U.S. one-day individual tax haul at record high
Tax revenues are at an all-time high and, yet, Democrats still want to raise taxes.
Go figure.
While some of those tax payments come from taxpayers who withheld less tax from their paychecks than they owed, much of it was owed on income from investments or profits.
"This reflects the fact that Americans in high-income brackets had a very good year in 2006," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in Jersey City, New Jersey.
So the tax cuts benefited the rich..We already know that Yoni..
Your point? I've always maintained the tax cuts allowed those receiving them to re-invest that money which, as you pointed out, resulted in better gains on investments and business profits.
And, tell me this GGA, how in the do you give a tax cut to someone -- now approaching 49% of the entire population -- that doesn't pay a freakin' dime in federal income taxes in the first place? We're already handing out money in the form of "credits" and "rebates" to people who don't pay income taxes...
Imagine what tax revenues would be if everyone paid their fair share.
Most of the money in this country concentrated in the hands of a few is good right Yoni? I mean Bush's tax cuts worked for everybody right?The gap between rich and poor grows in the United States.
By David Cay Johnston Published: March 29, 2007
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
Last year, according to data from other sources, incomes for average Americans increased for the first time in several years. But because those at the top rely heavily on the stock market and business profits for their income, both of which were strong last year, it is likely that the disparities in 2005 are the same or larger now.
The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.
The Bush administration argued that its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, had not added to the widening gap but "made the tax code more progressive, not less." Brookly McLaughlin, the chief spokeswoman at the Treasury Department, said that this year "the share of income taxes paid by lower-income taxpayers will be lower than it would have been without the tax relief, while the share of income taxes for higher-income taxpayers will be higher."
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., she noted, has acknowledged that income disparities have increased, but, along with a "solid consensus" of experts, attributed that shift largely to "the rapid pace of technological change has been a major driver in the decades-long widening of the income gap in the United States."
Others argued that public policies had played a role in the shift. Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor, said the data understated the widening disparity between the top 1 percent and the rest of the country.
He said that in addition to rising incomes and reduced taxes, the equation should take into account cuts in fringe benefits to workers and in government services that middle-class and poor Americans rely on more than the affluent. These include health care, child care and education spending. The analysis by the two professors showed that the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005.
That is an increase of more than 2 percentage points over the previous year and up from roughly 33 percent in the late 1970s. The peak for this group was 49.3 percent in 1928. A major issue likely to be debated in Congress in the year ahead is whether reversing the Bush tax cuts would slow investment and, if so, how much that would cost the economy
(shrugs)
Tax revenues, like all other dollar amounts, go up solely through inflation. While we are talking about the time value of money, even if any given dollar amount goes up by .000001% then you can always claim a "new" record high.
Another good critical thinking thing that should occur to anyone reading this is that there is some CAUSALITY to claiming increased revenues are the result of the tax-cuts.
It rained after taxes were cut, but that doesn't mean that the tax-cuts caused the rain, does it?
The last thing that must also factor in to any evaluation of the efficacy of such things is what are the opportunity costs of those tax cuts?
What was given up for them?
It certainly wasn't spending. So we have tax cuts that were essentially paid for with debt, and that debt must be repaid.
Care to guess where your taxes will go when the time comes to pay back that debt?
This supposes there is a fixed amount of wealth. This is a common misconception of the "wealth re-distribution" idiots.
If there was a fixed amount of wealth to be had, the GDP wouldn't rise, jobs wouldn't be created, and money would -- as you fear -- eventually end up in one place. Fortunately, a person can -- with hard work and determination -- create their own wealth.
Yep. It resulted in higher productivity, more jobs, and an increase in wealth, across the board.
In fact, that line you quoted about "some of those tax payments com[ing] from taxpayers who withheld less tax from their paychecks than they owed," is probably a result of them failing to adjust their W-4's for the increased wages they received as a result of the wealthy moving their tax cut gains into wages.
As a result of the Bush Tax Cut for the Rich, they bought more luxury items built by non-rich people, used more services provided by non-rich people, and gave more in charitible contributions to non-rich people.
Your point again?
Increase of wealth for who? We already know the upper income brackets are making a killing but what about the remaining 95%?Yep. It resulted in higher productivity, more jobs, and an increase in wealth, across the board.
Many of them are employed whereas, before the tax cuts allowed for job growth, they were not.
Put the pot down and get a better job if you feel that you're getting screwed.
Only a liberal can take the news that the Stock Market set a new record, unemployment is the lowest it's been in what, forever, and tax revenues are at an all time high and turn it into a gloom and doom scenario!
You see, Yoni, the tax revenues weren't the "right" kind and they came from the "wrong" people and from the wrong kind of jobs!
Basically, if you make over $100K a year, you're the devil.
Yoni doesn't realize that all that news don't mean much to the common worker. Tell the good news to Joe Blow who has to pay up the ass for gas and other necessities.
Wait, should I be getting free gas??
I notice nobody responded to the erudite post. Tougher to pick apart.
please. His math, or lack thereof, is almost not worth a response.
this has to be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read from someone who suppossedly knows something about finance and economics.
you're missing the point completely. Your goal of collecting more tax revenue has been accomplished.
You're just disappointed that your goal wasn't accomplished while at the same time punishing the "rich".
That's untrue.
I have RG on ignore and you can draw a causal relation between cutting taxes and increased federal receipts by showing the money not taxed was used to produce wealth that was taxed elsewhere; not so with tax cuts and rain...unless, of course the windfall is used in a cloud-seeding project.
Only a conservative, allegeldy, republican like Rudy can take the next presidential election and turn it into a gloom and doom scenario!!!
Placing someone on ignore is childish.
I know you are but what am I?
Making unrelated, innocuous statements about the legitimate use of forum options is childish.
Basically, if you make over $100K a year, you're the devil.
No Never said that but to equate the stock market setting records to insuating that everybody is doing great in today's economy is ignorant and dishonest. Your not ignorant.
To claim anyone is saying "that everybody is doing great in today's economy is ignorant and dishonest."
So your admitting that economy may not be good for everyone? All of your whoring of the Bush policies had me fooled..
'slam dunk'..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
