[Aecetia]

That puts it in perspective.

[Aecetia]

Just in time for the fair formerly known as the Del Mar Fair and racing season. Enjoy!

[Aecetia]

Just in time for the fair formerly known as the Del Mar Fair and racing season. Enjoy!

[Aecetia]

Just in time for the fair formerly known as the Del Mar Fair and racing season. Enjoy!

[Aecetia]

Just in time for the fair formerly known as the Del Mar Fair and racing season. Enjoy!

[Aecetia]

Just in time for the fair formerly known as the Del Mar Fair and racing season. Enjoy!

[Aecetia]

Hey Borat:

“Do the Rich and Businesses Pay their Fair Share?
Critics of Bush’s three tax relief plans charge that only the wealthy benefited from the reductions in marginal tax rates. But is this true? And more broadly, do the wealthiest Americans pay their “fair share” of the tax burden?

The evidence shows that all Americans, rich and poor, benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts. The rich saw taxes on their dividends and capital gains reduced (as well as their income taxes), and personal income tax rates were slashed across the board, which encompassed every middle-class taxpayer. Even the poor, who generally do not pay income taxes, were rewarded with a higher Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child tax credits.

Progressivity and the Tax Burden
Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one’s income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.1

According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Rising Federal Taxes for the Rich
The empirical evidence shows that the wealthiest citizens are also paying an ever-increasing proportion of all taxes collected by the federal government. Data from the Congressional Budget Office show not only that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time but that the 2001 Bush tax cut barely kept their share of the tax burden from rising further:2

In 1984, after the Reagan tax cut had been fully phased in, the bottom quintile (20 percent) of income earners paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.
The top quintile of earners paid 24.5 percent and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent.
In 2001, after the first Bush tax cut had taken effect, those in the bottom quintile paid average federal income taxes of 5.4 percent, about half of what they did 20 years ago.
Those in the top five percent saw a slight decline in their federal tax rate (28.6 percent, down from 29.7 percent).
The top 1 percent, however, saw their overall federal tax burden increase slightly, from 33 to 33.2 percent.
Despite the accusation that it was the very wealthiest who benefited the most from the 2001 tax cut, their federal tax burden stayed level at best and increased at worst. Progressivity in the tax system rose and the wealthy now pay about six times more than the poor.”

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share

[Aecetia]

Hey Borat:

“Do the Rich and Businesses Pay their Fair Share?
Critics of Bush’s three tax relief plans charge that only the wealthy benefited from the reductions in marginal tax rates. But is this true? And more broadly, do the wealthiest Americans pay their “fair share” of the tax burden?

The evidence shows that all Americans, rich and poor, benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts. The rich saw taxes on their dividends and capital gains reduced (as well as their income taxes), and personal income tax rates were slashed across the board, which encompassed every middle-class taxpayer. Even the poor, who generally do not pay income taxes, were rewarded with a higher Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child tax credits.

Progressivity and the Tax Burden
Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one’s income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.1

According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Rising Federal Taxes for the Rich
The empirical evidence shows that the wealthiest citizens are also paying an ever-increasing proportion of all taxes collected by the federal government. Data from the Congressional Budget Office show not only that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time but that the 2001 Bush tax cut barely kept their share of the tax burden from rising further:2

In 1984, after the Reagan tax cut had been fully phased in, the bottom quintile (20 percent) of income earners paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.
The top quintile of earners paid 24.5 percent and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent.
In 2001, after the first Bush tax cut had taken effect, those in the bottom quintile paid average federal income taxes of 5.4 percent, about half of what they did 20 years ago.
Those in the top five percent saw a slight decline in their federal tax rate (28.6 percent, down from 29.7 percent).
The top 1 percent, however, saw their overall federal tax burden increase slightly, from 33 to 33.2 percent.
Despite the accusation that it was the very wealthiest who benefited the most from the 2001 tax cut, their federal tax burden stayed level at best and increased at worst. Progressivity in the tax system rose and the wealthy now pay about six times more than the poor.”

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share

[Aecetia]

Hey Borat:

“Do the Rich and Businesses Pay their Fair Share?
Critics of Bush’s three tax relief plans charge that only the wealthy benefited from the reductions in marginal tax rates. But is this true? And more broadly, do the wealthiest Americans pay their “fair share” of the tax burden?

The evidence shows that all Americans, rich and poor, benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts. The rich saw taxes on their dividends and capital gains reduced (as well as their income taxes), and personal income tax rates were slashed across the board, which encompassed every middle-class taxpayer. Even the poor, who generally do not pay income taxes, were rewarded with a higher Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child tax credits.

Progressivity and the Tax Burden
Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one’s income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.1

According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Rising Federal Taxes for the Rich
The empirical evidence shows that the wealthiest citizens are also paying an ever-increasing proportion of all taxes collected by the federal government. Data from the Congressional Budget Office show not only that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time but that the 2001 Bush tax cut barely kept their share of the tax burden from rising further:2

In 1984, after the Reagan tax cut had been fully phased in, the bottom quintile (20 percent) of income earners paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.
The top quintile of earners paid 24.5 percent and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent.
In 2001, after the first Bush tax cut had taken effect, those in the bottom quintile paid average federal income taxes of 5.4 percent, about half of what they did 20 years ago.
Those in the top five percent saw a slight decline in their federal tax rate (28.6 percent, down from 29.7 percent).
The top 1 percent, however, saw their overall federal tax burden increase slightly, from 33 to 33.2 percent.
Despite the accusation that it was the very wealthiest who benefited the most from the 2001 tax cut, their federal tax burden stayed level at best and increased at worst. Progressivity in the tax system rose and the wealthy now pay about six times more than the poor.”

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share

[Aecetia]

Hey Borat:

“Do the Rich and Businesses Pay their Fair Share?
Critics of Bush’s three tax relief plans charge that only the wealthy benefited from the reductions in marginal tax rates. But is this true? And more broadly, do the wealthiest Americans pay their “fair share” of the tax burden?

The evidence shows that all Americans, rich and poor, benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts. The rich saw taxes on their dividends and capital gains reduced (as well as their income taxes), and personal income tax rates were slashed across the board, which encompassed every middle-class taxpayer. Even the poor, who generally do not pay income taxes, were rewarded with a higher Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child tax credits.

Progressivity and the Tax Burden
Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one’s income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.1

According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Rising Federal Taxes for the Rich
The empirical evidence shows that the wealthiest citizens are also paying an ever-increasing proportion of all taxes collected by the federal government. Data from the Congressional Budget Office show not only that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time but that the 2001 Bush tax cut barely kept their share of the tax burden from rising further:2

In 1984, after the Reagan tax cut had been fully phased in, the bottom quintile (20 percent) of income earners paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.
The top quintile of earners paid 24.5 percent and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent.
In 2001, after the first Bush tax cut had taken effect, those in the bottom quintile paid average federal income taxes of 5.4 percent, about half of what they did 20 years ago.
Those in the top five percent saw a slight decline in their federal tax rate (28.6 percent, down from 29.7 percent).
The top 1 percent, however, saw their overall federal tax burden increase slightly, from 33 to 33.2 percent.
Despite the accusation that it was the very wealthiest who benefited the most from the 2001 tax cut, their federal tax burden stayed level at best and increased at worst. Progressivity in the tax system rose and the wealthy now pay about six times more than the poor.”

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share

[Aecetia]

Hey Borat:

“Do the Rich and Businesses Pay their Fair Share?
Critics of Bush’s three tax relief plans charge that only the wealthy benefited from the reductions in marginal tax rates. But is this true? And more broadly, do the wealthiest Americans pay their “fair share” of the tax burden?

The evidence shows that all Americans, rich and poor, benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts. The rich saw taxes on their dividends and capital gains reduced (as well as their income taxes), and personal income tax rates were slashed across the board, which encompassed every middle-class taxpayer. Even the poor, who generally do not pay income taxes, were rewarded with a higher Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child tax credits.

Progressivity and the Tax Burden
Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one’s income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.1

According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000.
Rising Federal Taxes for the Rich
The empirical evidence shows that the wealthiest citizens are also paying an ever-increasing proportion of all taxes collected by the federal government. Data from the Congressional Budget Office show not only that taxes on the wealthy have risen over time but that the 2001 Bush tax cut barely kept their share of the tax burden from rising further:2

In 1984, after the Reagan tax cut had been fully phased in, the bottom quintile (20 percent) of income earners paid an average federal tax rate (individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.
The top quintile of earners paid 24.5 percent and the top 1 percent paid 28.2 percent.
In 2001, after the first Bush tax cut had taken effect, those in the bottom quintile paid average federal income taxes of 5.4 percent, about half of what they did 20 years ago.
Those in the top five percent saw a slight decline in their federal tax rate (28.6 percent, down from 29.7 percent).
The top 1 percent, however, saw their overall federal tax burden increase slightly, from 33 to 33.2 percent.
Despite the accusation that it was the very wealthiest who benefited the most from the 2001 tax cut, their federal tax burden stayed level at best and increased at worst. Progressivity in the tax system rose and the wealthy now pay about six times more than the poor.”

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share

[Aecetia]

Update on Carmel Valley et al from Bubble Markets Inventory Tracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/06/tale-of-three-suburbs-part-ii.html

“Tale of Three Suburbs, Part II
We got quite a lively discussion going yesterday regarding the price premium between Carmel Valley, 4S Ranch, and Temecula. I agree that the Carmel Valley example yesterday was not true Carmel Valley, it was picked simply because it was the price leader in 92130. I also stand corrected regarding the lot size of the 4S Ranch home, I used the ziprealty’s listed lot size as provided by the REALTOR, I should have known better. =)”

“Here’s three more examples for you guys to chew on. I’ve included neighboring comps in parenthesis.”

“These three homes are not price leaders. They were all purchased in 2001 and are currently for sale. Looking at the 2001 CV-4S-Temecula pricing, we see $670k-$515k-$330k (difference of $160k between Ocean Ridge vs Fox Valley, and difference of $185k between Fox Valley vs Abbey).”

“Currently, the asking price for these CV-4S-Temecula examples are $1,100k-$840k-$400k. The CV premium is significantly increased to $260k in comparison to the 4S example. And we have an even larger $440k differential between the 4S and Temecula examples.”

[Aecetia]

Update on Carmel Valley et al from Bubble Markets Inventory Tracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/06/tale-of-three-suburbs-part-ii.html

“Tale of Three Suburbs, Part II
We got quite a lively discussion going yesterday regarding the price premium between Carmel Valley, 4S Ranch, and Temecula. I agree that the Carmel Valley example yesterday was not true Carmel Valley, it was picked simply because it was the price leader in 92130. I also stand corrected regarding the lot size of the 4S Ranch home, I used the ziprealty’s listed lot size as provided by the REALTOR, I should have known better. =)”

“Here’s three more examples for you guys to chew on. I’ve included neighboring comps in parenthesis.”

“These three homes are not price leaders. They were all purchased in 2001 and are currently for sale. Looking at the 2001 CV-4S-Temecula pricing, we see $670k-$515k-$330k (difference of $160k between Ocean Ridge vs Fox Valley, and difference of $185k between Fox Valley vs Abbey).”

“Currently, the asking price for these CV-4S-Temecula examples are $1,100k-$840k-$400k. The CV premium is significantly increased to $260k in comparison to the 4S example. And we have an even larger $440k differential between the 4S and Temecula examples.”

[Aecetia]

Update on Carmel Valley et al from Bubble Markets Inventory Tracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/06/tale-of-three-suburbs-part-ii.html

“Tale of Three Suburbs, Part II
We got quite a lively discussion going yesterday regarding the price premium between Carmel Valley, 4S Ranch, and Temecula. I agree that the Carmel Valley example yesterday was not true Carmel Valley, it was picked simply because it was the price leader in 92130. I also stand corrected regarding the lot size of the 4S Ranch home, I used the ziprealty’s listed lot size as provided by the REALTOR, I should have known better. =)”

“Here’s three more examples for you guys to chew on. I’ve included neighboring comps in parenthesis.”

“These three homes are not price leaders. They were all purchased in 2001 and are currently for sale. Looking at the 2001 CV-4S-Temecula pricing, we see $670k-$515k-$330k (difference of $160k between Ocean Ridge vs Fox Valley, and difference of $185k between Fox Valley vs Abbey).”

“Currently, the asking price for these CV-4S-Temecula examples are $1,100k-$840k-$400k. The CV premium is significantly increased to $260k in comparison to the 4S example. And we have an even larger $440k differential between the 4S and Temecula examples.”

[Aecetia]

Update on Carmel Valley et al from Bubble Markets Inventory Tracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/06/tale-of-three-suburbs-part-ii.html

“Tale of Three Suburbs, Part II
We got quite a lively discussion going yesterday regarding the price premium between Carmel Valley, 4S Ranch, and Temecula. I agree that the Carmel Valley example yesterday was not true Carmel Valley, it was picked simply because it was the price leader in 92130. I also stand corrected regarding the lot size of the 4S Ranch home, I used the ziprealty’s listed lot size as provided by the REALTOR, I should have known better. =)”

“Here’s three more examples for you guys to chew on. I’ve included neighboring comps in parenthesis.”

“These three homes are not price leaders. They were all purchased in 2001 and are currently for sale. Looking at the 2001 CV-4S-Temecula pricing, we see $670k-$515k-$330k (difference of $160k between Ocean Ridge vs Fox Valley, and difference of $185k between Fox Valley vs Abbey).”

“Currently, the asking price for these CV-4S-Temecula examples are $1,100k-$840k-$400k. The CV premium is significantly increased to $260k in comparison to the 4S example. And we have an even larger $440k differential between the 4S and Temecula examples.”

[Author]

Posts