e-Claire

Humbug-Seas Life Preserver [updated]

awash in bull-puckey and horse-hockey as we are... Some more info to reaffirm things we already knew:

[pdf] A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report produced at the request of Congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners while decreasing the tax share of lower- and middle-income groups. The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014,shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, with the top 5 percent of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes.

Congressional DhimmoCraps: "doh!" The Rest of the World: *snork*

• While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell. • The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pays 31.6% of all income taxes, the top 5% pays 51.4%, the top 10% pays 63.5%, and the top 20% of income earners pays 78.4% of all federal income taxes. The bottom four-fifths of income earners pay just over one-fifth of all federal income taxes.

. UPDATE: Then I run across this:

The Bush tax cuts have, of course**, heavily favored the very, very well off.

[** and we all remember what Heinlein said about the term "of course" . . .] And I re-quote the Congressional Budget Office: "The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20 percent of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts, while the share of income taxes paid by all other income groups fell." But that's not important now . . .

But they have also, more specifically, favored unearned income over earned income - or, if you prefer, investment returns over wages. Last year Daniel Altman pointed out in The New York Times that Mr. Bush's proposals, if fully adopted, "could eliminate almost all taxes on investment income and wealth for almost all Americans." Mr. Bush hasn't yet gotten all he wants, but he has taken a large step toward a system in which only labor income is taxed.

Beginning in 2003 the maximum tax rate on qualifying dividends has been dropped to 15% for most people. And for those in the 15% or 10% bracket, qualifying dividends will be subject to a maximum tax of only 5%.

Krugman goes on and on -- gleaning little to no sense from the Bush proposals, then doubling his misunderstandings and obfuscating them with his preconceptions and his dedication to class prejudice and warfare. The most striking thing is his and the Left's adherence, in the face of all reason, to the proposition that only top-hatted, morning-pants sporting monocle-wearers of the top drawer are even allowed to invest in stocks and bonds. ptui. OTOH, Bush's tax overhaul and current proposal exhibit the old fashioned American Dream idea that even those starting out at the lowest rung can, and ought to, invest in American business. But that would destroy another fave DhimmoCrap meme of the eeevil corporations, for if we all invested in them, and created new ones ourselves, we would have influence over the policies of said corporations. They would become US. Can't make war on that basis. oops.

Social Security is, basically, a system in which each generation pays for the previous generation's retirement. If the payroll taxes of younger workers are diverted into private accounts, there will be a gaping financial hole: who will pay benefits to older Americans, who have spent their working lives paying into the current system? Unless you have a way to fill that multitrillion-dollar hole, privatization is an empty slogan, not a real proposal.

Yeah -- it's working so well, as it stands... Now there's a good idea -- counting on the gubbmint take care of me in my old age. I won't even be able to afford to eat cat food! Not gonna fall for that one, General-Fund-Breath. Especially since there is such a bulge in the numbers of Baby Boomers. Not to mention that all the $$ we've already [like last week...] put in is *poof* GWTW. Now you're just being silly. If you want your kids to pay for your retirement -- tell 'em now so they can pick out that cheapo death house near the cliff lovely retirement home with a view for ya. Otherwise, mayhaps you might hafta take responsibility for your own wrinkly self. [concept!!]

As Mr. Bush has said: "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - can't get fooled again."

And as I said; Krugman, yer a fool. . Yet More: From Paul at WizBang

[NB: some sort of spread sheet I can't use] Source: IRS Tax Burden Distribution The top 1% pays 33.89% of all income taxes The top 5% pays 53.25% The top 10% pays 64.89% The top 25% pays 82.9% The top 50% pays 96.03% The bottom 50% pays a mere 3.97% of income taxes. Income Distribution The top 1% earns 17.53 of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99. The top 10% earns 43.11% The top 25% earns 65.23%, Top 50% earns 86.19% of all income.

So Krugman; How about a nice steaming cup of Shut the Fuck Up?!?

<< Back to main