On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Max Sawicky wrote:
> My response is that I would only credit the 1993 bill for the increases
> that have been paid because of the 1993 tax bill - namely the $60-75
> billion per year I estimated.
>
> [mbs] By CBO numbers, it's more like $15-20b, tho I
> have not demonstrated it here. The surplus is now
> projected at $240b annual for FY2001.
Max, if the richest 1% pay 30% of all income taxes (est. at $999 billion, OMB mid-session review for 2000), then that group pays $300 billion per year in income taxes.
By your estimate, that means that raising the top rate to 39.6% from 31% added only $15-20 billion per year, or roughly 5-7.5%.
So you seem to be making the conservative supply-side argument that raising rates on the wealthy doesn't make any difference. Here the 1993 bill raised the top rate by 30% and you are arguing that it delivered only 5% more revenue per year than if the bill had never been passed.
I disagree with your numbers (and why I should believe a GOP-run CBO is beyond me), but more fundamentally, I just find it astounding that you are arguing that tax-the-rich politics are so ineffective.
>From your arguments, the only significant reason for the surplus is
economic growth.
So from your arguments, the basic message seems to be, forget tax-the-rich politics-- go for growth. Now you obviously favor Keynesian-based demand side growth, but you still seem to be making the case that taxing the rich makes little difference compared to such a growth strategy.
I don't know, but it seems like blind animus to the fact that Clinton might get credit is making you twist methodology to argue for the ineffectiveness of raising taxes on the wealthy.
So let me turn it around. If the 1993 bill didn't get the rich to pay more taxes, is there any kind of tax increase legislation that would?
-- Nathan Newman