TOON OF THE DAY:"Neo-Cosa Nostra"
Posted by jjoats at June 8, 2005 06:40 AMWell, I agree with Kevin Phillips. It gets worse until the revolution 10-15 years from now. Then possibly the rich get another kind of cut, when they bring back the guillotine.
Posted by Tim H. at June 8, 2005 07:18 AMIt's like the Depression taught us nothing.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 8, 2005 07:20 AMWhat's totally frustrating is that there are so few people (I'm talking elected officials, party leaders, etc. not blogsters and their ilk) who are speaking out on this. Kills me.
Posted by Terence at June 8, 2005 07:39 AMWe are in a policy lag. Democracies have a tendency to 'swing late' on problems. In the early 80's when I was in college, textbooks depending on their slant, either praised or bemoaned the fact that America had a relitivily even (by world but not by western european standards) distribution of wealth. At this time the Reagan administration was busy dismantiling the new deal and setting up the course we are on now. By the time Bush I was elected the statistics no longer looked relitivily even. Today as we see it is even worse.
Personally, I know a lot more people who recieve three didget paychecks rather than four didget ones. Even here in deep red SC I'm beginning to hear people talk as if they understand that the 'ownership society' is rigged to benefit those who already own this society.
Posted by rlprather at June 8, 2005 08:41 AMMajor correction: My last sentence should end" the 'ownership society' is rigged to benifit those who think they already own this society.
Posted by rlprather at June 8, 2005 08:50 AMCould you post a link to the original Sunday article? I don't see how the math works on this one...
Posted by Tex at June 8, 2005 09:07 AMIt's the same on the Democratic side of the aisle. Bill Clinton taught Democrats to talk exclusively about the problems of the middle class and to ignore the poor.
Because I love outlandish analogies:
I tend to think of Republicans as mountains and Democrats as plains. Republicans create soaring wealth for a few but most live in the valley, overshadowed by the mountain. Whereas democrats are plains where both rich and poor maintaining a good albeit varied standard of living, with both hopefully rising over time. (And a very special "this is not communism" note for the O'Rielly-acts out there).
Of course all mountains have their rain shadow and we are about to see it. That's my two cents.
baa, where both rich and poor maintain a decent standard of living.
Work makes me tired.
Posted by chris65203 at June 8, 2005 09:45 AMBill Clinton taught Democrats to talk exclusively about the problems of the middle class and to ignore the poor.
That used to bug the shit out of me, until I realized that nobody thinks of themselves as poor.
Some family of four living out of a trailer--and not one of those "mobile homes," neither; I mean a trailer--with no insurance, where the breadwinner gets laid off, and stays laid off for a year? Middle class.
Single mom, raising three kids by temping? Middle class.
Similarly, I don't know anybody who makes less than, say, half a million a year (and I know one or two in that bracket) who thinks of themselves as "rich."
The American notion of middle class has grown so expansive that there's really no point in re-educating them. At this point, Middle Class is just secular humanist shorthand for "decent folks."
Posted by Matt Davis at June 8, 2005 09:58 AMI think Matt makes a great point about how big the middle class perception is. Dems and Repubs seem to use that since they talk both often about helping the middle class without really defining it, everyone thinks they're included. Although I don't see how you can't say Clinton didn't ignore the true poor a little with the Welfare Reforms he pushed...
I think the bumpy plains analogy is a bad one for democrats. People don't like to work harder in their career if they don't get to see a significant benefit from it. Time away from family isn't worth it if you can't make their lives a lot better. Even if your in the valley of capitalism, people like the idea of climbing to the mountain top if they work hard, etc. Laze Faire (sp?) capitalism is bad because those in the valley starve to death. Drastic socialism is bad because there is no driving factor to produce or evlove and the overall economic growth suffers. Striking the balance between these two is the key (unless your an Ayn Rand capitalist or a socialist) Just some thoughts...
Anyway, i hope someone posts that link to the sunday story. I'd like to see the math behind it. I guess they are assuming a lot of big deductions for rich people or something... the higher tax rates don't regress so I don't see how it works in general terms...
Posted by Tex at June 8, 2005 10:17 AMI'd like to point out that the changes Clinton pushed through on the Earned Income Tax Credit helped lift many out of poverty in the 1990's, a change that the GOP is trying to undo in its FY 2006 budget package.
Posted by Steve Soto at June 8, 2005 10:42 AMMatt hints around a good point. Most folks are a paycheck or two away from bankruptcy, no matter if they make $40K or $200K or $500K. The only thing that changes as you make more money, is the amount of your monthly expenses. If you make $40K, you might have a rent payment and a car payment to make. If you make $200K, you have a house payment, multiple car payments, a boat payment, and a home equity loan payment. If you make $500K, you have multiple house payments, multiple car payments, boat payment, home equity payments... etc.
For the most part, people haven't learned the lessons from the book "The Millionaire Next Door."
Anyways, regarding DeLong's comments... Uh, well, is he talking about percentage of income and regressive taxation? Is the social security tax included in that mix? Since it stops at the $90K cap, the more one makes over that means the less one pays in taxes as a percentage of their income.
What class does DeLong teach, "1001 Ways to be Misleading?"
I don't know why the liberals hate folks like Tiger Woods so much. He made $80 million last year. He pays 12.4% into social security on the first $90K. If you remove the cap, you're sending Tiger Woods a tax bill of about $10 Million. And that's just in the first year! That's also in addition to whatever taxes he's paying on that $80 million.
Posted by muckdog at June 8, 2005 11:06 AMOh, just shut your sanctimonious mouth, muck. yeah, everybody is just one paycheck away from bankruptcy because they're irresponsible with money.
And for the record, stop with the "liberals hate Tiger Woods" crap. Asking him to pay his fair share is not hateful. He's got enough money and attorneys to figure out how to recoup that pittance of 10 million he should be paying into social security. What's 10 million for him, anyway? Another four hour photo shoot for Tag Hauer?
Posted by ann at June 8, 2005 11:14 AMI don't know why the liberals hate folks like Tiger Woods so much.
Who said anything about hating anyone?
Other than you muckdog.
Posted by muckcat at June 8, 2005 11:14 AMIt'd be interesting to get a look at Tiger's tax return. Do you think he pays more or less than the nominal rate for his tax bracket muckdog?
Posted by muckcat at June 8, 2005 11:20 AMmuck argues that a tax hike on anyone making a high income is going to cause them to quit working and retire or go on the dole. Dont worry muck, there are plenty of young golfers willing to replace tiger if he goes fishing.
Posted by argus at June 8, 2005 11:50 AMGood point Steve about the Earned Income Credit.
If SS taxes are factored in, then that makes the whole difference right there. I think the idea of class warfare for the classes mentioned over social security taxes is unlikely. SS is "supposed" to be self funding. I don't think people over $100k expect the superrich to subsidize the rest of America's retirement.
I'd really like to read the whole article if anyone has a link...
Posted by Tex at June 8, 2005 12:29 PMHow much simpler is a flat tax from a five level tax system?
1 - poor enought to suplement
2 - poor enought to be exempt
3 - most of use
4 - those of us who did good enough to pay more
5 - those enought how made enough to be a threat to the future of Democracy.
tex, please see the front page post. I've added links to the article and the editorial.
Posted by Mary at June 8, 2005 12:47 PM"I don't know why the liberals hate folks like Tiger Woods so much."
This is classic, Thomas Sowell-esque Neocon verbage. They always say anyone wanting the rich to pay more in taxes must hate them. The attempt is to turn the argument from one of fairness, to one of envy, on a dime.
Posted by Cosrai at June 8, 2005 01:09 PMHow do the Bush tax cuts of 2003 impact the data the NY Times is using, which ends in 2002?
Maybe it'd just be best to create a new browser Favorites folder called "Moonbats," and drop the link to DeLong's blog in there.
Posted by muckdog at June 8, 2005 01:29 PMOnly The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes
There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.
*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security
This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
Those are IRS #'s...Game, set , match!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by jay at June 8, 2005 03:01 PMYou haven't documented anything jay.
Posted by at June 8, 2005 03:22 PMEven with documentation, there are other weaknesses in your numbers, namely the fact that using calander year numbers, your not using actual budget neubers. Also, 2001 is still partly within the Clinton budget cycle and does not control for the fact that during 2001 a recession occured. Recessions tend to impact the poor more harshly.
Game, set and match hardly. If you want to fight over numbers, I will tear you a new asshole.
Check, you prick.
the rooster is crowing.
Posted by rooster, they come to kill thee at June 8, 2005 03:33 PMThese are not mnumbers, they are the IRS's.
Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000
Table 1. - Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI andTotal Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2000 [All figures are estimates based on samples]
Descending cumulative percentiles
Year: Total..................Top 1%............Top 5%.........Top 10%.......Top 25%..........Top 50%
Number of returns: [1]
1986: 102,087,623......1,020,876......5,104,381......10,208,762......25,521,906......51,043,811
1987: 106,154,761......1,061,548......5,307,738......10,615,476......26,538,690......53,077,380
1988: 108,872,859......1,088,729......5,443,643......10,887,286......27,218,214......54,436,429
1989: 111,312,721......1,113,127......5,565,636......11,131,272......27,828,181......55,656,361
1990: 112,812,262......1,128,123......5,640,613......11,281,226......28,203,066......56,406,132
1991: 113,804,104......1,138,041......5,690,205......11,380,410......28,451,026......56,902,052
1992: 112,652,759......1,126,528......5,632,638......11,265,276......28,163,190......56,326,380
1993: 113,681,387......1,136,814......5,684,069......11,368,139......28,420,347......56,840,694
1994: 114,989,920......1,149,899......5,749,496......11,498,992......28,747,480......57,494,960
1995: 117,274,186......1,172,742......5,863,709......11,727,419......29,318,546......58,637,093
1996: 119,441,767......1,194,418......5,972,088......11,944,177......29,860,442......59,720,884
1997: 121,503,284......1,215,033......6,075,164......12,150,328......30,375,821......60,751,642
1998: 123,775,831......1,237,758......6,188,792......12,377,583......30,943,958......61,887,915
1999: 126,008,974......1,260,090......6,300,449......12,600,897......31,502,244......63,004,487
2000: 128,227,143......1,282,271......6,411,357......12,822,714......32,056,786......64,113,572
Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):
1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302
1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768
1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367
1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993
1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767
1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097
1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803
1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179
1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802
1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344
1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174
1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393
1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491
1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415
2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682
Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (constant dollars): [2]
1986: N/A......108,411......56,913......44,394......29,418......15,786
1987: N/A......122,614......60,224......46,585......29,915......15,641
1988: N/A......132,828......61,484......46,861......29,922......15,526
1989: N/A......132,152......62,043......46,986......29,709......15,317
1990: N/A......128,096......60,493......46,126......29,135......15,124
1991: N/A......124,919......60,000......45,480......28,582......14,756
1992: N/A......129,654......60,658......45,942......28,780......14,828
1993: N/A......128,522......60,475......45,728......28,519......14,657
1994: N/A......132,069......61,556......46,392......28,841......14,711
1995: N/A......137,406......63,137......47,306......29,007......14,661
1996: N/A......145,026......64,462......47,792......29,163......14,769
1997: N/A......156,222......67,320......49,353......30,014......15,198
1998: N/A......164,427......69,999......50,775......30,877......15,553
1999: N/A......176,119......72,537......52,630......31,792......15,855
2000: N/A......182,038......74,527......53,510......32,070......16,075
Adjusted gross income (millions of dollars):
1986: 2,524,124......285,197......608,467......886,510......1,490,173......2,103,569
1987: 2,813,728......346,635......722,221......1,038,221......1,709,389......2,373,869
1988: 3,124,156......473,527......890,702......1,232,536......1,950,860......2,657,865
1989: 3,298,858......468,079......918,421......1,286,539......2,054,478......2,805,235
1990: 3,451,237......483,252......953,337......1,338,032......2,144,177......2,932,537
1991: 3,516,142......456,603......943,350......1,343,202......2,174,765......2,984,003
1992: 3,680,552......523,586......1,031,093......1,443,784......2,299,401......3,131,400
1993: 3,775,578......520,586......1,048,252......1,474,463......2,357,953......3,212,299
1994: 3,961,146......546,700......1,103,084......1,552,205......2,481,074......3,371,352
1995: 4,244,607......619,610......1,222,723......1,704,513......2,689,820......3,627,542
1996: 4,590,527......736,545......1,393,805......1,909,149......2,952,637......3,944,383
1997: 5,023,457......872,826......1,597,107......2,151,401......3,267,600......4,327,992
1998: 5,469,211......1,010,245......1,796,647......2,393,716......3,589,600......4,721,430
1999: 5,909,329......1,152,820......2,011,763......2,652,835......3,927,308......5,126,164
2000: 6,423,977......1,336,773......2,267,403......2,955,386......4,313,786......5,589,755
Descending cumulative percentiles
Year: Total............Top 1%.....Top 5%.......Top 10%....Top 25%....Top 50%
Total income tax (millions of dollars): [3]
1986: 366,979......94,491......156,240......200,703......278,976......343,289
1987: 369,046......91,559......159,642......205,230......283,857......346,655
1988: 412,761......113,841......188,303......236,411......321,297......389,145
1989: 432,838......109,259......190,188......241,458......334,258......407,599
1990: 447,061......112,338......195,088......247,514......344,340......421,075
1991: 448,349......111,267......194,480......250,282......346,511......423,759
1992: 476,163......131,156......218,479......276,213......373,700......452,070
1993: 502,720......145,836......238,083......297,808......398,516......478,563
1994: 534,754......154,337......254,106......317,902......425,402......509,256
1995: 588,331......178,035......287,741......357,402......472,808......561,225
1996: 658,124......212,626......335,433......411,404......535,164......629,684
1997: 727,303......241,239......377,241......459,639......594,007......696,161
1998: 788,452......274,009......424,506......512,836......651,964......755,240
1999: 877,292......317,419......486,464......583,002......732,890......842,168
2000: 980,521......366,929......553,670......660,150......823,706......942,179
Average tax rate (percentage): [4]
1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32
1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60
1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64
1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53
1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36
1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20
1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44
1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90
1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11
1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47
1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96
1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09
1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00
1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43
2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86
Adjusted gross income share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......11.30......24.11......35.12......59.04......83.34
1987: 100.00......12.32......25.67......36.90......60.75......84.37
1988: 100.00......15.16......28.51......39.45......62.44......85.07
1989: 100.00......14.19......27.84......39.00......62.28......85.04
1990: 100.00......14.00......27.62......38.77......62.13......84.97
1991: 100.00......12.99......26.83......38.20......61.85......84.87
1992: 100.00......14.23......28.01......39.23......62.47......85.08
1993: 100.00......13.79......27.76......39.05......62.45......85.08
1994: 100.00......13.80......27.85......39.19......62.64......85.11
1995: 100.00......14.60......28.81......40.16......63.37......85.46
1996: 100.00......16.04......30.36......41.59......64.32......85.92
1997: 100.00......17.38......31.79......42.83......65.05......86.16
1998: 100.00......18.47......32.85......43.77......65.63......86.33
1999: 100.00......19.51......34.04......44.89......66.46......86.75
2000: 100.00......20.81......35.30......46.01......67.15......87.01
Total income tax share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54
1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93
1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28
1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17
1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19
1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52
1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94
1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19
1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23
1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39
1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68
1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72
1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79
1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00
2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09
N/A-- Not applicable.
[1] The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million.
[2] For Table 1, constant dollars were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U, 1982-84=100). For 2000 the CPI-U = 172.2
[3] Total income tax is the sum of income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax reported on returns that showed a positive amount for adjusted gross income. Therefore, total income tax excludes alternative minimum tax, Form 8814 tax (tax on a child's interest or dividends), and Form 4972 tax (tax on lump-sum distributions from qualified retirement plans) reported on some returns with a negative amount for adjusted gross income. See also footnote 1.
[4] The average tax rate was computed by dividing total income tax (see footnote 3) by (positive) adjusted gross income.
Note: Unles otherwise stated, money amounts are in current (not constant) denominations.
Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.
read em' and weep boys! Wwwwwhhhooooooooo, full house . We going to America!
Posted by jay at June 8, 2005 03:47 PMmuckdog,
Tiger Woods probably pays NO social security tax because social security only applies to wages from employment. It does not apply to prizes, money won at gambling, capital gains, dividends, or other types of income. Therefore, since his winnings are from purses, I doubt he pays any SS.
Jay,
You cite only income tax statistics. Those are misleading in that most working people pay more in employment taxes (SS and Medicare) than they do in income taxes. Also, many rich people may have substantial amount of income that isn't subject to income taxes such as dividend, trust, or capital gain income. A substantial part of the Bush tax relief is reduction of the capital gains and dividend tax. You need to look at the total tax burden. The top 0.1% of all taxpayers received 15% of all tax relief. The bottom 60% received the same percentage of tax relief, 15%. The bottom 60% received tax "relief of $300, or $0.82/day. Wow, every 3 days or so they can buy a cup of coffee. The tax relief of the top 1% averaged over $100,000. Enough to get what they need, 2 more Mercedes.
By the way, just as to income taxes, you note that the top 1% pays 10 times as much as the bottom 50%. Well, that's because they have all the money. The top 0.1% earn almost 8% of all income. The top 1% of taxpayers have average assets of over $10 million dollars. The disparity of wealth and income in this country is the greatest it's been since the Great Depression. It takes a lot of people earning $20,000/yr to match someone making $3 million/yr. You seem joyous about this, me, not so much.
Posted by Dick(no, not that one) at June 8, 2005 04:27 PMJay,
It's kind of interesting that you post Clinton era numbers. As you know, we have a different tax system now. According to the NY times, since 2000, the top 0.1% of taxpayers have received 15% of the tax relief. The top 1%, those with incomes over $383,000, received over 30% of the tax relief. Of course, this means the really rich are now really really rich. On the other end, the bottom 60% got the same total of relief as the top 0.1% (that's one one/thousandth).
You probably know that the average salary of all nonsupervisory employees is only $27,00/yr., or $540/wk. After paying rent(no way to afford to buy) car, heat, employment taxes, food for the kids,health care(can't afford $400/mo.for insurance) gosh there just isn't much to give Uncle Sam for the $450 billion defense budget is there?
Posted by Dick(no, not that one) at June 8, 2005 04:42 PMCall it the Tiger Woods effect. The nation's highest-paid athlete — $80 million last year, Forbes magazine estimates — illustrates how Social Security tax hikes and benefit cuts would work:
•Cut Woods' benefits The golfer's benefit would be reduced by about $3,500 a year starting in 2042 when Woods turns 67, under the plan mentioned by Bush.
•Tax Woods' first $140,000 of income. The golfer would pay an extra $6,200 a year if the amount of income covered by the Social Security tax were raised from $90,000 to $140,000, a figure on the high end of recent proposals.
•Tax all of Woods' earnings. The golfer would pay $10 million in Social Security taxes a year, up from $11,160.
Social Security's long-term deficit — $3.7 trillion over 75 years — is so severe that little short of $10 million a year from Tiger Woods and comparable amounts from other rich people will bring the system into balance.
(snip)
• NBA star Shaquille O'Neal's three-year, $87 million contract would produce $11 million in new taxes.
• Actress Julia Roberts would pay $2.4 million in additional taxes on a $20 million movie contract.
• Jay Leno and David Letterman would pay a combined $7 million a year in new taxes.
• Billionaire Sumner Redstone, the nation's 20th richest man, would pay $2.7 million in additional taxes on his $21.5 million salary and bonus at Viacom, which owns CBS and MTV.
(see link for more)
An important point the article makes, is that the rich CEOs could avoid this tax by reclassifying their income as being mostly from dividends.
Posted by muckdog at June 8, 2005 04:47 PMMaybe it'd just be best to create a new browser Favorites folder called "Moonbats," and drop the link to DeLong's blog in there. Posted by muckdog
Bill Moyers was correct: even more than he hates liberals, nuckdog hates truth.
read em' and weep boys! Wwwwwhhhooooooooo, full house . We going to America! Posted by jay Unfortunately, you are comprehension challenged. Try to read the post again: higher income people pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than a poorer person. Your numbers don't dispute it. Dat's da fact, jack.
jay,
Mike is right, you are comprehension challenged.
But, you might be less so if you read this.
CROW
Posted by rooster, they come to kill thee at June 8, 2005 05:15 PMSorry about the unwanted ad, my computer is acting funny. The link is www.lcurve.org.
The L curve explains the fallacy the jay has fallen into. Check out the link, it makes sense.
Tailfeathers between my legs...but not for long. : )
Posted by rooster, they come to kill thee at June 8, 2005 05:21 PMThanks for posting the article Mary. Yeah, it has SS and medicare tax in it. I think that makes it a weak arguement for upper crust class warfare. I don't think someone making $150k hates the superrich that don't have to pay as high a % of their income on SS tax. They wish they didn't have to pay any themseleves for the most part.. The article does make an interesting point though. More and more people are being captured under the AMT. It will be interesting to see how that plays out as more and more "middle class" has to pay this higher tax. I guess eventually we'll more or less have a flat tax if the AMT numbers are never adjusted...
Jay's numbers seem similar to the numbers I've heard. It's hard to say the superrich don't pay their fair share when it's most of our tax base. Please post a link to where those numbers came from.
Thanks again for doing my legwork Mary.
Posted by Tex at June 9, 2005 09:13 AMIt's hard to say the superrich don't pay their fair share when it's most of our tax base.
It depends how you define 'fair share'.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 11:06 AMHere's an article I saw today that was kind of interesting in light of this topic...
Posted by Tex at June 9, 2005 12:23 PM8.3 million people, or just over .001% of the world population, control 25% of the worlds wealth.
Interesting indeed.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 02:34 PM