Crucial component of early Bush tax cut

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Tue Jan 30 14:53:33 PST 2001


the trick in the cap gains numbers is to emphasize the number of people receiving at least one cent in capital gains, not the amount of capital gains received by all but the rich. Cap gains receipts are higher than they might otherwise be because the market is high, not to mention over-valued.

mbs


>From the Washington Times:

"If income is defined as income earned other than from investments - as it should - more than 50 percent of capital gains go to lower- and middle-class individuals. The typical household declaring a capital gain had income from other sources of only $58,729 - not bad, but not rich. Another 27 percent were elderly or blind - with incomes averaging $43,637 per year. In a declining market, this large group will make themselves heard - as they did on the "death tax" last year - especially if someone helps organize this potentially potent constituency."

What is funny about these numbers? How do they get that over 50% of all capgains go to middle or lower class? Is it b/c they count pensioners, who need more to liquidate their investments than the 5% of equity owners who own 80% of stock?

WT continued: "Federal taxes are too high, consuming 20.5 percent of economic output in 1998, the highest peacetime level ever."

We are back to Daniel Davies point. With a lower capgains tax, the rise in receipts must be due to something else. Dividend income almost doubled between 1990 and 98--from $142 to 263+ billion. That is taxed at the marginal rate, no? Seems a good a place as any to start, if it is.

Christian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list