more than the global market, to us.

[dalegg 143]

No it doesn't speak to their tax RATE.

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

Rebecca,

The higher the AGI, the higher the tax rate:

2007 Federal Tax Rate Schedules

Are you saying that the top 1% are able to deduct more ####### than the bottom 99%, so their average effective tax rate (taxes divided by *gross wages* as opposed to AGI) is lower?

Mark -

Yes, the higher the AGI, the higher the tax rate. I understand that.

LOL.

I'm not sure how to say it anymore, Mark. All I was trying to say is that they get more deductions, so in essence they can lower their tax rate (by lowering their AGI) MORE than other people. And that the charts prove it.

Mark or HAL, let me point you to the link again where she says the charts prove it and you tell me what you think-

Tax Foundation

She comes to this conclusion for example by looking at Table 5 and is using this data to state what percentage of ones AGI is taxed.

From Table 5. Top 5% of wage earners - adjusted share of AGI - 32.85%. Year 1998, so what she is deriving is that for the top 5% of wage earners, only 33 cents to each dollar is taxed, therefore they have managed to deduct 67 cents.

By the way, I'm puzzled at this conclusion even by her own logic. If that's the case, then for the bottom 50% of wage earners, only 18 cents to each dollar is taxed, meaning they have managed to somehow deduct 83% of their AGI. I know I never pulled that off! 18% is still less than 33%, so what am I missing?

Now Rebecca, if I have misunderstood you, please say so. I am not denying that I may have gotten fumbled.

Now, the way I read that table, it is saying nothing at all about how much of one's income is taxed, but how much of the total AGI reported to the US is contributed by that group- in this case 32.85% from the top 5%. So, who is reading this correctly?

[rebeccajo 14]

Ok. After some sleep. Let's use 2006 just because it is at the bottom of all charts.

Table 5 Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2006 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group).

This table represents the percentage of dollars each group put up into the adjusted gross income pot to be taxed.

In 2006 - 5% of the taxpayers put up 36.66% of the dollars.

Table 5 Average Tax Rate, 1980-2006 (Percentage of AGI paid in income taxes).

This table represents the portion of the total adjusted pot that each group paid out after taxes were assessed at different rates. In 2006 - 5% of the taxpayers paid 20.68% of the adjusted pot in taxes.

Table 3 Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980-2006 ($ Billions)

This is the dollar amount of money that each tax bracket put into the pot. It's the currency translation of the percentages in Table 5. In 2006 there were $8,122,000,000 adjusted dollars. 5% of the people put up $2,978,000,000 of those dollars.

95% of the people put up the rest. $5,144,000.00.

Which group had more of their income exposed to taxation?

Edited November 4, 2008 by rebeccajo

[HAL 9000 96]

Which group had more of their income exposed to taxation?

This is why I agree with you on principle, RJ.

[dalegg 143]

Ok. After some sleep. Let's use 2006 just because it is at the bottom of all charts.

Table 5 Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2006 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group).

This table represents the percentage of dollars each group put up into the adjusted gross income pot to be taxed.

In 2006 - 5% of the taxpayers put up 36.66% of the dollars.

Table 5 Average Tax Rate, 1980-2006 (Percentage of AGI paid in income taxes).

This table represents the portion of the total adjusted pot that each group paid out after taxes were assessed at different rates. In 2006 - 5% of the taxpayers paid 20.68% of the adjusted pot in taxes.

Table 3 Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980-2006 ($ Billions)

This is the dollar amount of money that each tax bracket put into the pot. It's the currency translation of the percentages in Table 5. In 2006 there were $8,122,000,000 adjusted dollars. 5% of the people put up $2,978,000,000 of those dollars.

95% of the people put up the rest. $5,144,000.00.

Which group had more of their income exposed to taxation?

By the way- you are leaving off a group of zeros.

The adjusted gross income of the top 5% was a total of $2,978,000,000,000

So, as you say the adjusted gross income of the other 95% was $5,144,000,000,000

The tax paid by the top 5% was $616,000,000,000 (the 20.68%)

The total tax paid by all tax payers was $1,024,000,000,000

So, the tax paid by the other 95% was $408,000,000,000- are we in agreement here?

The other 95% then were taxed $408,000,000,000 out of $5,144,000,000,000 or 7.9%

Now to me 20.68% seems higher than 7.9%, so I'm still gonna have to say the top 5% have more of their income exposed to taxes.

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

Ok. After some sleep. Let's use 2006 just because it is at the bottom of all charts.

Table 5 Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980-2006 (Percent of total AGI earned by each group).

This table represents the percentage of dollars each group put up into the adjusted gross income pot to be taxed.

In 2006 - 5% of the taxpayers put up 36.66% of the dollars.

Table 5 Average Tax Rate, 1980-2006 (Percentage of AGI paid in income taxes).

This table represents the portion of the total adjusted pot that each group paid out after taxes were assessed at different rates. In 2006 - 5% of the taxpayers paid 20.68% of the adjusted pot in taxes.

Table 3 Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980-2006 ($ Billions)

This is the dollar amount of money that each tax bracket put into the pot. It's the currency translation of the percentages in Table 5. In 2006 there were $8,122,000,000 adjusted dollars. 5% of the people put up $2,978,000,000 of those dollars.

95% of the people put up the rest. $5,144,000.00.

Which group had more of their income exposed to taxation?

[mawilson 2,133]

5% of the people put up $2,978,000,000,000 of those dollars.

95% of the people put up the rest. $5,144,000,000,000

Which group had more of their income exposed to taxation?

The top 5% of course.

[rebeccajo 14]

5% of the people put up $2,978,000,000,000 of those dollars.

95% of the people put up the rest. $5,144,000,000,000

Which group had more of their income exposed to taxation?

The top 5% of course.

Before deductions. But not after.

[mawilson 2,133]

5% of the people put up $2,978,000,000,000 of those dollars.

95% of the people put up the rest. $5,144,000,000,000

Which group had more of their income exposed to taxation?

The top 5% of course.

Before deductions. But not after.

You could be right, but so far I haven't seen any proof of that in your tables.

The data is reported in terms of AGI, not gross income.