>>> Social security taxes have been raised 9 times since 1977, and have
increased 31% . . . Over the 1977 rate.
. . .
Your original statement was that the burden on the ordinary Joe has remained
"stable." This is called "counterevidence.">>
Me: If we are talking about all taxes relative to all income, it is not evidence of anything. Both your numerator and denominator are grossly incomplete.
You:
>>> This of course is a tax that only affects the first
>>> $55,000 of income. >
>>
>Here's a thypo. Why don't you mock me about that while you are at it?>
Me: If the right number is $68, than $86 or $66 or $56 could be typos. $55,000 is what we call an error. My mockery wath prompted by the depth of sarcasm in your own post, which was not matched by the depth of knowledge.
You:
> It scores big debating points in cyberspace when you ignore a valid point
to nitpick a meaningless slip.>>
Me: I didn't need the extra points.
You:
>>>From 1971 to 1991, the combined tax bills of
>>> median-income families increased 329 percent. (Barlett & Steele, . . .
>>
Me:
>>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.
You:
>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.>>
Me:
>>As a side note, the size of government increased
>>between 71 and 76 or so, so the taxes paid were
>>not unrequited.
You:
>I'm sorry--you dropped the word "increased" before "taxes". Thanks for
abandoning your original claim about a stable burden.>>
Me: I maintain my claim. I was rebutting your anti-tax rhetoric.
You:
>>> Really Pays the Taxes?" p. 104) The government now taxes unemployment
benefits. Some stable burden.>>
>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,>
me: I will. It's irrelevant, with the added disadvantage of being inaccurate. UE is social insurance, not just "insurance." Public and private insurance proceeds are taxed in some instances, including social insurance (e.g., Social Security). UE taxes are not taxed; they are paid by the employer and do not appear on your pay stub or W-2. But let's not nitpick.
< 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.>>
Nope. Same error as above. It's like saying if I deny robbing a liquor store in New York and was sighted several miles north of D.C. on I-95, this is "evidence to the contrary."
Me:
>>Poor people pay little or no Federal income tax, as a rule.
You:
>Tell that to Leona "Only the little people pay taxes" Helmsley.>>
Me: Hey everybody, here's a game. Take out your Federal income tax forms, fill in a poverty level income, and see how much tax you would owe. (Don't forget to file for the EITC.)
You:
>Since you are so keen on details from your opponents, please define "base,"
"broadened," "burden," "roughly speaking,"
Me: No I won't. It's too tedious.
You: <(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.>
No I don't, and I was quite explicit about it.
You:
. . .
>>> 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.>>
Me:
>>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.
You:
>A tax perk hardly available to people of all classes, of course, which
supports my point.
Me: The president's taxes could have been zero and it would not rebut the assertion that tax burdens on the middle class have been stable for at least two decades. Nor even another assertion which I didn't make, that under the Federal personal income tax, the rich on average pay much more than the middle class.
Then you consult some sources and quote Greider, who I like but who is slightly over-excited in the following (note that "startlingly one-sided" is Greider's phrase):
<<"From 1977 to 1990, Congress enacted seven major tax bills and many other minor ones, raising or lowering tax liabilities for individuals and corporations. the results of this legislative torrent are startlingly one-sided. *Citizens for Tax Justice*, a labor-supported advocacy group, calculated the cumulative effects:
"If Congress had done nothing since 1977 to alter the U.S. tax code, passed no new legislation at all, nine out of ten American families would be paying less. That is, a smaller share of their incomes would be devoted to federal taxes. >>
Me: If we're arguing about whether the share changed, then this is irrelevant. If the law hadn't changed, shares for some would be smaller, sez CTJ. The law did change, and my point was that shares hadn't changed much for the middle of the income distribution.
You, quoting: <<"Yet, paradoxically, the government would be collecting more revenue each year--almost $70 billion more--if none of those tax bills had been enacted.>>
Me: The implication -- that smaller shares would have resulted in paradoxically higher revenues is silly. The economy grew, so the share could go down and still produce more revenue. Taxes were cut, and if they hadn't been we'd have had more revenue. Duh.
You: <<"How to explain this? Where did all that money go? ...[I]t went to corporations and to the one in ten families at the top of the income ladder. Their taxes were cut by spectacular dimensions.>>
Me: I did say the burden for the top bounced around more than for the rest. "Spectacular," with due respect to CTJ, is a political word in this context. Nor does it speak to the numbers' veracity.
You, still quoting: <<The tax burden on the richest 1 percent of the population fell cumulatively be a staggering 36 percent, compared to what they would have owed under the 1977 tax code. As politicians from both parties congratulated themselves on delivering one tax cut after another, families in the very middle of the income ladder experienced a 7 percent increase in their federal tax burden.">>
Me: Here at least you're making a more profound mistake, abetted by a little CTJ hype. The 1977 code was not indexed to inflation. Failure to do so was pushing more people into higher brackets, and raising burdens at the top. The appropriateness of the 1977 law as a counterfactual is highly debatable. So the implied boon to the rich is overstated; it does depend on some interpretation, not just calculations.
Then there is still the 7 percent increase noted. It should be noted that this is a percent of a percent of a percent. On the surface we're comparing the change in one tax to the liability from that tax as a share of income. But we are really talking about the change in a particular tax, versus all taxes, versus income. So if the Federal income tax is 22 percent of all taxes, and all taxes are thirty percent of all income, then a seven percent change in Federal income tax is less than half a percent of income (.3 x .22 x .07). In other words, stable.
>Guess it depends on how one defines "stable burden," eh?
Yes it does.
MBS
P.S. Another source is the latest "State of Working America."