Raising Income Taxes

[Hulkein]

Their Fair Share
July 21, 2008; Page A12

Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH901_3taxri_20080720202013.gif

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.

This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.

The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.

This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

The way to soak the rich is with low tax rates, and last week's IRS data provide more powerful validation of that proposition.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemWMP

[Stretch]

Stop spending my god damn money on a war with no upside.

[Hulkein]

Less government spending to go along with the low taxes would be ideal, yes.

[Back]

Nothing in life is free.

[Parkbandit]

LFMTaxShelters...

[Parkbandit]

Nothing in life is free.

Well, unless you are part of the bottom 50% it seems :)

[Danical]

Nothing in life is free.

Is it by way of my actions.

[Keller]

how is it news that the bush tax cuts stratified American taxpayers further than they had been before?

[Keller]

When I am not starring down the barrel of a gun I will respond further. This may be the most unfairly biased and willfully ignorant "reporting" I've seen in a long time.

[ClydeR]

It's all about who should sacrifice. On this issue, I happen to agree with John McCain (v.2004) that everyone in the country should share in the sacrifice while we are at war, not just the wealthy.


My friends, we are at war. Throughout our history, wartime has been a time of sacrifice. At the beginning of the war I said it would be long and difficult, and would require a great deal of sacrifice on everyone's part. But about the only sacrifice taking place is that by the brave men and women fighting to defend and protect the liberties we hold so dear, and that of their families.

It is time for others to step up and start sacrificing. What have we sacrificed? Just in the last year we have approved legislation containing billions and billions of dollars in unrequested and unauthorized pork barrel projects, huge tax breaks for the wealthy and, just last week, a corporate tax bill estimated to cost $180 billion, chock full of billions of dollars in tax breaks for wealthy oil and gas companies and other special interests. One Washington Post article quoted a tax lobbyist involved in its drafting to concede the bill "has risen to a new level of sleaze." That is far and away from sacrifice.

More from McCain's 2004 speech to the Progressive Policy Institute... (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=125&subsecID=162&contentID=252646)

[crb]

When I am not starring down the barrel of a gun I will respond further. This may be the most unfairly biased and willfully ignorant "reporting" I've seen in a long time.
Keller subscribes to the "bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy" fallacy. Ignore him.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

Here, let me repost the charts for you.

http://img.slate.com/media/19/041014_taxcut1.gif

http://img.slate.com/media/15/041014_taxcut2.gif

Sure... the rich ALSO got a tax cut, but to say they only got a tax cut, or that they got the lion's share of a tax cut, is ridiculous. Obviously those in the 20-40th percentile got the lion's share. Perhaps as it should be.

Another source:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html

[Kembal]

Hmm, this is off the op-ed page if it's page A-12 of the WSJ. If I wasn't packing for a business trip right now, I'd dig into those numbers a bit, but something seems amiss with what they're presenting.

[Daniel]

You mean besides the incredible hyperbole and tenuous conclusions it makes?

[Keller]

Dear crb,

Once I educate the CA board of bar examiners over the next three days I will be sure to give you a proper response. For now, suffice to say you can lick my taint with that mouth. Congrats on finding some unauthenticated and unexplained bar graphs. If only the fed tax could be explained and substantiated with pictures, maybe my three year old niece could also make self serving conclusions based on colored rectangles.

[Daniel]

I thought you were moving to DC?

[Bobmuhthol]

For the people saying the data is misleading: how?

[TheEschaton]

Well, you're comparing two different ratios, for one. One chart shows the tax burden as a percentage of tax revenue contributed by population segment. The richest contributed 40%, but if we look at those numbers raw, I'm probably gonna estimate that the income of that 1% far exceeded the 40% of total income in the country.

The second chart is simply stupid. .325% back for a couple making <10k is far outstripped by .125% of a couple making 350k, and if you do THAT in percentage of tax revenue GIVEN BACK, it'd be interesting to see what that bar chart would look like.

The irony is, the same kind of schematic used in the first chart to measure burden, would never be used by conservatives to measure how much was given back.

[Hulkein]

The point of the article isn't to show that the rich are taxed at higher percentages or that it's unfair even to do so. The point of the WSJ article (not what crb posted) is that by un-doing the tax cuts, you'll decrease the share that the rich pay.

[Daniel]

Yea. That was the tenuous conclusion I was talking about.

[crb]

This is loser liberal math:

Guy pays 100k in taxes, other guy pays 10k in taxes.

If you give them both a 5% tax cut, the rich guy gets 5k off, and poor guy gets 500 off.

OMG ON NOES! 5000 > 500 it is not FAIR. KARL MARX IS ROLLING OVER IN HIS GRAVE.

But, prior to the cut, rich guy paid 10x more than poor guy, after the cut... rich guy still pays exactly 10x more than the poor guy.

5% == 5%

and

10/100 == 9.5/95

There is equality.


Lets pretend instead we gave them both $5000 cuts.

50% would be the cut for the poor guy, 5% for the rich guy. 50% > 5%

5/95 != 5/10

Now, instead of paying 10x more in taxes, rich guy pays 19x more in taxes.

And those graphs are from Slate -- which we all know is conservatively biased right?

Keller is like the little engine that could, but instead of saying "I think I can I think I can I think I can" he has the mantra of "Bush tax cuts are for the rich only, Bush tax cuts are for the rich only, Bush tax cuts are for the rich only."

Remember children, just because you repeat something many times doesn't make it true.

[Hulkein]

Yea. That was the tenuous conclusion I was talking about.

How is it a tenuous conclusion?

[Parkbandit]

For the people saying the data is misleading: how?


Because it doesn't 'jive' with the typical liberal mantra.. that the Rich are not paying their fair share and that the Bush tax cuts only helped his rich buddies.

Obviously then, the data must be flawed.

[Daniel]

How is it a tenuous conclusion?

Because it assumes that taxes policies operate in a vaccuum and that because people will attempt to circumvent their tax liabilit: A) that's a reason to lower taxes and B) that there is nothing that can be done to prevent that.

Among other things.

[crb]

Actually, a better reason to make sure that the government isn't disproportionately paid for by few individuals is that when more people have skin in the game they'll be sure to elect people who respect taxpayers and don't waste their money.

If, on the otherhand, you don't pay any taxes, you may not care as much about reigning in wasteful government spending.

Another reason why:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_barrons-why_soaking_the_rich.htm

Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[Latrinsorm]

Plus, with taxes so high for the rich, Spree couldn't even afford to feed his family. Thanks a lot, loser Marxist liberals!!!!!!!!

[Tsa`ah]

I really love the claims of "re-distributing wealth" and bitching about welfare and the working poor ... yet no one that does it seems to understand where wealth comes from and upon which backs it is built.

If wealth really trickled down ... this wouldn't be a discussion.

[Parkbandit]

I really love the claims of "re-distributing wealth" and bitching about welfare and the working poor ... yet no one that does it seems to understand where wealth comes from and upon which backs it is built.

If wealth really trickled down ... this wouldn't be a discussion.

PREACH IT COMRADE! WORKERS UNITE!

[Tsa`ah]

And that's about the best you'll ever have to offer.

[Parkbandit]

And that's about the best you'll ever have to offer.


And taking talking points from Karl Marx is the best you have? Come now Comrade.

What new amazing ideas did you actually present in your post that we haven't heard a hundred times from you crazy ass liberals. We know.. companies are evil and are all built ontop of the backs of the poor victim working class.

[NocturnalRob]

edit: son of a bitch

soviet russia! communists!!

fuck it, the photo doesn't work. It's a fucking beaver that was chopping down a tree and got crushed by the tree.

It says, "In Soviet Russia, Tree Chop You"

Hardy fucking har.

p.s. francesca, i love you

[Warriorbird]

I love it when you babble about stuff that nobody's even said, PB.

Are you going to warn us about fluoride in the water next?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM

(PB chatting with Backlash)

[BigWorm]

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3047/62820402sx6.jpg

Your image link didn't work but thank you for posting your avatar again.

[Parkbandit]

I love it when you babble about stuff that nobody's even said, PB.

Are you going to warn us about fluoride in the water next?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM

(PB chatting with Backlash)

If this was a slam saying Tsa'ah is a nobody.. well played.

If it was that you didn't understand what he posted.. you are retarded.

I'm siding with the second part.. the first option requires you to have a full brain. Something you continue to prove is impossible.

[Valthissa]

Due to the magic of the Internet, we can all review the underlying data used for many of the income tax, poverty, population, labor studies, etc. from our computers.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

I have always found it amazing that numbers can be tortured to produce conclusions that perfectly align with the goals of the organization interrogating the data sets.

One observation for crb: if the tax rates don't change too dramatically I would be happy to owe 100K in annual income taxes +/-5%!

C/Valth

[Tsa`ah]

And taking talking points from Karl Marx is the best you have? Come now Comrade.

Nevermind the fact that you can't address the post with anything resembling a thought, rather you choose to recycle the same sputum over and over again.


What new amazing ideas did you actually present in your post that we haven't heard a hundred times from you crazy ass liberals. We know.. companies are evil and are all built ontop of the backs of the poor victim working class.

And here we area again ... I'm a crazy ass liberal. A crazy ass liberal that thinks the government (Fed, state, county, and local) has no business banning firearms. The crazy ass liberal who believes we shouldn't waste the chemicals or electricity for rapists, child molesters, and murderers ... rather we should just plug a .22 in the liver and come back a few days later to see if they need another. The crazy ass liberal who advocates personal responsibility.

The point, since you obviously missed it, is that the working poor and middle class are required to build and amass wealth in nearly every market ... yet they're the last to see relief, the last to be considered when companies start handing out cash from the top down .... hence the statement, if trickle down economics worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not redistribution of wealth ... it's fucking back pay dumbass.

[Parkbandit]

Nevermind the fact that you can't address the post with anything resembling a thought, rather you choose to recycle the same sputum over and over again.

You are fucking kidding me right? Did you even READ your post I was referring to? Talk about an inability to post anything resembling a thought.




And here we area again ... I'm a crazy ass liberal. A crazy ass liberal that thinks the government (Fed, state, county, and local) has no business banning firearms. The crazy ass liberal who believes we shouldn't waste the chemicals or electricity for rapists, child molesters, and murderers ... rather we should just plug a .22 in the liver and come back a few days later to see if they need another. The crazy ass liberal who advocates personal responsibility.


Well shit, my bad. You obviously are now a die hard conservative! WELCOME TO THE PARTY!! I didn't realize that disagreeing with 2 small issues and a bumpersticker didn't make you a die hard liberal. Weird.



The point, since you obviously missed it, is that the working poor and middle class are required to build and amass wealth in nearly every market ... yet they're the last to see relief, the last to be considered when companies start handing out cash from the top down .... hence the statement, if trickle down economics worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's called having a job dipshit. If you want to make more money, get a better job or start your own business. What is your suggestion then.. that we simply have government run all businesses and then we simply split the profits among everyone who works?

You claim to own a hotel.. so I guess you simply take the profits from the end of the month and split it equally among all of your employees? I would hate to claim you are a raging hypocrite if you are paying your employees only the prevailing wage in the area and not equally distributing everyone's fair share.

I know.. it's ok for you, but the big companies are evil!



It's not redistribution of wealth ... it's fucking back pay dumbass.

And I'm absolutely certain you are fucking back paying.

RIIIIIIIGHT.

[ClydeR]

The Club for Growth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_for_growth) is holding McCain's feet to the fire on the issue of raising taxes, as shown by the following open letter to McCain.


Washington – Today, Club for Growth President Pat Toomey issued the following open letter to Senator John McCain:

Dear Senator McCain:

We listened with concern yesterday to your interview with George Stephanopoulos on Social Security. When asked if you would be open to raising the payroll tax, you refused to rule out a tax increase, saying “There is nothing that’s off the table.”

This statement was particularly shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances. In a March 2007 interview with Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review, you ruled out accepting tax increases as part of a compromise to entitlement reform. And on February 17 of this year, you told George Stephanopoulos, “No new taxes . . . In fact, I could see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT.”

We strongly applaud the above statement and believe further tax cuts would play an important role in stimulating the country’s economy. But your comments yesterday send American taxpayers and businesses a mixed message about where you stand on this issue. Raising the payroll tax or the wage cap on Social Security taxes will increase the tax burden on many Americans and will only exacerbate the key problem with the current Social Security program—the low rate of return workers receive on their contributions into the system. You have long been a strong supporter of personal Social Security accounts, and we hope you will reaffirm you commitment to free-market-based reforms without tax increases so that we can truly empower and enrich workers in their retirement years.

We hope you will clarify where you stand on this important issue and reaffirm your commitment to eschew all tax increases.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey

President, Club for Growth

More... (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/07/an_open_letter_to_john_mccain.php)

[Celephais]

Is it by way of my actions.
Yes, meatwad, with actions.

[Tsa`ah]

You are fucking kidding me right? Did you even READ your post I was referring to? Talk about an inability to post anything resembling a thought.

Obviously someone needs an a few hundred sessions at the nearest Sylvan learning center.


Well shit, my bad. You obviously are now a die hard conservative! WELCOME TO THE PARTY!! I didn't realize that disagreeing with 2 small issues and a bumpersticker didn't make you a die hard liberal. Weird.

I have plenty of issues that don't align with the liberal mentality, many that do, and many that would be considered conservative. If anything I'm a progressive centrist/moderate.


It's called having a job dipshit. If you want to make more money, get a better job or start your own business. What is your suggestion then.. that we simply have government run all businesses and then we simply split the profits among everyone who works?

You're such a fucking moron to not understand the concepts of "working poor" and "middle class".


You claim to own a hotel.. so I guess you simply take the profits from the end of the month and split it equally among all of your employees? I would hate to claim you are a raging hypocrite if you are paying your employees only the prevailing wage in the area and not equally distributing everyone's fair share.

I know.. it's ok for you, but the big companies are evil!

You're concerned about my cut of the profits vs what I pay my employees? The lowest paid employee I have earns 11.50 an hour compared to the industry standard of hire an illegal and pay them 4 an hour. We've also grouped with several small businesses in the area for a shared group healthcare coverage and 401k plan. My personal take varies with the season and the needs of the business. Most of my take is reinvested into the property or sacrificed bit by bit to buy out my partner.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I know what makes my business run and what it takes to keep these groups coming back ... and it isn't me ... it's the people I employ. I get paid more because I own part of the business. They, the employees, get paid well above industry/area standards because they're worth it ... and I don't have to spend every waking minute obsessing.


And I'm absolutely certain you are fucking back paying.

RIIIIIIIGHT.

No, I'm not offering back pay ... I'm putting myself in a position to not have that on my conscience. You really have no clue as to what I do with my money or what plans I have for it. About all you're going to get out of me is that I'm not going to die rich.

[Jorddyn]

Well, unless you are part of the bottom 50% it seems :)

See:
Property Tax
OASDI/FICA/SS/Whatever you want to call it
Gas Tax
Sales Tax


Being poor is hardly a tax free existance. Nor one that I'd want, even if it was.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh boy, a Tsa`ah-PB fight. Hurray.

[Parkbandit]

Obviously someone needs an a few hundred sessions at the nearest Sylvan learning center.

I agree. Here's the website.. please, for the sake of all of us.. sign up:

http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/




I have plenty of issues that don't align with the liberal mentality, many that do, and many that would be considered conservative. If anything I'm a progressive centrist/moderate.


Uh huh. Sure you are. And isn't Progressive just another name for a liberal? Hillary was claiming to be one... as was Obama.



You're concerned about my cut of the profits vs what I pay my employees? The lowest paid employee I have earns 11.50 an hour compared to the industry standard of hire an illegal and pay them 4 an hour. We've also grouped with several small businesses in the area for a shared group healthcare coverage and 401k plan. My personal take varies with the season and the needs of the business. Most of my take is reinvested into the property or sacrificed bit by bit to buy out my partner.


You are full of complete and utter shit. So every hotel, except yours, hires illegals now and pays them $4 an hour. Really? Want to provide this proof? I'll be happy to call INS since you are incapable of doing so. If I KNEW that other hotels in my comp set were hiring illegals for slave wages like you suggest, I would be on the phone immediately.

And let's be honest.. your 'take' is far more than those poor working class that you are benefiting from. Preach your communist bullshit.. but like Gore, you shouldn't be held to such high standards.

What a fucking hypocrite.

"I would offer those poor fucks more, but I'm trying to buy out my partner with their sweat equity! I'm really the victim here!"



I'm sorry to disappoint, but I know what makes my business run and what it takes to keep these groups coming back ... and it isn't me ... it's the people I employ. I get paid more because I own part of the business. They, the employees, get paid well above industry/area standards because they're worth it ... and I don't have to spend every waking minute obsessing.

So you are no better than that which you were bitching about a couple posts back. You are thinking of them last when you are doling out all the profits.




No, I'm not offering back pay ... I'm putting myself in a position to not have that on my conscience. You really have no clue as to what I do with my money or what plans I have for it. About all you're going to get out of me is that I'm not going to die rich.

OH THE GUILT! I think we all know what you do with your money, don't we. You accumulate it off the backs and hard work of the proletariat. You fucking capitalist pig bastard you! Turn in your red card... you sicken me.

[Drunken Durfin]

My standard response to all tax related threads:

www.fairtax.org

[Bobmuhthol]

The Fair Tax and its opposition: another reason John McCain is a hero.

[Clove]

One observation for crb: if the tax rates don't change too dramatically I would be happy to owe 100K in annual income taxes +/-5%!

C/ValthQFMFT

[Clove]

Oh boy, a Tsa`ah-PB fight. Hurray.
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/uploads/forums/cripple-fight___.jpg

[Drunken Durfin]

I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago.

Now he is just a shell of the man he used to be. He has set aside his convictions and morals only to spew out the rhetoric of those who promise him power and a library with his name on it.

How easily those who feel their mortality are bought.

Shame on you John.

As for the Fair Tax, if you are against it then you have not read it.

http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410

[Clove]

I think the Fair Tax book ought to be sales-tax exempt.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<As for the Fair Tax, if you are against it then you have not read it.>>

lol, okay.

[crb]

Due to the magic of the Internet, we can all review the underlying data used for many of the income tax, poverty, population, labor studies, etc. from our computers.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

I have always found it amazing that numbers can be tortured to produce conclusions that perfectly align with the goals of the organization interrogating the data sets.

One observation for crb: if the tax rates don't change too dramatically I would be happy to owe 100K in annual income taxes +/-5%!

C/Valth
I don't know what you're trying here.

You're implying that people who pay a lot of taxes make a lot of money which contradicts which point I was making?

Well captain obvious?

Maybe we should just tax rich people at 90% of their income, poor people at 0%... or better yet... pick a wage, say $30k a year, and say everyone who makes more than $30k a year pay taxes on 100% of the amount above, and everyone who makes less than $30k a year get money from the government until they reach it.

Hmm... I wonder if any country has ever tried anything like that, I wonder how it worked out for them.

If your pea sized brain ever comes up for a response of how an equal percentage tax cut is inequal and unfair when the ratio of payments before and after is also equal, let me know.

[Jorddyn]

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

[Latrinsorm]

crb: Level-headed captain of diplomacy!

[Valthissa]

I don't know what you're trying here.

You're implying that people who pay a lot of taxes make a lot of money which contradicts which point I was making?

Well captain obvious?

Maybe we should just tax rich people at 90% of their income, poor people at 0%... or better yet... pick a wage, say $30k a year, and say everyone who makes more than $30k a year pay taxes on 100% of the amount above, and everyone who makes less than $30k a year get money from the government until they reach it.

Hmm... I wonder if any country has ever tried anything like that, I wonder how it worked out for them.

If your pea sized brain ever comes up for a response of how an equal percentage tax cut is inequal and unfair when the ratio of payments before and after is also equal, let me know.

The example you chose was person A paying 10K and person B paying 100K in income tax (I assumed federal income tax).

Since you didn't know what I was 'trying' you might ask yourself why you decided to insult me, instead of asking for clarification. I typically assume that the point of an internet forum is to communicate and exchange ideas, you seem to have a different goal.

I was merely stating the obvious - people that pay large tax amounts have large incomes. You leapt the the conclusion that this was intended to contradict your arithmetic. I still hope to owe a 100K in income tax next year.


C/Valth

[crb]

So you were pointing out the obvious, saying it was for my benefit, and you don't think you were insulting me?

What was your point of pointing out the obvious?

When the discussion is of tax policy saying, or rather infering, that rich people have lots of money, makes me think what you're really trying to say it doesn't matter how much you tax rich (and by rich I mean, people who have more money than you) people.

I'll admit, maybe I was reading into it, but it seems to me that was your point.

[Keller]

crb,

Could you post a links for the analysis that you pulled those graphs from?

I'm going to start working up a little explanation for you.

Thanks!

[crb]

I did when I first posted them (note: I've posted them in two threads) as well as many other links. It shouldn't matter, you might want to go over my sources, Google the authors, find something in their past, say they're biased. Attacking the messenger like you've done thus far.

Why don't you come up with your own sources backing up your soak-the-rich is good and bush only gave tax cuts to the wealthy positions. Something explaining to me how if we only taxed people more the economy would grow and housing prices would go back up. Something showing how there isn't a risk when you become dependent on a smaller group of people for the majority of your tax revenue (eggs in one basket) like what happened to California (15 billion deficit... oops... guess those stock options taxes on the dotcom millionaires weren't going to last forever).

Go ahead, educate me your 26 year old brilliance.

[Keller]

I did when I first posted them (note: I've posted them in two threads) as well as many other links. It shouldn't matter, you might want to go over my sources, Google the authors, find something in their past, say they're biased. Attacking the messenger like you've done thus far.

Why don't you come up with your own sources backing up your soak-the-rich is good and bush only gave tax cuts to the wealthy positions. Something explaining to me how if we only taxed people more the economy would grow and housing prices would go back up. Something showing how there isn't a risk when you become dependent on a smaller group of people for the majority of your tax revenue (eggs in one basket) like what happened to California (15 billion deficit... oops... guess those stock options taxes on the dotcom millionaires weren't going to last forever).

Go ahead, educate me your 26 year old brilliance.

When did I say soak the rich is good?

Take a deep breath. It's going to be ok.

[Keller]

crb? You there?

Or did I OMGWTFPWN you at the internetz because you didn't respond?

[Keller]

Further, where did I ever say the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich?

Maybe this is why you're throwing a hissy fit -- because you didn't actually understand what I said.

[crb]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=770684&postcount=14

That was a response to my post where I say the tax cuts are not just for the rich and the cuts were mostly balanced, and the middle class got the most. You told me to lick your taint... was I wrong to take that as you disagreeing with me?

Here you say it straight out:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=765950&postcount=3



The Bush tax cuts were absolutely a tax cut for the wealthy.

Do you forget what you say yourself.

And fine, since apparently the forum search feature is broke, here is the link you've been asking for:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108201/

Though again... why does my source matter (and really - this is the source of those graphs... the very liberal Slate, but don't assume its the only source I have on the subject)? You're supposed to be presenting an argument for your side of things... whichever it is today.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Not that it matters much, but I think anyone making less than 30k a year or 60k a year married, shouldn't have to pay taxes. I just remember when I was in that wage bucket it was HARD to make dollars stretch to cover everything. Possible, but hard none-the-less, and I had a supportive family if I ever had a catostrophic problem (not that I needed it or had that problem).

Smile when you make my fucking big mac though.

TheE made a good point on the income and tax share btw. Paying 10% in taxes on 100 million is a little different than 35% on 100k. I'm pretty ok with our current tax structure.

I'd rather we spent more time on being fiscally responsible, looking to the future in green technologies and revamping the education and welfare systems, than worrying about how much Bill Gates pays as a percent of his income than what I pay.

Actually, I think my primary focus this election year is the above items as related to domestic policy.

[crb]

The problem when you rely on too few people for your income tax base is say the same problem Simu has with subscribers. ya, it may seem like a lot, but when you discount MAing the number of unique individuals is fewer, and that adds volatility.

A small business owner for instance reports taxes on the profits of the business, in a good year they can be double what they are in a bad year, but all told business profits tend to put him in a higher tax bracket (aka, rich, supposedly).

So if the majority of your government is funded off people like that, people making over say $200k, then as their income fluctuates your tax receipts fluctuate big time, and you get shortages like California has right now.

Thats the thing people don't readily realize, the more your income, generally, the greater variability in your income. There aren't many people out there who make say $500k-1 million a year on steady wages or a salary of some sort, most of the people do so out of commissions, bonuses, business profits, etc. Things that aren't stable or steady and fluctuate rapidly with the economy.

Consider the stock market for instance, in a bull year the government will get lots of taxes from capital gains and short term stock sales. In a bear year market they'll get far far far less.

The point being, you WANT a broad base to fund the government, because a broad base is a stable base.

The other thing is, the whole "skin in the game" concept. When voters do not have to pay taxes they tend to not require fiscal responsibility in those they elect. The politicians are not spending their money afterall.

In anycase when I first got married we made like 32k combined, we did fine, had plenty of money, and certainly did not feel the taxes we had to pay were unnecessary or unfair.

[Warriorbird]

Here I thought doing things like whacking business property taxes by 80% and increasing spending was why Virginia had tax revenue issues for example.

When you cut taxes and raise spending you fuck things up. It is just how it goes. This is not me saying I'm against cutting taxes. This is me saying that I'm against cutting taxes and not maintaining spending parity at the minimum. Congress is totally incapable of doing this, thus I'm mostly against cutting taxes.

Your 32 grand and 'just fine' example.

What year was that?

Did you have military provided housing?

Were you living in some place your family owned?

What was your rent?

Your situation ends up meaning pretty little.

[crb]

2001, rent was 640, 980 sq/ft 2 bedroom apartment.

[Keller]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=770684&postcount=14

That was a response to my post where I say the tax cuts are not just for the rich and the cuts were mostly balanced, and the middle class got the most. You told me to lick your taint... was I wrong to take that as you disagreeing with me?

Here you say it straight out:

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=765950&postcount=3



Do you forget what you say yourself.

And fine, since apparently the forum search feature is broke, here is the link you've been asking for:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108201/

Though again... why does my source matter (and really - this is the source of those graphs... the very liberal Slate, but don't assume its the only source I have on the subject)? You're supposed to be presenting an argument for your side of things... whichever it is today.

Just to make sure you don't miss it: Where did I say taxing the rich was good?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL!!!! , pause for breath, LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

You're a hoot.

Let me get this straight -- when you can weasel yourself out of "People under 40 should NOT expect to get ANY money from social security," and then say that me saying "the Bush tax cuts were absolutely for the wealthy" was the same as they were only for the wealthy?

And that first link? Was that like some attempt at, "Look at what Keller said about me!! WAHH!!!!!!" It's not even relevant.

While I'm writing up my response, could you find for me anywhere that I've ever said taxing the rich was good.

[crb]

I didn't weasel myself out of anything, I was giving investment advice, you changed the key word in my statement in your quote and accused me of making an absolute prediction about the future. I am a man of science, I rarely speak in absolutes, and I don't presume to know the future 50 years from now.

You said "absolutely for the wealthy" even if you're not saying they were only for the wealthy, you're saying they were absolutely for the wealthy. Shall we look up "absolutely" in the dictionary?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolutely



1. without exception; completely; wholly; entirely: You are absolutely right.
2. positively; certainly.


I did not add the word "absolutely" to your statement as you changed words in mine. You picked that word, did you not know what it meant when you used it? Was it for dramatic effect only?

Please, share.

[Keller]

Sorry man. It's clear that you're engaging in shakey semantic arguments because you took what I said, assumed I was some sort of Keynesian liberal, and then attributed those beliefs to me.

You were wrong. Now you just look like an ass.

[crb]

rofl

[Keller]

rofl

An apology would have sufficed.

:tumble:

[Clove]

Um, so why didn't Keller mean "positively; certainly" rather than "wholly;entirely"?

I absolutely took his meaning of the word as "certainly" for the rich. There's really no disputing that the Bush tax cuts benefited the rich most (which is generally true of most tax cuts).

It was a simple and true statement. I do taxes for a living and Keller will likely forget more about taxes than you and I will ever know (even if he is an idiot about mortgage interest). Quit quibbling a retarded point and making baseless assumptions about his perspective.

[crb]

Clove, I've posted numerous sources showing how the tax cuts did NOT benefit the rich the most. Keller has threatened me thrice to refute that point, or not, whatever, apparently we misunderstand each other.

If you're just going to parrot the democratic party line though I'm going to have to ask for proof.

Now... if you ask most Democratic politicians, they'll say that because the biggest cut was to capgains and that "rich" people invest more they got a bigger benefit, but that isn't evidence, that is theory, the actual statistics I posted showed that wasn't the case. But anyways, their line might be a place for you to start your research.

[Tsa`ah]

If you're just going to parrot the democratic party line though I'm going to have to ask for proof.



Funny thing is that you're assuming people are leaning one way or another on issues they're debating you on .... which is very comical.

[Keller]

crb,

I wont be able to continue working on the document I am drafting for you until I've settled. I don't even have a working computer and have been posting via my phone for the last 5 days. If you need a head start you can consult the Tax Policy Center data on the Bush tax cuts as well as the Congressional Budget Office data. Those will be the two sources I rely on the most.

Admittedly they are not bar graphs in popular magazines, but I think the TPC put a few pretty pictures on their site that you might be able to understand.

[Keller]

So I sat down this wonderful Indiana afternoon on my wife's computer and typed up the following post. It is not as complete as I would have liked, but my computer is in storage somewhere in Virginia so I started from scratch.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am NOT advocating one position or another. As far as market efficiency goes, I am NOT proposing that the Bush tax cuts either promote or stiffle it. What I have done is three parts. (1) Brief introduction on how to analyze data regarding a tax cut, (2) Brief explanation of the most common techniques of skewing valid data to show a desired conclusion, and (3) the actual data analysis using helpful and non-skewed methods of analysis as presented by the Tax Policy Center and the Congressional Budget Office.

I apologize for the wall of text, read if you're interested.

[Keller]

INTRODUCTION:

There are two major factors of analysis when discussing the effect of a tax cut. First and most obviously, you look at the reduction in the net tax liability as a function of the taxpayer’s income. This calculation will take into account all changes in the taxpayer’s income tax calculation including increased credits and deductions. Some tax policy scholars go further and recommend that this decrease be analyzed in terms of utility and not sheer dollar amount. While intellectually interesting, it is imprecise and highly susceptible to valid criticism.

Second, you must look at the net effect of the revenue reduction and budget deficits. What programs (and their respective beneficiaries) will be cut as a result of the federal budget shrinking. In the alternative, what generation of wealthy individuals will have to pay higher income taxes to account for this shortfall if the budget is not cut? Again, this falls short of easy technical precision due to the inability to value the benefit to each taxpayer or to predict what generation of taxpayers will face repayment of the federal debt. As a result, most tax burden analysis does not take this factor into account and focuses solely on the first factor above.

HOW DATA IS COMMONLY ABUSED TO PRODUCE RESULTS

Next, let’s look at a couple of methods of analyzing a tax cut that are intellectually dishonest and misleading.

The first misleading method of analysis involves comparing the net tax liability reduction NOT as a function of income. For example, comparing a middle income tax liability decrease of $2500 to a high income tax liability decrease of $10,000. The middle income tax liability is only 1/4th of the high income tax liability, but this is misleading because it does not take into account the taxpayer’s overall burden as a function of income. This is the precise example crb has been using to evidence “loser liberal math.”

The second misleading method of analysis involves comparing the net reduction in tax liability as a function of tax liability. For example, taking a middle income family making $60,000 and a high income family making $1,000,000. The high income family used pay $300,000 in taxed and now pays $250,000 – a 1/6th reduction as a function of pre-cut tax burden. Now take the low income family who, as a result of a new tax credit (eg Child Tax Credit) had most of their tax liability wiped out. Perhaps their old liability was $6,000 and now it is only $2000, a 2/3rd reduction as a function of pre-cut tax burden. But this is dishonest because it doesn’t show much better off each family is. As a function of income, the high income reduction is $50,000/1,000,000 or 1/20th while the middle income reduction is $4000/$60,000 or 1/15th.

It is important to note that the example directly above was not derived from any technical modeling but was a good faith on-the-spot estimation for the purpose of providing a concrete example. The purpose of the exercise was to show how misleading interpretation of data can shift the meaning of the data in intellectually dishonest ways. This is the type of analysis used by the Slate Magazine graphs that crb posted.

For more detailed information regarding the proliferation of abuse of statistical data see the Heritage Foundation’s report here (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-13.cfm).

THE ANALYSIS:

Now that we see the correct and incorrect methods of tax cut analysis, let’s take a look at the numbers as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) and the Tax Policy Center (“TPC”). The TPC analysis uses reduction in net liability as a function of income while the CBO uses a slight variation which shows the net reduction in effective tax rates as a function of rates.


TPC ANALYSIS:
Using the same quintile analysis abused in the Slate Charts TPC indicates the following reductions as a function of income by each quintile (from poorest to richest). The figures are produced under two basic assumptions: the full phase-in of all tax cuts employed in the 2001-2006 cuts and the continued escalation of the AMT phase-in.

Reduction in net tax liability as a function of income upon phase-in of all tax cuts in 2010:
Overall: 4.2%
0-20%: .7%
20.1-40%: 2.5%
40.1-60%: 2.6%
60.1-80%: 3.5%
80%+: 5.4%
99.9%+: 8.2%
Source (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411739_tax_cuts.pdf).


The second analysis uses the current (as of July 2008) tax cuts. These figures are very misleading as they include the tax stimulus payments which were a highly progressive set of refundable credits that account for the marked increase in the net tax liability reduction as a function of income. For the sake of intellectual honesty (and because I anticipate someone to post the data without the addendum that the data includes the stimulus payments) I have posted it below. As you can see, even given this enormous “subsidy” to the poor, the net reduction of the top quintile is higher than all except the second quintile and is higher than the overall average reduction.

Reduction in net tax liability as a function of income under current tax regime in 2008:
Overall: 5.0%
0-20%: 4.3%
20.1-40%: 5.4%
40.1-60%: 4.8%
60.1-80%: 4.8%
80%+: 5.1%
99.9%+: 6.8%
Source (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411739_tax_cuts.pdf).

As a measure of comparison, here are the figures from a 2006 TPC analysis which did NOT include the stimulus and also does not include the full phase-in of the tax cuts in 2010.

Reduction in net tax liability as a function of income under tax regime in 2006:
Overall: 3.3%
0-20%: 0.3%
20.1-40%: 2.0
40.1-60%: 2.5%
60.1-80%: 2.5%
80%+: 4.1%
99.9%+: 6.2%

Conclusion of the TPC set of analysis:

When using a non-distorting set of data it is clear that the 2001-2006 “Bush” tax cuts have had a net effect of reducing the tax liability as a function of income of the richest quintile of Americans more than any other group. This was true in 2006, was significantly untrue in 2008 upon inclusion of the tax stimulus payment, and will be accelerated in 2010 upon phase-in of the repeal of the estate tax and the removal of specific restrictions on deductions.

THE CBO DATA (signed by Holtz-Eakin, a senior economic advisor to John McCain):

The CBO analysis broke down the effective federal tax rate (meaning the cumulative tax burden and not the marginal rate) by quintile. This analysis included the percent change from pre-cuts to 2004 (date of the study). It also studied the share of the federal tax burden including the percent change from pre-cuts to 2004. Here is the data:

Change in Effective Tax Rate from 2000 to 2004:
0-20%: -1.5%
20.1-40%: -2.1%
40.1-60%: -1.9%
60.1-80%: -2.1%
80.1%+: -3.9%
99%+: -6.8%
Source (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf)


Change in share of federal tax revenue from 2000 to 2004:
0-20%: -.1%
20.1-40%: - .2%
40.1-60%: +.2%
60.1-80%: +.7%
80.1%+: -.6%
99%+: -1.8%
Source (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf)


Conclusion of the CBO analysis:

As you can see, the effective tax rate for every individual in the US decreased under the Bush tax cuts. The fact is, however, that the greatest effective tax rate reduction occurred at the top quintile (as a result of having the most lucrative cut in marginal rates as well as the “preferred” capital gains rate reduction which overwhelmingly benefits the capital class). Further, the proportional share of the federal revenue decreased for the highest quintile 3x the next highest quintile (the second).

CONCLUSION:

Tax policy politics aside, the numbers, when not abused, do not lie. Regardless of your fairness theory: rights based theory (people should keep what they earn), a utilitarian theory, a Rawlsian theory, or a benefits received theory – and regardless of whether your ultimate goal is to redistribute wealth, promote market efficiency, perfect market efficiency (tax externalities), encourage/discourage behavior, or minimize administrative costs – the question is not of fairness or ability to achieve a stated goal, but instead whether or not the tax legislation passed between 2001 and 2006 (most notably the 2001 and 2003 acts, hence why I lend credence to the CBO analysis) had a net effect of reducing the tax liability of one group of American taxpayers more than any other.

The restated analysis presented above indicates that there was a clear beneficiary of the “Bush” tax cuts, the wealthiest quintile.

[crb]

I'm making dinner, I'll look closer later, you were doing good until this paragraph.



The second misleading method of analysis involves comparing the net reduction in tax liability as a function of tax liability. For example, taking a middle income family making $60,000 and a high income family making $1,000,000. The high income family used pay $300,000 in taxed and now pays $250,000 – a 1/6th reduction as a function of pre-cut tax burden. Now take the low income family who, as a result of a new tax credit (eg Child Tax Credit) had most of their tax liability wiped out. Perhaps their old liability was $6,000 and now it is only $2000, a 2/3rd reduction as a function of pre-cut tax burden. But this is dishonest because it doesn’t show much better off each family is. As a function of income, the high income reduction is $50,000/1,000,000 or 1/20th while the middle income reduction is $4000/$60,000 or 1/15th.

It isn't dishonest, you're letting your "moral" compunctions cloud your analysis.

I don't get what you're trying to point out either by comparing "how well off they are" 1/20 = 5%, 1/15 = 6.66%. 6.66% > 5%. Ergo, the poorer family, in your (rather arbitrary) example, had both a larger tax cut as measured in a percentage of taxes, and a larger cut as measured in a percentage of income. Did you perhaps mean to plug in different numbers to show the two calculations at odds?

Point 2. The Tax Policy Center is a liberal group. You might as well be quoting the DNC. I used Slate Magazine, which is a liberal magazine, to show a conservative point.

Your second CBO link is the same as your first, I think you meant to link to another one.

In anycase, I think its obvious your whole argument rests on your notion of fairness. Which I categorically reject on moral grounds, the Ayn Rand kind of morals. I accept that not everyone agrees with me, and you obviously have a different moral compass.

The problem with your chosen way to massage the data is you've run into a very basic behavior of mathematical ratios.

You're looking not at percentage decreases, but treating the percentage as a whole number and doing a straight subtraction.

1/2 == 4/8

I think a normal person would look at that equation and say "Yes, that is correct." You seem to be wanting to say that "4 is 4 less than 8, but 1 is only 1 less than 2, so the right side of the equation is more."

Obviously, that is wrong.

It would help, I think, if you would instead calculate percentages using their decimal values. It may help you remember that they are indeed percentages.

The telling point showing your method of analysis to be wrong, or atleast, not in good faith, is this.

Pretend tommorow congress and the president came together and said "All taxes are cut in half. Take your tax rate on whatever you were paying before, and divide by 2, be it income, fica, capital gains, dividend, death, amt, cut it all in half."

Your method of analyis would show a huge disparity towards the wealthy. Tell me I'm wrong.

[Keller]

It isn't dishonest, you're letting your "moral" compunctions cloud your analysis.

The Heritage Foundation disagrees with you. It's not the Angry White Men with Guns Want Their Money Back Foundation, but it's definately on the right.


I don't get what you're trying to point out either by comparing "how well off they are" 1/20 = 5%, 1/15 = 6.66%. 6.66% > 5%. Ergo, the poorer family, in your (rather arbitrary) example, had both a larger tax cut as measured in a percentage of taxes, and a larger cut as measured in a percentage of income. Did you perhaps mean to plug in different numbers to show the two calculations at odds?

No. I meant to show you that it's highly prejudicial to present calculations based on net tax burden decrease as a function of tax liability. The point was that the comparison of 1/20 and 1/15 is a whole lot different than comparing 1/6 and 2/3.


Point 2. The Tax Policy Center is a liberal group. You might as well be quoting the DNC. I used Slate Magazine, which is a liberal magazine, to show a conservative point.

TPC is an independant think tank consisting of tax professionals, academics, legislators, policy analysts, etc. I guess kudos to you for finding a conservative op-ed in a liberal magazine that used intellectually dishonest and even fraudulent data presentation. If you don't believe me or the Heritage Foundation -- then I guess it's true that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


Your second CBO link is the same as your first, I think you meant to link to another one.

Nope. It's from the same study.


In anycase, I think its obvious your whole argument rests on your notion of fairness. Which I categorically reject on moral grounds, the Ayn Rand kind of morals. I accept that not everyone agrees with me, and you obviously have a different moral compass.

Again -- you assume I've got some agenda. Just because YOU'VE got an agenda does not mean I have to have one. It has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with WHO GOT THE BENEFIT OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS. I don't know how to say it more plainly than that. It's NOT about who SHOULD get what, but about who DID.


The problem with your chosen way to massage the data is you've run into a very basic behavior of mathematical ratios.

You're looking not at percentage decreases, but treating the percentage as a whole number and doing a straight subtraction.

1/2 == 4/8

I think a normal person would look at that equation and say "Yes, that is correct." You seem to be wanting to say that "4 is 4 less than 8, but 1 is only 1 less than 2, so the right side of the equation is more."

Obviously, that is wrong.

It would help, I think, if you would instead calculate percentages using their decimal values. It may help you remember that they are indeed percentages.

The telling point showing your method of analysis to be wrong, or atleast, not in good faith, is this.

Pretend tommorow congress and the president came together and said "All taxes are cut in half. Take your tax rate on whatever you were paying before, and divide by 2, be it income, fica, capital gains, dividend, death, amt, cut it all in half."

Your method of analyis would show a huge disparity towards the wealthy. Tell me I'm wrong.

Are you talking about the critique of analyzing tax cuts using net tax cut as a function of original tax liability or of the TPC method of analyzing net tax cut as a function of income?

[crb]

The Heritage Foundation disagrees with you. It's not the Angry White Men with Guns Want Their Money Back Foundation, but it's definately on the right.

Whats your link? Because, here is mine: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm OMG they agree with me!



TPC is an independant think tank consisting of tax professionals, academics, legislators, policy analysts, etc. I guess kudos to you for finding a conservative op-ed in a liberal magazine that used intellectually dishonest and even fraudulent data presentation. If you don't believe me or the Heritage Foundation -- then I guess it's true that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

No, they aren't. They are liberal. The Tax Foundation is libertarian, you may call them conservative, The Heritage Foundation is conservative. The Cato Institute is libertarian. The Tax Policy Center is liberal (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/15/mrcs-worst-week-obamas-liberal-buddies-non-partisan-experts).

When I source a place like Heritage I'll admit it is conservative, you could atleast repay the favor.



Again -- you assume I've got some agenda. Just because YOU'VE got an agenda does not mean I have to have one. It has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with WHO GOT THE BENEFIT OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS. I don't know how to say it more plainly than that. It's NOT about who SHOULD get what, but about who DID.

If you don't have an agenda, then either you just suck at math, or you've let people who DO have agendas cloud your judgement.



Are you talking about the critique of analyzing tax cuts using net tax cut as a function of original tax liability or of the TPC method of analyzing net tax cut as a function of income?

TPC method. 4 is half of 8, 1 is half of two. They're both half, yet 4 is 400% of 1 and 4 less than 8, whereas 1 is only 1 less than 2. It is unfair to 2 that 8 is so big.

As I said....



The telling point showing your method of analysis to be wrong, or atleast, not in good faith, is this.

Pretend tommorow congress and the president came together and said "All taxes are cut in half. Take your tax rate on whatever you were paying before, and divide by 2, be it income, fica, capital gains, dividend, death, amt, cut it all in half."

Your method of analyis would show a huge disparity towards the wealthy. Tell me I'm wrong.

The fact that using that methodology would result in a huge skew to the wealthy, by simply adding "/2" as the last line on everyone's tax return, should be enough to show that that methodology isn't a good faith way to analyze tax policy.

[Keller]

Whats your link? Because, here is mine: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm OMG they agree with me!

It was in the original wall of text.


For more detailed information regarding the proliferation of abuse of statistical data see the Heritage Foundation’s report here (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-13.cfm).




No, they aren't. They are liberal. The Tax Foundation is libertarian, you may call them conservative, The Heritage Foundation is conservative. The Cato Institute is libertarian. The Tax Policy Center is liberal (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/15/mrcs-worst-week-obamas-liberal-buddies-non-partisan-experts).

When I source a place like Heritage I'll admit it is conservative, you could atleast repay the favor.

Again -- did I say they weren't liberal? I said they were independant. It is the furthest to the center of the liberal think tanks and used the method of data analysis which independant (and even conservative, see Heritage Foundation) scholars feel is the least misleading and self-serving.

It wasn't their political ideology but their method of analysis. I wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel -- so it was nice to see someone used the correct method.



If you don't have an agenda, then either you just suck at math, or you've let people who DO have agendas cloud your judgement.

Maybe I just subscribe to a fallacy. Got anymore perjorative rhetoric that you'd like to use? You're such a smug asshole.




TPC method. 4 is half of 8, 1 is half of two. They're both half, yet 4 is 400% of 1 and 4 less than 8, whereas 1 is only 1 less than 2. It is unfair to 2 that 8 is so big.

The fact that using that methodology would result in a huge skew to the wealthy, by simply adding "/2" as the last line on everyone's tax return, should be enough to show that that methodology isn't a good faith way to analyze tax policy.

What are you talking about? Have you lost track of what we're talking about? The question is who benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts. This has to be analyzed with respect to a set level of income, pre-cut effective tax rate, and post-cut effective tax rate. The effective tax rate is just a function of income, so multiply by income and you get to tax liability. Now subtract those two liabilities and divide by income to get the actual benefit of the tax cut.

What you're "proving" with your divide by 2 challenge is that the United States Federal Income Tax is a progressive tax. Duh. That does nothing to show that under the current progressive tax schedule, the Bush tax cuts did not favor the rich over the poor. Now the tax schedule is just less progressive than it used to be.

[crb]

What are you talking about? Have you lost track of what we're talking about? The question is who benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts. This has to be analyzed with respect to a set level of income, pre-cut effective tax rate, and post-cut effective tax rate. The effective tax rate is just a function of income, so multiply by income and you get to tax liability. Now subtract those two liabilities and divide by income to get the actual benefit of the tax cut.

What you're "proving" with your divide by 2 challenge is that the United States Federal Income Tax is a progressive tax. Duh. That does nothing to show that under the current progressive tax schedule, the Bush tax cuts did not favor the rich over the poor. Now the tax schedule is just less progressive than it used to be.

I'm talking about their methodology.



This has to be analyzed with respect to a set level of income, pre-cut effective tax rate, and post-cut effective tax rate.

Specifically that.

The numerator is the cut, the denominator is the income.

1/2 == 4/8

They're equal, mathematically, but the TPC analysis states that they aren't, because 8-4 != 2-1, which is not a good faith way of looking at it.

It comes down to their desire to measure a tax cut as a percentage of total income, in instead of as a total of tax burden, which is wrong.

Tax cuts should be measured as a percentage of tax burden, because that is what tax cuts are on.

Tax rates should be measured as a percentage of total income, because that is what tax rates are on.

Because the olympics are going on. Say there was a straightaway street bike race sprint and you decided to cut a few hundred feet off of the length of the race. Would you figure a percentage of the cut by comparing the size of the cut to the length of the street overall? Or the length of the race?

[Daniel]

I'm dumber for having read CRB's posts.

Don't forget guys, the Stock Market is in the tank because people think Obama is gonna win the election.

[Khariz]

I'm dumber for having read CRB's posts.

Don't forget guys, the Stock Market is in the tank because people think Obama is gonna win the election.

Yep, all those greedy, evil, capitalist businessmen that run the world are scart of him.

[Keller]

I think you're lost on the TPC method.

It is all measured as a function of income, which you're not including. Under your 1/2 and 4/8 example, the TPC concludes they are both .5 -- how is that not equal?

Can you detail what you're proposing? Maybe even a tax foundation that uses that method of analysis?

[Kranar]

They're equal, mathematically, but the TPC analysis states that they aren't, because 8-4 != 2-1, which is not a good faith way of looking at it.


Could you elaborate on this point? I believe you might be sorely mistaken about this but I could be wrong.

Where does the TPC analysis say that 1/2 is not equal to 4/8 or skew divisions in such a way to augment their argument?

I did not find such an example, but admittedly I didn't scan through the whole thing. If it exists, then I agree with you that it would be the absolute dumbest argument. I would be very interested to read it.

[Back]

Yep, all those greedy, evil, capitalist businessmen that run the world are scart of him.

Actually, the term is “skurred”.

[Khariz]

Actually, the term is “skurred”.

Damnit, that's right. Sorry bout that.

[crb]

Could you elaborate on this point? I believe you might be sorely mistaken about this but I could be wrong.

Where does the TPC analysis say that 1/2 is not equal to 4/8 or skew divisions in such a way to augment their argument?

I did not find such an example, but admittedly I didn't scan through the whole thing. If it exists, then I agree with you that it would be the absolute dumbest argument. I would be very interested to read it.


Okay



TPC ANALYSIS:
Using the same quintile analysis abused in the Slate Charts TPC indicates the following reductions as a function of income by each quintile (from poorest to richest). The figures are produced under two basic assumptions: the full phase-in of all tax cuts employed in the 2001-2006 cuts and the continued escalation of the AMT phase-in.

Reduction in net tax liability as a function of income upon phase-in of all tax cuts in 2010:
Overall: 4.2%
0-20%: .7%
20.1-40%: 2.5%
40.1-60%: 2.6%
60.1-80%: 3.5%
80%+: 5.4%
99.9%+: 8.2%
Source.

We need to define some things.

1. Tax burden = how much you pay in taxes
2. Tax rate = your tax rate
3. tax cut = a reduction in your tax rate or tax burden
4. income = your moola.
5. government tax bill = aggregate total of all tax receipts received by the government

Okay... we all agree on these definitions?

How about these equations:

TaxBurden = income(TaxRate)
TaxCut = NewTaxBurden/OldTaxBurden OR
TaxCut = NewTaxRate/OldTaxRate

How, here is the thing, TPC is measure a TaxCUT like this:

TaxCut = NewIncome/OldIncome

They're measuring a cut as a function of income, not as a function of burden. A tax cut is not cutting income, why would you measure it that way?

Keller was right a few posts up, I proved the US had a progressive tax system, and because we have a progressive tax system the TPC analysis is in bad faith.

Here are our current "progressive" (stupid word really, root word of "progress" is in appropriate) tax system:

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly
10% Not over $8,025 Not over $16,050
15% $8,025 - $32,550 $16,050 - $65,100
25% $32,550 - $78,850 $65,100 - $131,450
28% $78,850 - $164,550 $131,450 - $200,300
33% $164,550 - $357,700 $200,300 - $357,700
35% Over $357,700 Over $357,700

Now, if I wanted to give a 5% tax cut to everyone how would I do it?

10%-5%
15%-5%
25%-5%
28%-5%
33%-5%
35%-5%

Is that really a 5% cut? This is, what liberals would agrue, a "fair" way of doing things.

Under the existing system the rich person pays a 3.5x higher rate than the poor person. If you used tax cuts like above the rich person would now pay a 6x higher rate than the poor person. It would make the system more "progressive"

The proper way to do a balanced tax cut is how, in math, or statistics, you do any percentage based adjustment. You multiple

10(.95)%
15(.95)%
25(.95)%
28(.95)%
33(.95)%
35(.95)%

Right? Hence my point in previous posts of just adding "/2" to the bottom of every tax return as a proof of bias.

So, 10 * .95 is 9.5% and 35 * .95 is 33.25

The moment of truth, do the ratios match..

10/35 == 9.5/33.25

Yes, they do. In the first method of calculating a tax cut the rich person went from paying 3.5x what the poor person paid to paying 6x what the poor person paid (in percentage terms, if we figure in actual tax bills of course it is far far far far more, but then again, so is his income, so percentage terms are the appropriate way to figure it). In the second method of calculating a tax cut the rich person goes from paying 3.5x what the poor person pays, to paying 3.5x what the poor person pays.

Can we all agree that the appropriate way to do a balanced tax cut then is to calculate it by multiplying your desired cut amount by the existing rate, rather than merely subtracting a constant number from each rate?

.
.
.
.
.

So... if we agree that that is a balanced tax cut, lets take some real world examples.

357,700 is the top tax bracket of 35%
8,000 is the bottom bracker of 10%

Tax Burden for each would then be

35% = 357700 * .35 = 125195
10% = 8000 * .10 = 800

Now... we've all agreed on what makes a balanced tax cut right? So, I will apply the new tax rates

33.5% = 357700 * .335 = 119829.5
9.5% = 8000 * .095 = 760

The reduction in tax rate was a solid 5%. The reduction for each in tax burden is:

Rich: $5365.50
Poor: $40

Now, where the TPC fails, is they measure the reduction in tax burden against total income.

$40/8000 = 0.005, they then call that a tax cut of 0.5%
$5365.50/357700 = 0.015, they then call that a tax cut of 1.5%

They say it is unfair.

It is a disingenuous way of calculating tax cuts, they do so because they push a liberal agenda, and want to push our country towards an even more "progressive" tax system where the rich pay an even larger share of the federal tax burden.

The only way it was be statistically sound to use the TPC method of analysis would be if we did NOT have a progressive tax system and instead had a flat tax. Otherwise, a balanced tax cut, which could be as simple as just ending all 1040s with "/2" would always, through their methods, come out as unfair to the poor.

I do not think it is right for Keller or anyone else to use a liberal source like TPC, and claim they are without bias, while dismissing any source I quote as biased.

The thing is, with a progressive tax system, the rich not only pay more taxes because they make more money, they pay a higher rate on their higher income as well, it is a double whammy. Because of this situation though, when you do a balanced tax cut, reducing everyone's tax rate by the same percentage, the person paying the highest tax rate will always receive the largest, in absolute terms, cut. Because a percentage of a small number, is indeed smaller than a percentage of a large number.

If you feel that the 10% bracket for the poorest people is too high, and the 35% bracket for the richest is too low, then by all means you might as well support the TPC method of analysis because it provides an excuse to change the brackets. But realize, by having a progressive tax system, any balanced percentage based tax cut will automatically end up using the same staggered scale and a function of the equations used.

It seems to me a democrat wants a progressive tax system but when making cuts they want to pretend we have a flat tax. We don't.

I hope I adequately explained why measuring a tax cut as a function of total income under a progressive tax system is wrong.

[crb]

and one more thing, if you wanted to adjust the tax brackets with an absolute constant modifier, don't lie and call it a balanced tax cut, call it a modification of the tax brackets to a more "progressive" scale, because that is what it is.

[AnticorRifling]

Why is it whenever threads like this come up I always end up feeling like Boxer from Animal Farm?

[Keller]

crb.

One last time. I promise myself this will be the last time I try to get this through to you -- this discussion is about WHO GOT THE BENEFIT FROM THE BUSH TAX CUTS and not was it fair.

Also, fyi -- progressive rates apply at each marginal rate and there is no "catch-up" provision similar to the corporate regime. That's why the effective tax rate is important and not the marginal rate. I just wanted to make sure you knew that. I wasn't sure if you knew it and used 35% as a simplification or what.

[crb]

I used 35% as a simplification.




One last time. I promise myself this will be the last time I try to get this through to you -- this discussion is about WHO GOT THE BENEFIT FROM THE BUSH TAX CUTS and not was it fair.

Actually, as I recall, it isn't the case. The discussion came out of the rhetoric of the democratic party constantly saying the cuts were for the rich only, or weighted towards the rift, or to help the rich. That they were unbalanced or unfair or tilted. I guess those could be ambiguous statements... if you wanted to be argumentative, it seems obvious to me what they were saying though.

I would argue that all tax payers receive benefits from the cuts, I also find it disingenuous to look at the cuts in a vacuum. In absolute dollar terms, the rich, who pay, by far, the most income taxes in both absolute dollar terms and relative terms, got the largest absolute dollar term discount. Still, after the cuts, they still pay by far the largest income taxes in both absolute dollar terms and relative terms.

So you're saying its unfair or wrong that when doing a balanced proportional tax cut, individuals who pay the most taxes have the largest absolute dollar terms benefit?

I don't look at benefit in absolute terms, I look it at relative terms, and I don't look at one tax cut in a vacuum.

The overall tax system benefits the poor,t hey pay the lowest taxes, and pay the lowest tax rate. The Bush tax cuts removed millions of people from having to pay any income tax at all. To say that the rich received the largest absolute dollar term benefit, whilst ignoring all else, is disingenuous.

The bottom line is that democratic party and their supporters argue that the tax cuts were "unfair" and they want to repeal the cuts on the "rich" The premise for doing this is a lie, which makes it the wrong move.

The tax cuts were balanced, or if anything weighted a little bit towards the lower middle class.

I will concede that in absolute dollar terms the people who pay the highest tax rate and who pay the most taxes got the largest absolute dollar term benefit from the tax cuts. And I'll call that right.

[Keller]

So you're saying its unfair or wrong that when doing a balanced proportional tax cut, individuals who pay the most taxes have the largest absolute dollar terms benefit?

/epicfacepalm

[Keller]

I will concede that in absolute dollar terms the people who pay the highest tax rate and who pay the most taxes got the largest absolute dollar term benefit from the tax cuts. And I'll call that right.

They also got a larger percentage of their after-tax income returned to them -- meaning, as a measure of each quintile's income, they got the biggest benefit.

[Keller]

Actually, as I recall, it isn't the case. The discussion came out of the rhetoric of the democratic party constantly saying the cuts were for the rich only, or weighted towards the rift, or to help the rich. That they were unbalanced or unfair or tilted. I guess those could be ambiguous statements... if you wanted to be argumentative, it seems obvious to me what they were saying though.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=34276&highlight=slate

You were the only person who ever mentioned fairness. I know you want to believe I am something other than I am or that I believe something that I do not -- but my agenda has always been truthful reporting.

Truth be told, I'm very fiscally conservative and believe in lower tax rates. I'd like to see the corporate rate abolished. But I also recognize that as soon as you begin cherry-picking data or using misleading methods of analysis any educated (tax educated) person is going to pick up on your agenda and write off your entire argument. If you feel like you've got to resort to those sort of tactics to make a point -- your point likely wasn't strong to begin with.

Why not just admit that the Bush Tax Cuts did benefit the wealtiest quintile more than any other -- and rightfully so. The argument should be WHY those cuts are good tax policy and not some shitty misleading analysis of the tax cuts themselves.

But the fact is -- this discussion has never been about fairness or tax policy. It has been about who benefited the most from the Bush Tax Cuts.

[crb]

You're taking a relative scale and talking absolutes, it is disingenuous, as I have been saying.

You're also saying the people who, both before and after, get the least benefit from the tax system, got the most benefit from a change, which seems to be a stupid point to make.

The rich got a relative benefit equal or less than everyone else. The fact that their absolute benefit is great is merely a function of their higher tax bracket, had they been in a lower tax bracket equal with all other tax payers you (or the DNC, I'm sure where you, personally stand) wouldn't have a point. The fact that we have a progressive tax system means that any balanced equal percentage based tax cut will always favor the rich the most in absolute terms. If you want to make balanced equal percentage based tax cuts result in equivalent absolute benefits for all tax players you will need to do away with the progressive system and move to a flat tax. Why aren't dems arguing for that?

Under the methodology you seem the favor, the TPC methodology, the only way to get a tax cut that didn't "benefit the rich the most" would be to change our progressive scale so that instead of paying 3.5x the what poor people pay, the rich ratio would be skewed to the rich paying 6 or 10x what poor people pay instead.

Or, to say it another way, there if the progressive scale is maintained at current ratios, there is no mathematically possible tax cut that would NOT result in a "larger benefit" for the rich using the TPC methodology. It is mathematically impossible to do that and maintain the progressive scale at the current ratio.

The only possible way to do a tax cut which, when measured by the TPC methology, did NOT result in a "larger benefit" for the rich, would be one where the ratios of our progressive scale are changed.


Now Keller, if you want to argue the relative morals of a progressive tax system we can. I'm a capitalist and a libertarian. I'm in favor of a flat tax and am wholly against making our scale anymore progressive than it is currently.

If you want to argue that we need a progressive tax system is good and that we need an even more progressive one, I'll take that argument. However, don't sit there and act like TPC is not biased, is not pushing for a more progressive system. Do not act like the only fair tax cut is one which makes the system more progressive than it is now.

If you want a more progressive system say "I want a more progressive system" don't simply say you want a "Balanced tax cut" because that isn't what you ask for.

[crb]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=34276&highlight=slate

You were the only person who ever mentioned fairness. I know you want to believe I am something other than I am or that I believe something that I do not -- but my agenda has always been truthful reporting.

Truth be told, I'm very fiscally conservative and believe in lower tax rates. I'd like to see the corporate rate abolished. But I also recognize that as soon as you begin cherry-picking data or using misleading methods of analysis any educated (tax educated) person is going to pick up on your agenda and write off your entire argument. If you feel like you've got to resort to those sort of tactics to make a point -- your point likely wasn't strong to begin with.

Why not just admit that the Bush Tax Cuts did benefit the wealtiest quintile more than any other -- and rightfully so. The argument should be WHY those cuts are good tax policy and not some shitty misleading analysis of the tax cuts themselves.

But the fact is -- this discussion has never been about fairness or tax policy. It has been about who benefited the most from the Bush Tax Cuts.
You've yet to challenge one iota of the equations I used in my previous posts and you're saying I'm using a misleading analysis?

You're the one who has been misled by a misleading analysis. Either that, or you're a socialist in denial.

It is mathematically impossible to design a tax cut that both preserves the current progressive scale and DOESN'T benefit the rich the most under the TPC methology.

[crb]

and oh, Keller



Why not just admit that the Bush Tax Cuts did benefit the wealtiest quintile more than any other -- and rightfully so. The argument should be WHY those cuts are good tax policy and not some shitty misleading analysis of the tax cuts themselves.



I will concede that in absolute dollar terms the people who pay the highest tax rate and who pay the most taxes got the largest absolute dollar term benefit from the tax cuts. And I'll call that right.

[Audriana]

Why is it republicans' goto jibe is to call Democrats Socialists and Democrats' goto jibe is to call Republicans Facists?

[crb]

liberalism is socialism lite.

The facism claim is really off base though. (http://townhall.com/Columnists/DanielPipes/2008/01/08/fascisms_legacy_liberalism)

Fact is, conservatives favor small government (real ones anyways) which put them at odds with facism.



A totalitarian movement started and popularized by Benito Mussolini which, much like communism, stresses the state as the cure for societies problems.
What differentiates it from Communism is the focus on nationalism more than the workers.
Nazi Germany was inspired by fascist Italy, though there are some differences. Its Nationalism extends into racial superiority as a distinct tenant.
There is a misconception of Communism and Fascism being on different ends of the political spectrum, this is a myth created by the Soviets to brand enemies of the party (the fascists were competition).
Fascist and Communist states both supress the individual for the collective people, and in turn socialize health care, business (sometimes corporatism), and education.
Fascism is not inherently left or right wing but it shares its roots with modern liberal ideology, as well as in eastern spirituality (that's where Hitler got the swastika from) and marxism; not to mention a general disdain for all things Judeo-Christian (Il Duce, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao all had an equal hate for Christianity).
That isn't to say that there isn't right wing fascism...its just harder to find. The most famous fascists, Hitler and Mussolini, were definitely on the left side of the spectrum.

These smoking bans are fascist.


The only thing remotely fascist about republicans is the ones from the religious right who want to like, you know, legislate your bedroom.

[Audriana]

We Should all just take the Political Compass test and post it so we know who believes what and we wouldn't have to have these 100 reply fights.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Audriana
We Should all just take the Political Compass test and post it so we know who believes what and we wouldn't have to have these 100 reply fights.

For what it's worth this is where people fell 4 years ago...

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=5137

[crb]

you mean this one? hehe

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

[Audriana]

LOL... I call Bullshit on PB's .38/.56!

[crb]

Hmm... I don't like that political compass test... the first question has an obvious liberal bias



If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.


What if you think that they're not mutually exclusive? It is the people, afterall, who work for an own public companies.

[Sean]

There was also this one: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=16773

[Audriana]

freaky...

What if you think that they're not mutually exclusive? It is the people, afterall, who work for an own public companies.
The very first question: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

This is not a fair question. I will of course choose to serve humanity over the well being of just a corporation. That is being neither left or right. It is simply being sane.

I found that question pretty iffy too, and some questions do seem a bit off but the rest aren't too bad. I took one a while ago that had a bit more... unbias?... questions but gave the same sort of rank... It had a final result with several people's faces in the squares; if I can find it again I'll post it.

*edit* I think it was Sean's post one...

[crb]

A lot of the questions are loaded like...

'When did you stop beating your wife?'

but on the compass I came out about dead on with Friedman.

I didn't allow myself to get guilted into all the BS economic questions like that first one.

[crb]

Sean's link...



Your true political self:
You are a

Social Liberal
(61% permissive)


and an...

Economic Conservative
(76% permissive)


You are best described as a:


Libertarian


No kidding.

[Audriana]

http://cdn.okcimg.com/_img/layout2/tests/politics/chart_famous.jpghttp://cdn.okcimg.com/graphics/politics/chart_political.gif

Not sure I believe Obama is a socialist.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://cdn.okcimg.com/_img/layout2/tests/politics/chart_famous.jpghttp://cdn.okcimg.com/graphics/politics/chart_political.gif

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/396/chartoflessgayew8.png

Fixed.

[crb]

It depends which Obama you're talking about... I would agree Summer Obama isn't socialist. But Winter & Spring Obama... I'm not so sure.

The problem is, if he is elected, which one will show up?

I would, of course, concede that there may be a conservative bias with that poll, considering John Mccain's prime position. I find him moderate, of course, and think he is in the right position, but his picture is huge.

So unless they did that picture when hillary and obama were still duking it out (not knowing who would win) it isn't very fair.

[Audriana]

Eh... If they really wanted to show me where I stood next to history's prime political figures, they probably just should have used labeled dots...

[AnticorRifling]

I took this one: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 40%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%.
(Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)

According to your answers,

the political group that
agrees with you most is...

.



CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.

Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,

tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what

they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

[Keller]

It is mathematically impossible to design a tax cut that both preserves the current progressive scale and DOESN'T benefit the rich the most under the TPC methology.

How is that news? If you increase, instead of decrease, the progressivity, the analysis will show the rich not getting the benefit.

The point you're making, over and over and over, is that we've still got a progressive system.

The point I am making, over and over and over, is that it's less progressive now than it was in 2001.

[crb]

The point I am making, over and over and over, is that it's less progressive now than it was in 2001.

Then you'd be wrong.

And, FWIW, I've not seen you try to make that point over and over. I'm sure you'll say its the same thing as saying the rich got the most benefit, only it isn't.

And Keller..



How is that news? If you increase, instead of decrease, the progressivity, the analysis will show the rich not getting the benefit.

The news is, if the model forces you to increase progressivity in order to show a situation that doesn't favor the rich, then the model is flawed. When a tax cut is enacted that maintains the current progressive scale smart, intelligent, reasonable people will see that as a neutrally weighted tax cut. The TPC analysis shows a bias to the rich.

So basically Keller, my problem with you is you're defending as gospel a analysis methodology from a liberal group that cannot possibly not show a favor to the rich for any tax cut that preserves the ratios of our progressive scale at exact levels. Any tax cut, any, tax cut, that makes the system equally or less progressive will be shown to benefit the rich. Only a more progressive system, and substantially more, would be shown to benefit the poor.

It is true Keller, that a less progressive system benefits the rich, and a more progressive system benefits the poor. However, it is also true that an equally progressive system is benefit neutral. The TPC methology spits out a bias on an equally progressive system, which proves their methods are conducted in bad faith.

[Khariz]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 70%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...


LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

I didn't surprise myself at all there.

[BigWorm]

Sean's link...

No kidding.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 60%.

LIBERTARIAN

No kidding.

[Sean]

Heh..

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

According to your answers,

the political group that
agrees with you most is...

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

[Back]

Hmm, I can live with this. I voted maybe on the draft because I feel compulsory service is a good idea.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 60%.
(Please note: Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

[ClydeR]

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 20%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 90%.

According to your answers,

the political group that
agrees with you most is...
Conservative

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

[Valthissa]

Hmm... I don't like that political compass test... the first question has an obvious liberal bias



What if you think that they're not mutually exclusive? It is the people, afterall, who work for an own public companies.

The site adresses your concern (about liberal bias) as follows:

Some of the questions are slanted

Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.

They also have a FAQ on the question you specifically cite.

As I posted in the original thread, while far from perfect we have found the site a good starting point in understanding each other in political discussions.

C/Valth

[Back]

Are Libertarians the NEW Conservatives?

[Daniel]

Yep, all those greedy, evil, capitalist businessmen that run the world are scart of him.

It's okay. Once Obama wins the election and turns this country in mother Russia you won't have to worry abotu them anymore.

[Khariz]

It's okay. Once Obama wins the election and turns this country in mother Russia you won't have to worry abotu them anymore.

Again...I'm not saying he CAN do it, but he most assuredly desires to take us *in that direction*.

[Daniel]

Again...I'm not saying he CAN do it, but he most assuredly desires to take us *in that direction*.

In Mother Russia tin foil hat wears you.

[Khariz]

In Mother Russia tin foil hat wears you.

It's not possible for any rational thinking being to think that Barack Obama does not want to take the country in a more economically socialist direct that it is currently in. If you honestly believe that he doesn't want that, a jagged hollow lobotomy is about all that could help you.

[Daniel]

Hey Khariz,

How many weeks of canned goods do you have stockpiled?

[Back]

It's not possible for any rational thinking being to think that Barack Obama does not want to take the country in a more economically socialist direct that it is currently in. If you honestly believe that he doesn't want that, a jagged hollow lobotomy is about all that could help you.

I must disagree and advise you take therapy. Being the nice American that I am.

[Khariz]

Hey Khariz,

How many weeks of canned goods do you have stockpiled?

There's the deflection when the person makes the indisputable point again.

[Daniel]

What deflection? I've already told you several times that you're off your fucking rocker and why.

I'm not gonna spend posts and posts going back and forth with you when you've demonstrated amply that you've dived off the cliff of rationality into the realm of delusion and self induced terror.

[Khariz]

What deflection? I've already told you several times that you're off your fucking rocker and why.

I'm not gonna spend posts and posts going back and forth with you when you've demonstrated amply that you've dived off the cliff of rationality into the realm of delusion and self induced terror.

So you actually believe that Obama does NOT want to take the country in a more socialist direction than it is NOW?

Answer that question with a YES or NO answer.

[Daniel]

Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. [2] This control may be exercised on behalf of the state, through a market, or through popular collectives such as workers' councils and cooperatives. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments.


-

No.

[Khariz]

<insert definition of socialism>
-

No.



Thank you.




Now here's two definitions for you:

Liberation Theology:

Liberation theology is a school of theology within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. Two of the starting points of Liberation theology are, first, the question of the origin of sin; and secondly, the idea that Christians should make good use of the talents given by God, and that includes intelligence in a general sense, and science in particular. Therefore, these theologians use sociology and economics sciences to understand poverty, since they considered poverty was the source of sin. In the sixties, when they started this line of thought, social sciences in Latin America and Europe were dominated by marxist activist and methodologies derived from historical materialism, which influenced the development of Liberation theology.


Black Liberation Theology:

James Cone published the seminal work that systemized black liberation theology, Black Theology and Black Power in 1969. In the book, Cone asserted that not only was black power not alien to the Gospel, it was, in fact, the Gospel message for all of 20th century America.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120585801828545495.html?mod=fpa_mostpop
African American Religious Thought: An Anthology By Cornel West, Eddie S. Glaude 2003 ISBN 0664224598 Page 850

This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage — social, political, economic and religious. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation -- "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes Cone. Black consciousness and the black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology -- i.e., one of victimization from white oppression. This liberation involves empowerment and seeks the right of self-definition, self-affirmation and self-determination. Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the one church frequently cited by press accounts, and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation of theology. This theology has recently become a matter of national debate as intense condemnation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the most visible exponent of the theology, by the U.S. mainstream media forced Senator Barack Obama to distance himself from his former pastor.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/03/black_church/print.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/opinion/edderber.php

Obama attended this church for over 20 years...but of course, it's highly illogical to infer that he supported the theology behind the church. He just sat there and had no clue what was being said.

[Daniel]

As I told you about 100 paranoid schizo posts ago, social concerns is not the same as socialism. I doubt you appreciate the difference.

[Keller]

The news is, if the model forces you to increase progressivity in order to show a situation that doesn't favor the rich, then the model is flawed. When a tax cut is enacted that maintains the current progressive scale smart, intelligent, reasonable people will see that as a neutrally weighted tax cut. The TPC analysis shows a bias to the rich.

Except that the tax cuts did decrease progressivity.


So basically Keller, my problem with you is you're defending as gospel a analysis methodology from a liberal group that cannot possibly not show a favor to the rich for any tax cut that preserves the ratios of our progressive scale at exact levels. Any tax cut, any, tax cut, that makes the system equally or less progressive will be shown to benefit the rich. Only a more progressive system, and substantially more, would be shown to benefit the poor.

It is true Keller, that a less progressive system benefits the rich, and a more progressive system benefits the poor. However, it is also true that an equally progressive system is benefit neutral. The TPC methology spits out a bias on an equally progressive system, which proves their methods are conducted in bad faith.

Since when is the Heritage Foundation a liberal group? Because they are the ones who wrote your method is misleading and recommends net burden decrease as a function of income. I've provided that link twice. Ignoring it wont make it go away.

No method is perfect. If you want to come up with a less misleading test for who got the burden a tax cut -- do it.

[Daniel]

Thanks for the ex post edit. Asshole.


Thank you.




Now here's two definitions for you:

Liberation Theology:
In the sixties, when they started this line of thought, social sciences in Latin America and Europe were dominated by marxist activist and methodologies derived from historical materialism, which influenced the development of Liberation theology.



Oh wow. Social Sciences were dominated by Marxist activists and methodologies in the 1960's?

Thanks for that information. That must mean that anyone concerned with the social sciences is a marxist! I have been so stupid!




Black Liberation Theology:

James Cone published the seminal work that systemized black liberation theology, Black Theology and Black Power in 1969. In the book, Cone asserted that not only was black power not alien to the Gospel, it was, in fact, the Gospel message for all of 20th century America.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120585801828545495.html?mod=fpa_mostpop
African American Religious Thought: An Anthology By Cornel West, Eddie S. Glaude 2003 ISBN 0664224598 Page 850

This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage — social, political, economic and religious. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation -- "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes Cone. Black consciousness and the black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology -- i.e., one of victimization from white oppression. This liberation involves empowerment and seeks the right of self-definition, self-affirmation and self-determination. Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the one church frequently cited by press accounts, and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation of theology. This theology has recently become a matter of national debate as intense condemnation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the most visible exponent of the theology, by the U.S. mainstream media forced Senator Barack Obama to distance himself from his former pastor.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/03/black_church/print.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/opinion/edderber.php

Obama attended this church for over 20 years...but of course, it's highly illogical to infer that he supported the theology behind the church. He just sat there and had no clue what was being said.


I didn't realize that "Self empowerment, affirmation and determination" in the face of oppression was a central, or even unique tenet of socialism.

I mean, it's not like the same sentiment is at the heart of what this country was founded on...

Wait. nevermind. It is.

You're just stupid.

[Khariz]

Make fun of me all you want. Doesn't change the fact that Obama was indoctrinated with socialist ideas for years from his closest friends and associates.

[Warriorbird]

Khariz can strike back against the Marxist menance that awaits us in an Obama presidency!

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/reddawn_120704.gif

He can join the Wolverines!

http://lonelymachines.org/red_dawn/red_dawn07.png

...your last name isn't McCarthy is it?

[Khariz]

Funny stuff. But like I just said, making fun of me doesn't change who Obama is associated with and what their views are.

[Warriorbird]

Wright's main values seem to be getting as much power in his area's community as he can to further his church and his pocketbook... not impending Marxist rebellion.

Rezko's a fixer. There's nothing socialist about that. Unvarnished capitalism.

For a Weather Underground counterpoint I'll match you McCain's associations with Moon.

If you want to play 'fucked up associations' you can do the same with almost any politician. You just have some natural bias against Obama. Suggesting he's going to turn the country Marxist is ridiculous though.

[Khariz]

That's definitely true.

[crb]

Except that the tax cuts did decrease progressivity.



Since when is the Heritage Foundation a liberal group? Because they are the ones who wrote your method is misleading and recommends net burden decrease as a function of income. I've provided that link twice. Ignoring it wont make it go away.

No method is perfect. If you want to come up with a less misleading test for who got the burden a tax cut -- do it.

I'm sorry, I still can't find the heritage link. I can find my link.... where they unequivocally state that the bush tax cuts favoring the rich is a myth, but I've looked through your posts and cannot find your link. In your big wall of text post I only see 4 links. Are my eyes failing me?



Except that the tax cuts did decrease progressivity.

No, they didn't, where did I say they did? They increased it, slightly.



No method is perfect. If you want to come up with a less misleading test for who got the burden a tax cut -- do it

I reject the concept of checking "the burden of a tax cut" because it is an oxymoron. Or rather, congress gets the burden of a tax cut because they're the ones who have to not waste money because of it. Otherwise you're saying what? cutting taxes on everyone is a burden on some?

I look at the relative tax rates and burdens before and after to see if it is fair. They should end up roughly in the same proportion after the cut as they were before the cut (and they are).



In anycase if we all accept that a flat fair balanced cut is as simple as putting "/2" at the bottom of a tax form, then any method of analysis should have to show such a cut to be neutral in order to be validated, and yours does not.

[crb]

Wright's main values seem to be getting as much power in his area's community as he can to further his church and his pocketbook... not impending Marxist rebellion.

Rezko's a fixer. There's nothing socialist about that. Unvarnished capitalism.

For a Weather Underground counterpoint I'll match you McCain's associations with Moon.

If you want to play 'fucked up associations' you can do the same with almost any politician. You just have some natural bias against Obama. Suggesting he's going to turn the country Marxist is ridiculous though.
Man Buddy, I hope if Obama gets elected you don't end up with buyer's remorse.

Obama is a bit of a wimp, and do we want a rubberstamp for Pelosi and Reid? It isn't just Obama that scares us, and he has said very very very socialist things, it is that he'll have both houses of congress as well. If we were going to go back to Bill's days and have things be split, we wouldn't be so worried.

I think this hurts Obama's chances too, because many many people like to split things to keep things moderate, and they'll vote for McCain because the house and senate are highly unlikely to flip back this time around (though, really, with Congress' shitty ass performance they should).

[Ashliana]

I disagree with your interpretation completely. Why do you think the people are so unhappy with congress? Because they're unable to do anything. Because of the 51-49 split in the senate, and 236-199 split in the house, somehow everything bad that happens--or things that don't happen--are suddenly the fault of one party?

No. That's how things work in your simplistic fantasy land. Neither side has been able to accomplish much because neither side has a significant enough lead. All branches of the government are going to continue leaning left, simply because the right has done such an incompetent job leading the country in all sides for so long.

I don't see the trend, as you say, for "many many people" to split things intentionally. Split government equals lame duck government, which is why peopel are so unhappy right now. The only thing that changed is that the hyper-reactionary religious conservatives, courted by Reagan, disrupted the balance of power when they flocked to the polls to try and enforce their religion upon everyone else in the 80s and we've been recovering, slowly, since.

[Daniel]

Make fun of me all you want.

I will. Thanks.

[crb]

I disagree with your interpretation completely. Why do you think the people are so unhappy with congress? Because they're unable to do anything. Because of the 51-49 split in the senate, and 236-199 split in the house, somehow everything bad that happens--or things that don't happen--are suddenly the fault of one party?

No. That's how things work in your simplistic fantasy land. Neither side has been able to accomplish much because neither side has a significant enough lead. All branches of the government are going to continue leaning left, simply because the right has done such an incompetent job leading the country in all sides for so long.

I don't see the trend, as you say, for "many many people" to split things intentionally. Split government equals lame duck government, which is why peopel are so unhappy right now. The only thing that changed is that the hyper-reactionary religious conservatives, courted by Reagan, disrupted the balance of power when they flocked to the polls to try and enforce their religion upon everyone else in the 80s and we've been recovering, slowly, since.
Then I suggest you do some research. It is well documented that many people like to split their votes to keep things moderate.

[Ashliana]

And I suggest you do some research into why people are currently incredibly unhappy with the congress.

[Khariz]

And I suggest you do some research into why people are currently incredibly unhappy with the congress.

The people are unhappy with congress because the congressman and women do not DO what the people vote them in to do. They made bold claims in their candicacy speeches and then sit there like fools doing absolutely nothing that we "hired" them to do.

Maybe that's part of your point, I dunno.

[Audriana]

I'm unhappy with all 3 branches of the government and most of the people that preceded them. Somewhere along the way they started ignoring the constitution and 'reinterpreting' it.

Somehow they created this goliath that the founding fathers spinning in their graves over. From a national bank to federal income taxes to a two-party system to our general outlook toward foreign affairs, down to adding 'under god' into the pledge.

I generally dislike hypocracy, and if the constitution isn't the way we can preceed in this era, then scrap it and start over. If these people say they want to uphold it, then uphold it.

There are certain things that the federal government should control and monitor. But a great number of things it needs to butt out of and leave to the states. We are 'The United States of America', not 'America seperated out into fifty electoral colleges'.

[Khariz]

Hmm, wow. I find myself being shocked at completely agreeing with someone else I hadn't planned to as well! That's twice today!

[Audriana]

Completely agreeing with that statement, believe me there are hundreds of topics we disagree on...


I'm not sure where in the constitution it says the federal government can dictate at what age we can imbibe alcohol, what can be said on television, or what drugs I can put into my system... It seems like they found a loophole and have raped it into the size of a small city. No supreme court judge would dare impede one of these laws because then the whole system of government that allows agencies like the FCC, FDA, and various other initials that begin with "F" would crumble.

I believe wholeheartedly that the system that has been in use by the Federal Government since the enactment of many of these 'F' agencies and the 'laws' they uphold are completely illegal and unconstitutional…

However, what I believe that you probably don't is that our current system of government has bred so much corruption, taken so much power out of the hands of the people, and simply wasn't envisioned to be quite as large as it has become (or rather, as large and powerful as two-party system and corporations in general have become). It's my belief that the constitution either needs some tough new amendments that change it tremendously, or that it needs to be rewritten completely to take into account a global perspective, instant communication, freedom of information, environmental harmony and its own people's informed decisions. Above all, Politician as a profession needs to be done away with; it insults America’s intelligence.

Several volumes could be written, but suffice it to say, I believe our government will lead us to failure and out of the global arena soon (before our nation's Tricentennial). It will not be a good time for our grandchildren, and it will happen far before most people realize it.

I don’t expect you or anybody else to care about what I say, or even think me sane. But there it is… Just as proof that we don’t agree I guess.

[Khariz]

However, what I believe that you probably don't is that our current system of government has bred so much corruption, taken so much power out of the hands of the people, and simply wasn't envisioned to be quite as large as it has become (or rather, as large and powerful as two-party system and corporations in general have become).


Acutally, I agree with you here as well. The current federal government is certainly way beyond the size and scope originally envisioned. Law School constitutional law courses have given me a good insight into what the founding fathers intended to set up with the constitution, and your opinion quoted above is very consistent with their intent.

I've had to read all of the federalist and anti-federalist materials, and the document we came up with certainly was one that intended to give the bulk of the power to the people, via the states, and not the federal government.

The federal government has essentially stolen the powers given to the states under the constitution by reading things into it that aren't there, or by expanding powers that are they way beyond what must have been contemplated. (i.e. the Commerce Clause). Almost all of those "F agencies" exist because the federal government decided that <insert field here> implicated interstate commerce, and thus per their powers granted under the consitution, could be wholly regulated by the federal government.

The above is a gross simplification, but is pretty accurate.






It's my belief that the constitution either needs some tough new amendments that change it tremendously, or that it needs to be rewritten completely to take into account a global perspective, instant communication, freedom of information, environmental harmony and its own people's informed decisions. Above all, Politician as a profession needs to be done away with; it insults America’s intelligence.



Now this is where we disagree. We don't need more amendments or a new constitution. We need to go back to interpreting the consitution the way the founders wrote it, and erase many years of shitty jurisprudence and precedent that are contrary to such interpretation. Neither scenario is very likely, so we are all just...dealing with what we have.

This is why there is such a freakout over what type of justices presidential candidates will appoint. Constructionist/Originalist judges who think the constitution means either what the founders meant it to say, or what it actually says on the paper, and disagree with the constitution being a "living, breathing document" capable of being constantly re-interpreted, is what we need. We don't need to rehaul the document itself via amendments or replacement.

[Warriorbird]

The problem is we don't really have too many of those on either side of the bench.

You might CLAIM that folks like Scalia are that way... but they aren't.

[Khariz]

Acutally, I agree with that too. Too many of these justices seem to have agendas rather than just doing their jobs. There's way too much legislation from the bench on both sides of the aisle, in addition to shitty consitutional analysis.

[crb]

It's my belief that the constitution either needs some tough new amendments that change it tremendously, or that it needs to be rewritten completely to take into account a global perspective, instant communication, freedom of information, environmental harmony and its own people's informed decisions. Above all, Politician as a profession needs to be done away with; it insults America’s intelligence.

That is some scary shit.

[Keller]

I'm sorry, I still can't find the heritage link. I can find my link.... where they unequivocally state that the bush tax cuts favoring the rich is a myth, but I've looked through your posts and cannot find your link. In your big wall of text post I only see 4 links. Are my eyes failing me?

IS THIS CONSPICUOUS ENOUGH OR WILL YOU AVOID IT AGAIN? (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-13.cfm)





No, they didn't, where did I say they did? They increased it, slightly.

Use the CBO data (governmental non-partisan organization directed by Bush appointee). Divide liability decrease by income. That's the decrease in effective tax rate. You'll notice that it's smaller and gets bigger as income increases. That, by definition, is decreased progressivity.

[crb]

IS THIS CONSPICUOUS ENOUGH OR WILL YOU AVOID IT AGAIN? (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-13.cfm)






Use the CBO data (governmental non-partisan organization directed by Bush appointee). Divide liability decrease by income. That's the decrease in effective tax rate. You'll notice that it's smaller and gets bigger as income increases. That, by definition, is decreased progressivity.
Thanks for posting the link, I'll be sure to read it.

I'm unsure how you can claim the bush tax cuts resulted in a less progressive scale considering millions of the poor were removed of having any tax liability at all, and the tax burden on the rich as a percentage of total tax receipts is at the highest point in history (I understand, of course, that since many people have moved from middle class to "rich" in the last 8 years the number of people in the highest tax brackets has swollen, which will lead to more revenue from those brackets -- however I don't think you can attribute all of the difference to that, and that fact alone should make a reasonable person see the wisdom of the progrowth economic policies of George Bush. A lot of people from the middle class have moved up, and that is a good thing).

You're still of course measuring the cut as a function of total income, which we just got done arguing about and which I reject as being a valid practice.



Divide liability decrease by income.

I guess I should ask if if brackets like say

5 10 20

are less progressive than brackets of

10 20 40

?

[Keller]

Do you understand the following equation:

Effective Tax Rate = Liability / income ?

Delta E.T.R. = Delta Liability / Income ?

I'm sorry that you reject, as a valid practice, the mathematical function for determining effective tax rates. I don't know how to help you with that. Like I said at the beginning -- I can lead you to the water, but I can't force you to drink.

[Clove]

I can lead you to the water, but I can't force you to drink.Or think.

[Back]

Or blink.

[crb]

Do you understand the following equation:

Effective Tax Rate = Liability / income ?

Delta E.T.R. = Delta Liability / Income ?

I'm sorry that you reject, as a valid practice, the mathematical function for determining effective tax rates. I don't know how to help you with that. Like I said at the beginning -- I can lead you to the water, but I can't force you to drink.
I've pointing out numerous times how measuring a cut as a function of total income and not as a function of total liability is a stupid way to do things.

I'm sorry you suck at basic statistical analysis, or you're so blatantly partisan that you refuse to look at the statistics in a reasonable way, or to even acknowledge the explanations I've posted.

I guess in your sad little world a simple tax cut of "/2" on every 1040 is unfair and biased. Check the equations I used in previous posts, tell me where I made a calculation error.

[crb]

and oh Keller, you haven't been saying to measure tax liability like that. I say that in this post (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=782683&postcount=87), so if you're just realized how to calculate tax burden you're like 2 pages behind me, but I'm guessing you never read that post considering you're still acting posting the same tired crap.

What I've been arguing against, and you arguing for (as near as I can tell, considering you keep supporting the liberal TPC analysis), is that you can't measure a tax cut (in a progressive system) by looking at the absolute value of the cut as a function of total income and instead you have to look at the absolute value of the cut as a function of total previous tax burden. To say it in simple terms, measure a tax cut by looking at the percentage of taxes cut, not the amount of income saved (why isn't this obvious... oh wait, it is.)

[crb]

I'm still reading the Heritage link you provided Keller, but about 20% down the page is this paragraph:



The JCT table does not include an average or median amount of tax benefit that taxpayers in corresponding income groups would expect to receive as a result of a change in tax policy. Regard&#173;less of the JCT’s reasoning for excluding average tax benefits, many opponents of tax relief legisla&#173;tion favor highlighting the average tax cut that var&#173;ious income groups can expect to receive. This is because, due to the very nature of our progressive tax system, even a tax cut that is a disproportion&#173;ately smaller percentage for upper-income taxpay&#173;ers can result in higher-income groups (which pay a higher percentage of total federal taxes) receiving a higher nominal dollar amount of benefit. Oppo&#173;nents of tax relief legislation, therefore, prefer comparisons of average tax cuts because they can almost invariably show by such comparisons that the rich benefit more dollar-for-dollar from even a proportionate tax cut, enabling “class warfare” assertions.

OMG IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING !!!!!ONEONEELEVEN

Remember, this is your source.

Next...



The main columns of interest in the 2000 OTA table are the “Average Tax Change” and the two columns under “Total Tax Change.” The 2000 OTA analysis shows lower-income groups receiv&#173;ing what looks like a pittance in income tax relief while upper-income groups receive what appears to be a disproportionate amount of tax relief. The perception that the income tax relief is skewed toward the rich is further emphasized in the last column relating to the percent change in after-tax income.

The 2000 OTA analysis shows that lower-income groups would receive substantially less of a change in their after-tax income than higher-income groups. However, this is due primarily to the current progressive nature of the U.S. income tax system, whereby lower-income groups pay lit&#173;tle or no federal income taxes.[10] In fact, an esti&#173;mated 50.6 million tax returns, or 35.6 percent of all tax returns, had zero or negative income tax lia&#173;bility in 2001.[11] Though an OTA paper released under the Clinton Administration states that “the only tax burden measure with some theoretical basis is the percentage change in after-tax income,”[12] focusing solely on changes in after-tax income can be misleading because it implies that the amount of taxes currently paid is irrelevant to judging the equity of a proposed tax cut.

For example, Chart 1 shows that the entire bot&#173;tom half (bottom 50 percent) of taxpayers who reported positive AGI paid 3.97 percent of all indi&#173;vidual federal income taxes in 2001. This means that the top half of all taxpayers paid 96.03 per&#173;cent of all individual federal income taxes. More&#173;over, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.89 percent, the top 5 percent paid 53.25 percent, and the top 10 percent paid 64.89 percent (almost two-thirds of all federal individual income taxes paid by taxpayers). It is virtually impossible to provide a federal income tax cut that does not ben&#173;efit the top half of taxpayers, since they account for virtually all federal income taxes paid. The bot&#173;tom half of taxpayers pay almost no federal income taxes; therefore, it is difficult to provide meaningful tax cuts to this group of taxpayers.

Unlike the JCT analysis, the distribution table by the 2000 OTA presents the proposed tax plan as disproportionately skewed to the wealthy, thereby reducing the progressivity in the current tax sys&#173;tem. However, without information on how much in income tax each income group currently pays, it is impossible to assess the fairness or equity of the tax plan fully. The 2000 OTA estimate omits such necessary information.

It is important to note another key difference between the JCT analysis and the 2000 OTA analy&#173;sis. The 2000 OTA uses a very broad measure of income that is unfamiliar to most Americans and even to many legislators. The “Family Economic Income” (FEI) concept used by the 2000 OTA is a theoretical attempt to measure income based on a concept that economists refer to as the Haig– Simons income concept. The Haig–Simons income concept defines income as the “total value of rights exercised in the market, together with the accu&#173;mulation of wealth in that period.”[13] Unlike tangi&#173;ble dollar amounts—such as wages, dividends, and capital gains—that make up adjusted gross income, theFEI concept is measured by adding to AGI such items as in-kind income (e.g., cash transfers and food stamps); imputed income from durable goods consumption (e.g., imputed rental income from an owner-occupied home); and accrued (i.e., unrealized) capital gains.


My point again... whatdyaknow?



In short, the OTA Family Economic Income concept and methodology used in the 2000 analy&#173;sis inflates the income amounts for those families primarily included in the middle- and upper-income brackets while lowering their average tax rate. The opposite effect holds for the lower-income groups. Hence, virtually any broad-based income tax reduction proposal, as viewed under the 2000 OTA approach to tax distribution analy&#173;sis, would leverage the already skewed presenta&#173;tion to show even greater disproportionate benefits to the “wealthy” and even less progressivity of any proportional change.

So... you mean to say... analyzing taxes in that way will always show a skew to the rich? Sounds like a fair method to me!



The tables produced by many advocacy groups and think tanks exhibit problems similar to those discussed above. The table produced by Citizens for Tax Justice easily tilts in the direction of biasing any debate toward “class warfare” assertions focusing only on which groups would get how much while completely ignoring the distribution of the current tax burden. From the data in Table 4, the CTJ table clearly shows that upper-income groups would receive a hefty tax break while the lower-income groups get virtually nothing. However, the tables produced by CTJ and often cited in major newspa&#173;pers routinely fail to discuss or disclose the distribu&#173;tion of taxes under current law. The omission of data relating to the distribution of taxes under cur&#173;rent and future law makes it impossible to judge the merits of any tax change and the progressivity of the tax system. For example, any tax change that actu&#173;ally results in a proportional 10 percent reduction in taxes for each income group would appear in a CTJ table as a windfall for the wealthy and a pit&#173;tance for the poor, even though all groups would receive an equal 10 percent reduction in taxes.

Holy shit dude! That is exactly what I've been saying... except I use 50% and not 10%.

Nice source Keller!



Further, CTJ fails to disclose in this table the income concept used in its analysis and whether families or tax returns are the unit of analysis. Although the CTJ table is categorized by quintiles or percentage groupings, since the total number of taxpayers is not presented, the number of taxpay&#173;ing units per income class cannot be determined. There is also no disclosure on which existing taxes are included in the analysis (i.e., income, payroll, estate and gift, etc.). The lack of disclosure in this table should serve as a warning that the presenta&#173;tion of the data is designed more to support CTJ’s political viewpoints than to illuminate the nuances of the tax plan and add to the general debate.

No kidding? A liberal source promoting a liberal agenda, color me unsurprised.



Michael Graetz, former Deputy Assistant Secre&#173;tary for Tax Policy, argues that “The current prac&#173;tice of fashioning tax legislation to achieve a particular result in a distribution table creates the illusion of precision when such precision is impos&#173;sible.”[19] It is statistically possible, even probable, based on averages, that some taxpayers in a given income class would receive no tax cut or even face a tax increase regardless of the average tax change for their income group. Furthermore, not only is precision impossible, but the use of averages mis&#173;represents the central tendency of the data.

That isn't relevant to our argument, but I liked the point it was making -- exceptions are always there.



The use of averages is simple and easy for people to understand. However, the use of averages may not be appropriate if the data exhibit large variabil&#173;ity, there are many outliers in the data, or the data do not fit the pattern of a normal distribution. This is because the average as a measure of central ten&#173;dency can be highly influenced by extreme values. For example, if all humans were either 10 feet tall or two feet tall and divided equally between the two, it would not be helpful to describe humans, on aver&#173;age, as six feet tall and build all homes and cars as if all humans were six feet tall.

Another good point, you hear the one about the statistician who drowned in a river with an average depth of 2 feet?

Half way down the page there is a whole section on averages, good stuff, but it is like 20 paragraphs and 2 or 3 graphs and well, too much too quote here. I like this bit though



The existence of 32.5 million returns—or one-quarter of all federal income tax returns—that pay zero or negative income tax skews the average and makes the use of the average misleading. Further, since tax distribution tables focus predominantly on the “average tax cut” that each income group would expect to receive, the debate over the bene&#173;fits of a tax cut is clouded when one-quarter of tax returns cannot receive a federal income tax cut because they do not pay federal income taxes.

Duh.



All told... very nice source Keller, thank you for posting it and helping me with my argument.

[Keller]

It's a really good thing I've never been in favor of looking at the nominal dollar amount of a tax cut per se and instead use it as a function of income to produce a delta effective tax rate -- otherwise I guess you'd have a point.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a more rational basis for analyzing the incidence of a tax cut than the change in effective tax rates.

[crb]

If you don't think that is what you were doing you need to go back and check your own TPC source.

...and as I've stated numerous times my prefered method is to look at percent change in tax burden. In most simplistic terms that'd mean a 10% "across the board" cut would mean everyone pays 90% of what they paid previous. CurrentRate(.90).

[Parkbandit]

http://curtislowe.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/accountant.jpg

[Audriana]

This is like reading a fight of to two dentists bitching over which is the best dental scraper...