The End of Welfare as We Don't Know It

Tresy Kilbourne tresyk at halcyon.com
Mon Oct 12 18:24:18 PDT 1998


Max Sawicky writes:


>> Max Sawicky writes:
>>
>> >The tax burden on middle class has been very stable
>> >for the past twenty years.
>>
>> Social security taxes have been raised 9 times since 1977, and have
>
>They could have been increased a million times,
>and it would be meaningless. The question is by
>how much, and to what end.
>
>> increased 31%.
Answering your question.
>
>31 percent of what?
Over the 1977 rate. What else? Your original statement was that the burden on the ordinary Joe has remained "stable." This is called "counterevidence."
>
>> This of course is a tax that only affects the first
>> $55,000 of income. >
>
>$68,400 now, but don't let that slow you down.
Here's a thypo. Why don't you mock me about that while you are at it? It scores big debating points in cyberspace when you ignore a valid point to nitpick a meaningless slip.
>
>>From 1971 to 1991, the combined tax bills of
>> median-income families increased 329 percent. (Barlett & Steele, "Who
>
>Interesting phrase, "combined tax bills of
>median income families." What in the world
>could it mean? If it means the taxes of a
>typical middle-income family, then the
>statement is total bullshit, and Barlett &
>Steele can't count.

I assume State, federal, local, Medicare, and Social Security taxes, which is what they refer to in most cases. I just wrote them email asking for clarification. I will post any reply.
>
>As a side note, the size of government increased
>between 71 and 76 or so, so the taxes paid were
>not unrequited.

I'm sorry--you dropped the word "increased" before "taxes". Thanks for abandoning your original claim about a stable burden.
>
>> Really Pays the Taxes?" p. 104) The government now taxes unemployment
>> benefits. Some stable burden.
>
>UE benefits are taxable, and there is nothing
>wrong with this; they are usually not actually taxed
>because the family's income falls below or near the
>zero bracket. If two families get $30,000 in income,
>one totally from wages and the other from wages and UE,
>I would stand behind the notion that both should pay the
>same tax (actually, the UE family is somewhat better off
>and has better ability to pay, relatively speaking,
>but leave that aside).

UE compensation is insurance; insurance proceeds are generally not taxable, for the very good reason that the premiums paid were taxed once already, so to tax the proceeds is a form of double taxation. But leave that aside. Again, your original claim was that tax burden on ordinary Americans had remained stable over the last 20 years. Making UE taxable in 1986 (or whenever it was, let's not nitpick), when it wasn't before, is evidence to the contrary.
>
>Poor people pay little or no Federal income tax, as a rule.
Tell that to Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley.
>
>>
>> >The share of taxes paid
>> >by the rich has gone up a lot (because their income
>> >share has).
>> While the top tax rate was slashed from 70% in 1977 to 39.6% in 1994. I
>
>The base was broadened, restoring the same burden,
>roughly speaking. The burden went down between 81
>and 86, up from 86 to 97, and probably down since.
>I noted in another post that it has bounced around
>more than for other groups.

Since you are so keen on details from your opponents, please define "base," "broadened," "burden," "roughly speaking," (imagine if Barlett and Steele wrote that way!) "down" and "up." If by "burden" you mean the share of the tax pie paid by the top 10%, that particular measure remains flummery to me. What difference does it make to the millionaire taxpayer what anyone else is paying what if his marginal rate has dropped nearly 50%? The burden on him has gone down. Period.
>
>> don't know anyone who cares what their class' share of the overall tax
>> burden is; given a choice between their class paying a smaller share and
>> themselves paying a lower tax rate, anyone is going to choose the latter.
>> Put the bottom 90% out of work and the share of the top 10% goes to
>> 100%, whatever the tax rate. Big deal. Focussing on share of the overall
>> tax burden is flummery.
>
>I didn't focus on it. I mentioned it.
And it's a bogus measure, for reasons you have not refuted.
>
>> Item: in 1991 with an income of $1,324,456, George Bush paid $239,083 in
>> federal, state, and local taxes, for an effective tax rate of 18 percent.
>
>Nice data point. The President of the U.S. Owned a
>vacant lot in Texas so was able to claim residency
>there and pay no state-local income tax.
A tax perk hardly available to people of all classes, of course, which supports my point.
>Doesn't
>have a lot of restaurant and grocery bills.
Yeah, that 6% sales tax on a few thousand dollars in grocery bills would really knock the hell out of those numbers. Good math!


>> A typical middle-income family in Oregon making an AGI of $43,690 paid 26
>> percent of their income in taxes (excluding things like gas taxes and
>> such). (Who Really Pays the Taxes? p. 295.) The tax lobbyists for Bush
>> and his fellow Yalies are clearly earning their retainers.
>
>And your point was . . . ?
Unrefuted.
>
>If people want reliable numbers on these issues,
Translation: numbers that agree with your position. Since you have not identified a single error in the above data (other than my own inconsequential slip about the SS cutoff), your implication is unwarranted. I will, however, check out those references. Maybe they will supply the data so conspicuously absent from your "rebuttal."

_____________ Tresy Kilbourne Seattle WA PGP Keys <mailto:tresyk at halcyon.com?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list