Text 3753, 144 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 16:02:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4226.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <h3kva25ksbttrjcj88vkiqvdb8061rpife@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-347578.16595402072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:25:18 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <a7uta25dnh2e14m4b7669mtogqr62a9n1d@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> In fact, even if most of the money and benefits hadn't gone directly
>> >> to the rich, which is to say each rich taxpayer saved a /lot/ more
>> >> money on his tax bill than each middle class taxpayer
>> >
>> >And was and *still* is paying more of a percentage of his income than 
>> >the middle class taxpayer.  You're being disingenuous by concentrating 
>> >only on the refund and ignoring the higher proportionate tax bill that 
>> >came first.
>> 
>> Er, no, not necessarily. For example, in 2000, the richest 400
>> taxpayers paid an average of 27% of their income in taxes while
>> everyone else paid 40%:
>
>
>> http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes
>
>  Interesting that this doesn't give a citation.  Especially interesting 
>since the IRS figures don't cut it anywhere near that fine. From the 
>stuff I can find, I would be willing to place a great deal of money on 
>the wager that they saw the 400 in the spreadsheet and sorta missed that 
>little thing at the top that indicates the Number of returns (1000s). 
>
>
>Since I can't find the initial information, I have to go with the IRS 
>figures that show that the top 1% have 16% of the income and yet pay 
>over a third of the taxes. 
>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html. Hard to argue that you have 
>such low rates while paying twice the amount of taxes.
>     The closest I can find from IRS stats is:
>Table 5.--Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross 
>Income (AGI): Number of Returns,             
>Shares of AGI and Total 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 1985-2003          
>
>    That shows that the average tax rate for the total population was 
>11.90% while the top 1% paid 24.30% tax rate. 

While I can't attest to the accuracy of their statistics, the figures
to which you've referred refer only to income tax, which is among the
most progressive of taxes, while omitting regressive taxes such as
Social Security.

Also, you're argument that "it's hard to argue that you have 
such low rates while paying twice the amount of taxes" doesn't seem to
me meaningful. The concentration of wealth in this country is nothing
short of astounding. It could just as easily reflect that.

>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp

>  Actually click on the link in the first sentence and it will send you 
>an Xcel spreadsheet with the information, since you are probably going 
>to write off as heresay ANYTHING the National Review has to say. 

No, writing off inconvenient evidence as hearsay is a conservative
trick (which you've used yourself above).

What I did notice about the article is that its premises are
nonsensical, since it doesn't account for rising /income/ among the
rich. Had they had honest intent, they would have a) included all
taxes; b) made a fair assessment of income; and c) referred to
percentage of income paid. In short, they would have done just what my
source did.

And their failure to do that is another typical conservative trick. 

Which isn't to say that both sides don't use tricks, e.g., the liberal
site has picked the statistics that are most flattering to its case
while the conservative article did the opposite. But the conservatives
have much the weaker case.

>   Another IRS spreadsheet that might have been the initial source for 
>the dubious information is Table 474. Individual Income Tax 
>Returns--Number, Income Tax,           
>and Average Tax by Size of Adjusted Gross Income: 2000 and 2002            
>
>http://qrc.depaul.edu/TableListing.asp?n=9
>    Those making $1 million or more (169,000 returns) paid 29% of their 
>adjusted gross income in taxes compared with 16% for the total 
>population. There were similar findings for the next two breakouts which 
>gets us to $200,000 or so per year. 
>      So, this all adds up to your other figure being suspect at best 
>and dead most likely.

It just means that you're comparing apples to oranges and then using
that to ignore figures that you don't find politically appealing.

>It also mean shows that those at the higher levels 
>of income pay higher percentages of said income in taxes than the total. 

Perhaps. If you ignore the very richest. If you ignore all the other
taxes. But neither are realistic assumptions. They'll be even less
realistic when a) the Republicans abolish the alternative minimum tax
on the pretext that it affects the middle class*; we'll go back to the
days when people earning a million dollars a year paid no income taxes
and b) the Republicans abolish the estate tax.

*If their concern were actually with middle class liability they'd
merely raise the floor; ditto for all that whining about family farms
and small businesses in the case of the estate tax

>> And even to the extent that that isn't the case, my assertion that
>> each rich taxpayer benefited far more than each middle class taxpayer
>> remains correct.

>        So even if you are wrong you are right? Interesting concept (g).
> However, the figures show that even if they benefited far more, they 
>PAID for more.

Except for the minor fact that they don't show that at all.

I would be interested in seeing an honest accounting that's more
thorough than what I've seen on various web sites, but this
information is fairly hard to come by.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                                                                               
                            
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)