Off Topic: “Their Fair Share” Taxes paid by the “Rich”

[jficquette]

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

“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.”

“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%.”

John

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[Borat]

Just so you know, people who make between $100K-$400K a year are not “rich”, at least according to the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts. I want to see the statistics for those making $5M a year and up. You can bet that they are paying a lot less than they used to. This article exploits one of the most powerful weapons in the class warfare arsenal, making the middle class think that they are “rich” just because they can afford a house in a decent area and they drive a Lexus. The $100K-$400K/year range is decidedly middle to upper-middle-class, and it’s no surprise that they are the people who pay the most tax. Third world countries like the US and Mexico always extract heavy amounts of tax tribute from their middle class workers. As the middle class shrinks because of predatory capitalist policies, they pay more and more tax to finance the social programs that prevent the starving masses from revolting and eating the super-rich. Expect this situation to get much much worse.

[Borat]

Just so you know, people who make between $100K-$400K a year are not “rich”, at least according to the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts. I want to see the statistics for those making $5M a year and up. You can bet that they are paying a lot less than they used to. This article exploits one of the most powerful weapons in the class warfare arsenal, making the middle class think that they are “rich” just because they can afford a house in a decent area and they drive a Lexus. The $100K-$400K/year range is decidedly middle to upper-middle-class, and it’s no surprise that they are the people who pay the most tax. Third world countries like the US and Mexico always extract heavy amounts of tax tribute from their middle class workers. As the middle class shrinks because of predatory capitalist policies, they pay more and more tax to finance the social programs that prevent the starving masses from revolting and eating the super-rich. Expect this situation to get much much worse.

[Borat]

Just so you know, people who make between $100K-$400K a year are not “rich”, at least according to the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts. I want to see the statistics for those making $5M a year and up. You can bet that they are paying a lot less than they used to. This article exploits one of the most powerful weapons in the class warfare arsenal, making the middle class think that they are “rich” just because they can afford a house in a decent area and they drive a Lexus. The $100K-$400K/year range is decidedly middle to upper-middle-class, and it’s no surprise that they are the people who pay the most tax. Third world countries like the US and Mexico always extract heavy amounts of tax tribute from their middle class workers. As the middle class shrinks because of predatory capitalist policies, they pay more and more tax to finance the social programs that prevent the starving masses from revolting and eating the super-rich. Expect this situation to get much much worse.

[Borat]

Just so you know, people who make between $100K-$400K a year are not “rich”, at least according to the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts. I want to see the statistics for those making $5M a year and up. You can bet that they are paying a lot less than they used to. This article exploits one of the most powerful weapons in the class warfare arsenal, making the middle class think that they are “rich” just because they can afford a house in a decent area and they drive a Lexus. The $100K-$400K/year range is decidedly middle to upper-middle-class, and it’s no surprise that they are the people who pay the most tax. Third world countries like the US and Mexico always extract heavy amounts of tax tribute from their middle class workers. As the middle class shrinks because of predatory capitalist policies, they pay more and more tax to finance the social programs that prevent the starving masses from revolting and eating the super-rich. Expect this situation to get much much worse.

[Borat]

Just so you know, people who make between $100K-$400K a year are not “rich”, at least according to the people who engineered the Bush tax cuts. I want to see the statistics for those making $5M a year and up. You can bet that they are paying a lot less than they used to. This article exploits one of the most powerful weapons in the class warfare arsenal, making the middle class think that they are “rich” just because they can afford a house in a decent area and they drive a Lexus. The $100K-$400K/year range is decidedly middle to upper-middle-class, and it’s no surprise that they are the people who pay the most tax. Third world countries like the US and Mexico always extract heavy amounts of tax tribute from their middle class workers. As the middle class shrinks because of predatory capitalist policies, they pay more and more tax to finance the social programs that prevent the starving masses from revolting and eating the super-rich. Expect this situation to get much much worse.

[Coronita]

Here we go again on the definition of “rich” means.

[Coronita]

Here we go again on the definition of “rich” means.

[Coronita]

Here we go again on the definition of “rich” means.

[Coronita]

Here we go again on the definition of “rich” means.

[Author]

Posts