DMC already explained the obvious on these things. But, since you are making these claims, could you kindly provide us with cites so we can evaluate your claims?
Most excellent! 
[QUOTE=Debaser]
Bad cite. They are showing figures for total taxes. They are including state and local taxes, things which Bush has no control over.
[quote]
Well, we’ve already discussed in other threads how disingenuous this sort of argument is. Bush has plenty of control over things like unfunded or underfunded mandates and giving the states help for increased costs (such as for security after 9/11). It is not like it would take a genius to predict that if taxes are cut at the federal level, the states and localities are going to end up having to raise theirs.
However, let’s just stick to federal taxes if you want. That CTJ table doesn’t list it directly, but it gives enough info to calculate it under one assumption that ought to hold, which is that the difference between “Total under pre-Bush law” and “Total taxes now” is entirely due to changes in the federal tax code. (Some states tie certain aspects of their income tax to the federal code…such as definitions of income…so technically state taxes might have changed a little bit as a result of the federal changes, but I doubt that CTJ accounted for that small effect that would vary from state to state.) Then, we find that the lowest 20% received an 8% reduction in their federal tax burden, the middle quintile received an 11% reduction and the top 1% received a 15% reduction. This is not surprising since Bush cut the income tax which is the most progressive tax we have while not doing anything about the much more regressive payroll taxes.
It is not punishment. It is merely noting that we have structured society to be very good to them while doing diddly-squat for everyone else, so we might want to trade-off having them do slightly less good so everyone else might do a little better. Maybe rather than having their after-tax incomes rise by 200% while those at the median rose 15%, the taxes could be structured so their after-tax incomes rise by 190% while those at the median rise by 18%. (I am just making up numbers that I think are roughly reasonable.) If this is punishment in your mind, it is a bizarre conception of it.
However, we aren’t even talking about raising their taxes. We are simply talking about not lowering their taxes (and to a greater degree than anyone else’s). So let’s turn it around and see what Bush policy you are endorsing.— The top 1% saw their after-tax income increase by 200% while the median saw it increase by 15%. Bush’s solution: Cut the taxes on the rich more than the poor so that the difference is even more magnified. Or, in other words, “inequality isn’t increasing fast enough!”
Well, for one thing, this statement about what the bottom 50% pay tells you nothing about the rate that they pay. Most of the reason that they pay so little is that they get such a small percentage of the income. In fact, if their income share was also only 4% then this would mean that they were paying at the same average rate than everyone else. Admittedly, in reality their income share is somewhat higher (I seem to recall something like 12%) which does show the income tax is progressive at the bottom. However, Bush made a conscious choice when he decided to go after the income tax, the most progressive tax we got outside of the estate tax (which he eliminated totally). He could have done something about the payroll tax (given that they have been borrowing on the surplus revenues from this tax for years and it is not clear when it will be paid back). Or, he could have challenged the states to cut some of their more regressive taxes (perhaps in return for giving them more federal help on increased security costs and stuff).
Well, we’ve already discussed in other threads how disingenuous this sort of argument is. Bush has plenty of control over things like unfunded or underfunded mandates and giving the states help for increased costs (such as for security after 9/11). It is not like it would take a genius to predict that if taxes are cut at the federal level, the states and localities are going to end up having to raise theirs.
However, let’s just stick to federal taxes if you want. That CTJ table doesn’t list it directly, but it gives enough info to calculate it under one assumption that ought to hold, which is that the difference between “Total under pre-Bush law” and “Total taxes now” is entirely due to changes in the federal tax code. (Some states tie certain aspects of their income tax to the federal code…such as definitions of income…so technically state taxes might have changed a little bit as a result of the federal changes, but I doubt that CTJ accounted for that small effect that would vary from state to state.) Then, we find that the lowest 20% received an 8% reduction in their federal tax burden, the middle quintile received an 11% reduction and the top 1% received a 15% reduction. This is not surprising since Bush cut the income tax which is the most progressive tax we have while not doing anything about the much more regressive payroll taxes.
It is not punishment. It is merely noting that we have structured society to be very good to them while doing diddly-squat for everyone else, so we might want to trade-off having them do slightly less good so everyone else might do a little better. Maybe rather than having their after-tax incomes rise by 200% while those at the median rose 15%, the taxes could be structured so their after-tax incomes rise by 190% while those at the median rise by 18%. (I am just making up numbers that I think are roughly reasonable.) If this is punishment in your mind, it is a bizarre conception of it.
However, we aren’t even talking about raising their taxes. We are simply talking about not lowering their taxes (and to a greater degree than anyone else’s). So let’s turn it around and see what Bush policy you are endorsing.— The top 1% saw their after-tax income increase by 200% while the median saw it increase by 15%. Bush’s solution: Cut the taxes on the rich more than the poor so that the difference is even more magnified. Or, in other words, “inequality isn’t increasing fast enough!”
Well, for one thing, this statement about what the bottom 50% pay tells you nothing about the rate that they pay. Most of the reason that they pay so little is that they get such a small percentage of the income. In fact, if their income share was also only 4% then this would mean that they were paying at the same average rate than everyone else. Admittedly, in reality their income share is somewhat higher (I seem to recall something like 12%) which does show the income tax is progressive at the bottom. However, Bush made a conscious choice when he decided to go after the income tax, the most progressive tax we got outside of the estate tax (which he eliminated totally). He could have done something about the payroll tax (given that they have been borrowing on the surplus revenues from this tax for years and it is not clear when it will be paid back). Or, he could have challenged the states to cut some of their more regressive taxes (perhaps in return for giving them more federal help on increased security costs and stuff).
Well, this is a convenient point-of-view to have but there is like zero evidence to support it. And, as I noted: (1) people only make such investments if they believe they will be able to sell their products, i.e., there is sufficient demand; (2) much of the money returned to the poor and middle class ends up in the hands of the rich in no short order anyway, but at least they’ve gotten to buy some stuff they need with it.
I agree which is why I think it is so amazing that Bush has taken so much credit for the recovery and why people haven’t questioned the value of what we got for the cost in increased deficits that will need to be paid off eventually. Even if you used Bush’s own claims for how many jobs his tax cuts would create, the cost per job is so high that we’d be better off just putting people on the government payroll. And, the evidence is that the “stimulus package” hasn’t even lived up to these claims.
Sure…It is a central part of his campaign. What he has to do is at least confuse the non-rich people on the issue of who is going to look after their interests more so that he negates that issue. If he doesn’t effectively negate it, he probably loses.
They are not fools, but unless they are willing to spend a lot of time to research these things, they are likely not have too good an understanding of them and so they can be easily deceived. Not everyone has hours of free time every week to devote to studying this stuff, as I have done.
Ignore the first of my last 2 posts, which was incomplete and has quote coding all screwed up…I didn’t mean to submit it (and didn’t even know I had).
The second one is the corrected one.
Thanks. I know it doesn’t look like most times, but I really am trying to meet you in the middle somewhere. If I could just be sure the area between us wasn’t a bottomless chasm. 
There goes GWB again, who, like his father was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
Here is why Bush’s comments cited in the OP are as stupid and vulgar as they come.
- “Those rich people.” Waitasec, GWB himself is one of them. He should be saying, “We can dodge them.” So what’s his own experience? Does he dodge taxes as much as possible? How? If he doesn’t, then I guess there is a certain percentage of rich folk who don’t. What are the numbers?
I’m not accusing Bush here of dodging taxes. I’m accusing him of failing to connect the dots, which failure is a regular thing for him. I’m 100% confident that he has never played with the numbers on Excel to see what options are available, what is practical and what is not. For GWB, a sound byte is always good enough.
- “They just dodge taxes.” As during the 7 Pet Goat Minutes, GWB doesn’t see himself in a position actually to change things for the better in the country. Could the President make an effort to change the tax code so that it is actually fair and simple? Nah. Can’t remember Uncle Dick ever putting that on my to-do list.
GWB: what an idiot, what a complete tool.
If Rush Limbaugh wants to get on this board and agree with me that’s his business. Tying me to him is a strawman tactic so I’m calling you on it.
Look, you made the claim that after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are paying a higher share of the tax load than they were before. This is manifestly untrue. (The only way you can conclude this is if you consider only the federal income tax in isolation, which is what the Bush treasury dept did to arrive at this deceptive claim.) Now, you are trying to claim that somehow all other taxes don’t count because they are “user fee based” or they tax things you think are subsidized in other ways for poor people, or because you ignore them (sales tax on goods such as clothing, for example, property taxes)…
However, you have conveniently ignored any subsidies going to wealthy people and you haven’t even explained how one can calculate how much each person benefits from society. I’ll leave you with two thoughts on this:
(1) Given the choice of the subsidy that a poor person who lives in subsidized housing receives and the subsidy/ corporate welfare or whatever you want to call it that the Chairman and stockholders of Halliburton receive, I’ll take the latter, thank you very much.
(2) My guess is that Bill Gates, with the same inborn talent, would be a hell of a lot poorer in a “state of nature” without society to provide all the trappings he needs to amass his enormous wealth. I’d venture a guess that he has gained more from society than the average Joe on subsidized housing.
I think he is talking about in terms of job growth, for example.
Well, in Kennedy’s day the top marginal rate was up to the point where one had a much better argument that it was close to confiscatory. Also, one has to be careful at looking at cuts in tax rates where there are also other reforms because if you close loopholes at the same time you cut tax rates, you may not end up cutting the effective rate people pay. A better example to look at might be the Reagan tax cuts, which still cut top rates from higher values than they are today but less high. And, the not-surprising result was that growth in government revenues in real (inflation-adjusted) terms from income taxes in that decade were anemic compared to the 1990s or even the 1970s.
As for percentage of millionaires, I am not sure about that, but inequality followed a U-shaped curve, high at the beginning, decreasing in the middle and increasing again at the end. I don’t think the inequality increase really started until sometime in the 70s or even around 1980.
I meant no offense. Your arguments sounded very much like those I’ve heard him make. If you say you have not heard them there, I’ll take your word on it. My appologies for any offense. It was not intended.
No, we are talking about taxes. This includes much more than simply the federal income tax.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that property taxes are only used to improve the value of property? Perhaps your using some odd difinition of “user fee”. Under most common useage of the word, “taxes” means any and all methods that governments use to raise money. You could legitametly limit any particular analysis, but you need to say so. You can’t say taxes and then expect everyone to know you mean only federal income taxes. You also cannot speak to fairness without addressing the other ways that governments fund themselves. For instance, I don’t think it would be correct to talk about the fairness of how much of the economy governments control without including a mention of the portion which they control seperate from taxes. That is, it is fine and dandy to say that Americans pay something like 40% of GDP in the form of taxes (whether you think it is too high, or too low), but you should also address the fairness of the government mandating other expenditures as well.
This is a good point. If you are going to look at the inherent fairness of any set of policies, you have to look at the net taxes. Do you have a cite to demonstrate that the numers work out as you suggest?
Indeed they are not. If anyone in here has suggested that bring it to everyone’s attention. It is a blatent lie.
1)That’s not the way it works. You ahve to defend your assertions. 2)You meant that you arrived at them through personal experience. 3)That’s ok with me. I’ll take your word for it, and I just wanted some sort of source besides your blind assertion.
Sigh. I take a step in your direction, and you have to pull the rug out.
Well, he indicated something like this, but he was talking more about direct monetary benifits than you are, I think.
What you consistently fail to realize is that by and large these two things are not seperable. Subsidy programs by their very nature are programs for the government to give money away. As such, they give money to the people with the most political pull.
But you keep refusing to see this the other way. The average Joe recieved much more from Bill Gates than Gates did from Joe. Let’s not go down the unproductive path of arguing whether or not Gates is necessary to society. I’ll just say that the wealth created by Gates was not created because of the roads, social safety net, nor even the army or police forces. I agree that he did not create the wealth in a vacuum. But he did create it. If he had not, all the government programs in the world would not have replaced it.
No. Just so we are clear, when I ask someone to justify an assertion, I am not trying to trick them into making a shot at Bush. I am genuinly interested in hearing where they got thier information.
Yes, the document you linked to in another thread did indeed show this inequality increasing starting in the late 70s. Just as America was transitioning from a manufacturing to a service economy, BTW, which could certianly serve as an alternative explanation for the phenomena.
Ah, but you have to CREATE the corporation before you get the benefit. I’m not arguing for corporate welfare-- quite the opposite. But you seem to imply that corporations just spring out of the ground and land in the hands of some lucky person.
So what? Does Bill Gates not pay taxes? Does he not pay a LOT of taxes? You keep saying the rich should pay more since they get more. But the DO pay more. What is your formula for **how much more ** a rich person should pay than a poor person, or more apprpriately, someone in the middle?
I asked you this earlier, and I don’t believe I got an answer. You like to point out that “the rich” owe society for what they’ve gotten. Just how much does a welfare recipient have to do, other than being born, to merit welfare from society? What does a welfare recipient owe a society that gives him the very necessities to stay alive?
** hmmmm. I always played by scrabble rules in debate (prove me wrong). Since proof is a 2 way street I don’t know how to answer you. I also try to keep my debate form to arguments of logic (which allows for the grace of common sense).
I’ve never seen any publications that added up all the taxes and benefits. Probably because it is so subjective (much like the Citizens for Tax Justice). Is an airport that gets Federal funds a welfare benefit to the wealthy? If a wealthy pilot generates jobs because of the airport is that a revenue gain for the Government? IMO, it is easier (nay mandatory) to talk about actual cash when discussing taxes and subsidies. **
No problem. I think you did answer me. You said your stock portfolio dropped and then rose more quickly than other recessions. I take your word for it, and consider this the evidence I was asking for. I’m sure someone will come along and point out that there is an official start and end date of recessions based on broad economic indicators. But I was not really asking for that.
Yea, it is probably impossible to measure some of the other effects. I did see an article long ago which tried to measure the “net tax” rate. But I can no longer find it. It suggested that the rich (or at least the non poor, I’m not sure) get quite a bit more benifit from government handouts than the poor.
Thanks. I agree that Limbaugh wastes a lot of his talent. I often find myself screaming at him (figuratively) “You can’t prove that point that way!” Not because I disagree with his conclusion, but because I can see the logical problems with the simplification he has made. BTW, he has said many times that his goal is not influence (this may have changed). His goals is simply and plainly to get and deliver to advertisers listeners.
This would help. It took me several years to stop doing that. I get into a rhetorical mood, and the “alls” and “everys” start coming out.
Fair enough. I tend to define user fees more restrictively. That is money is a user fee if it is directly paid for a specific service. For instance we have to pay to use some campgrounds around here. This is a user fee. It doesn’t necessarily pay the complete cost of the service, but it has a much more voluntary quality to it than most other taxes. What if you lived in a city with an income tax? Would that be a user fee?
Your information is incorrect. Rose Kennedy was a legal resident of 1095 North Ocean Boulevard, in Palm Beach, Florida for 62 years. Although I do not know for certain the last time that she was there, she was staying there as recently as 1991. Her death was in January of 1995. The property remained her her possession until her death.
I don’t have any magic formula. As I have told pervert, I don’t think it is easy to come up with a priori formulae. I am more of an incrementalist…You look at where we are now and you try to figure out the right direction to head in. And, I find it hard to understand how someone can look at the distribution of gains that have been experienced between about 1979 and 2000 and conclude that the direction that we ought to be headed is to give rich people more of a break. In fact, it kind of boggles my mind.
So, I would turn the question around more to the practical question that we are actually facing (which is not making the tax system more progressive than it was in 2000 but making it less so): How much flatter do you want Bush to make the tax system than it was in 2000 or is now?
Yes, certainly we do not know for sure why this happened. And, there is quite a bit of debate on this even on the liberal side of the spectrum. For example, James Galbraith, the son of John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a book “Created Unequal” arguing a very different mechanism (mainly a tight monetary policy, I believe, although I may be oversimplifying) than that proposed by Robert Frank and Philip Cook in “The Winner-Take-All Society”. It is an interesting question but unfortunately one in which the discussion seems to be rather limited because so many people on the right, through even the Clinton Democrats, seem to want to avoid discussions of inequality altogether…almost like it is not a subject for polite company.
I know you may not want to hear this, but part of the reason this is so hard to discuss is because of the focus on inequality as an evil unto itself. Forgive the way this sounds, but focusing on income inequality is somewhat distastful. If, for instance you were to use rhetoric more directed at economic growth, or even opportunity growth (but again without focusing on inequality) you might find more interesting discusions.