T1B

...those damn Republicans have done it, again...punishing the little man and enriching the wealthy...

The latest Internal Revenue Service data on distribution of the tax burden have been released.

The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income.

The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent — meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

Another IRS report deconstructed the top 1 percent and found that the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from 7 percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003.

These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion — four times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent, who paid an average tax rate of 2.9 percent.

Those damn evil Republicans...

You know, when Jimmy Carter was president and the top statutory tax rate was 70 percent (versus 35 percent today), the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid only 19.7 percent of all federal income taxes. In other words, although the marginal tax rate of the top 1 percent has fallen by 50 percent, their tax share has almost doubled.

Damn them Republicans...

What amazing, unexpected news.

We have a progressive tax structure.

The income gap has increased by more than the "tax rate gap" has decreased.


Any more incredibly insightful observations?

:roll:

mvscal wrote:Nice job on taxes...too bad the Republicrats have dropped the ball on spending.

here, here...but, shhhhh, according to Mikey, BSmack, etc., we never criticize Bush...

Mikey wrote:What amazing, unexpected news.

We have a progressive tax structure.

The income gap has increased by more than the "tax rate gap" has decreased.


Any more incredibly insightful observations?

:roll:

Income gap has increased more than the tax rate gap has decreased? Prove it.

On the other hand we see from the first link I provided that:

Since 1985, the share of national AGI for the:
Top 1% increased 6%;
Top 10% increased 9%;
Top 25% increased 7%;
Top 50% increased 3%; and
Bottom 50% decreased 3%.

Meanwhile, since 1985, the share of taxes paid for the:
Top 1% increased 12%;
Top 10% increased 14%;
Top 25% increased 10%;
Top 50% increased 4%; and
Bottom 4% decreased 4%.

So what's your point, Mikey. Share of AGI for the bottom 50% dropped 3% and their share of taxes dropped 4%. On the other hand, the top 10% saw an AGI increase of 9% while their share of taxes increased 14%.

Nice attempt to spin this shit...bottom line remains, though...Republican tax policy has increased the share of taxes paid by the "rich."

And at the same time, increased governmental tax revenues, too...

Buh-bye, loser.

mvscal wrote:I'm officially off the reservation. That half-witted tard can go fuck himself.

The only thing he had going for him was the fact that he has maybe about one third of a testicle compared Kerry's no balls at all.

This Miers pick did it for me, too. Like I said elsewhere, it was the last nail. From spending to immigration to education to abandoning social security and tax reform to signing campaign finance legislation that he believed was unconstitutional...he sucks.

You have to love the dittonazis bailing on a lame duck. Like you can o anything about it now.

BSmack wrote:You have to love the dittonazis bailing on a lame duck. Like you can o anything about it now.

Bush has three years left, idiot. I seriously doubt that you were calling Clinton a lame duck 10 months after his re-election.

Kinda demonstrates the depths of intellectual dishonesty you'll sink to.

DrDetroit wrote:

BSmack wrote:You have to love the dittonazis bailing on a lame duck. Like you can o anything about it now.

Bush has three years left, idiot. I seriously doubt that you were calling Clinton a lame duck 10 months after his re-election.

No, then again Clinton wasn't sporting a FORTY PERCENT APPROVAL rating 10 months after his 2nd inauguration.

Kinda demonstrates the depths of intellectual dishonesty you'll sink to.

Even you are abandoning Bush. How much more of a lame duck can he be?

Conservatives haven't abandoned the Bush Administration, they've abandoned us.

Holy Crap. A few years too late, but you do realize that we've been saying all this same stuff you are just now recognizing for a long while now?

Hey, shithead, don't you realize that I have been saying this stuff all along?

That's the funny thing with you fuckin lefties...Mvscal and I could be slamming Bush today and tomorrow one of you assholes will carp that we're lock-steppers....never made much sense until now. You're simply liars.

DrDetroit wrote:Hey, shithead, don't you realize that I have been saying this stuff all along?

No you haven't

Solo wrote:Conservatives haven't abandoned the Bush Administration, they've abandoned us.

I realized that during the Reagan Administration. But hey, it's never too late.

DrDetroit wrote:

Mikey wrote:What amazing, unexpected news.

We have a progressive tax structure.

The income gap has increased by more than the "tax rate gap" has decreased.


Any more incredibly insightful observations?

:roll:

Income gap has increased more than the tax rate gap has decreased? Prove it.

It would be pretty obvious if you had even half a functional brain in your hideously misshapen head.

The tax rate for the highest income earners decreased by a significant percentage, and yet they are still paying a larger proportion of the total taxes than they were with the higher rates. This can only mean that income in this bracket has risen faster compared to the lower income brackets than the decrease in the tax rates. Otherwise they would be paying a smaller proportion of the total taxes.

Can you follow that, or do I have to demonstrate using nickels and pennies?

Mikey wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

Mikey wrote:What amazing, unexpected news.

We have a progressive tax structure.

The income gap has increased by more than the "tax rate gap" has decreased.


Any more incredibly insightful observations?

:roll:

Income gap has increased more than the tax rate gap has decreased? Prove it.

It would be pretty obvious if you had even half a functional brain in your hideously misshapen head.

The tax rate for the highest income earners decreased by a significant percentage, and yet they are still paying a larger proportion of the total taxes than they were with the higher rates. This can only mean that income in this bracket has risen faster compared to the lower income brackets than the decrease in the tax rates. Otherwise they would be paying a smaller proportion of the total taxes.

Can you follow that, or do I have to demonstrate using nickels and pennies?

all i know is my fugghin head hurts

mothster wrote:

Mikey wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: Income gap has increased more than the tax rate gap has decreased? Prove it.

It would be pretty obvious if you had even half a functional brain in your hideously misshapen head.

The tax rate for the highest income earners decreased by a significant percentage, and yet they are still paying a larger proportion of the total taxes than they were with the higher rates. This can only mean that income in this bracket has risen faster compared to the lower income brackets than the decrease in the tax rates. Otherwise they would be paying a smaller proportion of the total taxes.

Can you follow that, or do I have to demonstrate using nickels and pennies?

all i know is my fugghin head hurts

How about if I use m&m's and jelly beans?

Vicodins and Quaaludes?

Mikey wrote:

mothster wrote:

Mikey wrote: It would be pretty obvious if you had even half a functional brain in your hideously misshapen head.

The tax rate for the highest income earners decreased by a significant percentage, and yet they are still paying a larger proportion of the total taxes than they were with the higher rates. This can only mean that income in this bracket has risen faster compared to the lower income brackets than the decrease in the tax rates. Otherwise they would be paying a smaller proportion of the total taxes.

Can you follow that, or do I have to demonstrate using nickels and pennies?

all i know is my fugghin head hurts

How about if I use m&m's and jelly beans?

Vicodins and Quaaludes?

no just have bill maher explain it

The tax rate for the highest income earners decreased by a significant percentage, and yet they are still paying a larger proportion of the total taxes than they were with the higher rates. This can only mean that income in this bracket has risen faster compared to the lower income brackets than the decrease in the tax rates. Otherwise they would be paying a smaller proportion of the total taxes.

Can you follow that, or do I have to demonstrate using nickels and pennies?

Keep diverting, bitch.

Just how much more do you think you can continue soaking the "rich"?

DrDetroit wrote:

The tax rate for the highest income earners decreased by a significant percentage, and yet they are still paying a larger proportion of the total taxes than they were with the higher rates. This can only mean that income in this bracket has risen faster compared to the lower income brackets than the decrease in the tax rates. Otherwise they would be paying a smaller proportion of the total taxes.

Can you follow that, or do I have to demonstrate using nickels and pennies?

Keep diverting, bitch.

Just how much more do you think you can continue soaking the "rich"?

WTF are you babbling about?
I pointed out an obvious implication of the numbers you posted, a trend that's already been well established and that you obviously can't refute.
And all you can come up with some bullshit about "soaking the rich"?

Where did I ever mention "soaking the rich", and what does that have to do with anything?
Who's diverting here, "bitch"?

And why do you insist on mischaracterizing my posts....."bitch"?

I pointed out an obvious implication of the numbers you posted, a trend that's already been well established and that you obviously can't refute.

I did refute it using the IRS data I provided. You simply ignored it, dumbass.

You posted prior that, "This can only mean that income in this bracket has risen faster compared to the lower income brackets than the decrease in the tax rates."

As it usually does and always will simply because of the nominal $ in play. What you're saying is not some profound conclusion that says anything important related to this topic.

Besides, the top 10% saw their share of AGI increase 9% since 1985, while, the bottom 50% saw a decrease of 3% for a 12 point spread.

The top 10% saw an increase 14% in share of taxes paid since 1985, while the bottom 50% saw a decrease of 4% for a 18 point spread.

So, from 1985 to 2003, the gap between taxes paid is larger than the gap between AGI. Is it not? Hence, your initial point is wrong and the statement I quoted just above is irrelevant.

As well, the point was never that the tax rate gap increased or decreased. It's has increased given the creation of the 10% bracket, splitting the former 15% bracket up while the top end was not reduced 5%. Again, your point is just wrong.

Nonetheless, your points have no data behind them, such as: "The tax rate for the highest income earners decreased by a significant percentage."

Okay, what is a significant %? What was the decrease? Was the reduction at the top greater than nominally or % than the reduction at the bottom end including the new 10% bracket?

Your "point" would have some merit if you actually provided some factual data to support it.

Mikey wrote:What amazing, unexpected news.

We have a progressive tax structure.

The income gap has increased by more than the "tax rate gap" has decreased.


Any more incredibly insightful observations?

:roll:

No shit.

Also; can any of you answer me this question?

- Why would it be that America's top income earners are paying more INCOME taxes? While the predominately poorer Americans have paid the same, or less percentage than they used to?

- Billy Buttfuck? Yes. You have an answer?

"Uh........ because Rich People's INCOMES have increased so much more? - And poorer Americans actual spendable incomes have actually dropped, when adjusted for inflation?!"

--- *DING!* ---- *DING!* --- *DING!!!* We have a winner!

Because the majority of those POOR SOULS Mr. Dilltard speaks of have had MAJOR profits and benefits from their companies bottom lines, so they legally MUST claim more income. Thus more taxes! Get it!?

OH, they TRIED hiding that offshore account filled with profits from overseas opperations, that rightfully should be taxable; but don't worry; Bush et;al have a new panel advising to cut that crap out alltogether!

See, they'll get down to screwing the little guy soon enough! Don't you all worry. His terms aren't up just yet! Wait til they scmooze you this next November, so as to keep control of the House and Senate. THEN, the shit will hit the fans, boy!

Watch.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/051018/general.html?.v=1

Dr. wrote:Another IRS report deconstructed the top 1 percent and found that the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from 7 percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003.

Doc. I'm really trying here.

All that line says is this:

Back in 1980, the wealth was spread widely to include a vast middle class income earner. Now; since the raping of the middle class, the MONEY/WEALTH has shifted emmensly towards that top 1%, and AWAY from the rest of us!

Do you not see that your kicking your own ass here?!

All you've insinuated is the fact that there is a huge volume of cash flowing to the top 2%, or whatever fucked up stat you used. Meanwhile, the burden of taxes has lowered for the working poor, to middle classes.

Damn.

The richer that rich people get, the MORE of the overall tax burden they paid!

I feel so sorry for them! Lets start a disaster relief concert!!!