Lots of charts based on government data to click on, via the link.....but as for the question of the rich paying a greater portion of incomes taxes after the Bush cuts:
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income households pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.
In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.
Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.
Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.
Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18 ]
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
Popular mythology also suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts shifted more of the tax burden toward the poor. While high-income households did save more in actual dollars than low-income households, they did so because low-income households pay so little in income taxes in the first place. The same 1 percent tax cut will save more dollars for a millionaire than it will for a middle-class worker simply because the millionaire paid more taxes before the tax cut.
In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.
Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers.[17] The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.
Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. (See Chart 6.) By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.
Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent. Clearly, the tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.[18 ]
*MySmiley*
For Europeans who don't understand why Americans are against ObamaCare
- 03/09/2009 04:24:35 AM
1325 Views
I'd be happy to tax top "earners" more and suffer Europes economic "collapse. "
- 03/09/2009 04:30:31 AM
770 Views
The US will never work with socialism.
- 03/09/2009 04:40:21 AM
839 Views
Re: The US will never work with socialism.
- 03/09/2009 04:58:47 AM
837 Views
I don't think the mistrust of the government is really all that overblown
- 03/09/2009 05:04:34 AM
752 Views
It's advanced beyond what it was during the Revolution, I think.
- 03/09/2009 05:18:22 AM
795 Views
I would say it's grown with the government
- 03/09/2009 05:23:52 AM
777 Views
The key is that government shouldn't be heavily involved in personal lives.
- 03/09/2009 05:58:39 AM
808 Views
Re: I don't think the mistrust of the government is really all that overblown
- 04/09/2009 03:30:23 AM
724 Views
How much more can we really tax the wealthy??
- 03/09/2009 04:41:14 AM
704 Views
A lot; before Reagans "reforms" we already taxed them less than any other industrialized state did.
- 03/09/2009 05:06:00 AM
800 Views
I hear a lot of socialism coming from you.....
- 03/09/2009 05:19:08 AM
659 Views
Re: I hear a lot of socialism coming from you.....
- 03/09/2009 05:40:32 AM
748 Views
Nice non-answer answer.....
- 03/09/2009 05:52:04 AM
755 Views
You want detailed answers that require detailed data I don't have.
- 03/09/2009 06:06:55 AM
811 Views
Here are some facts and analyses.....
- 03/09/2009 02:40:22 PM
882 Views
The Heritage Foundation, huh?
- 03/09/2009 03:01:17 PM
887 Views
- 03/09/2009 03:01:17 PM
887 Views
The non-working wealthy? Please quantify.....
- 03/09/2009 03:31:58 PM
838 Views
So you accept the CBOs assessment the House healthcare bill will be $1 trillion over the next decade
- 04/09/2009 03:02:13 AM
748 Views
You're so full of shit on this issue I don't know where to begin.
- 04/09/2009 03:15:55 AM
848 Views
Re: You're so full of shit on this issue I don't know where to begin.
- 04/09/2009 03:59:21 AM
937 Views
Less than 200 people were said to be US persons with Swiss accounts
- 04/09/2009 04:16:24 AM
735 Views
And yet account for many millions of dollars; what does that say...?
- 04/09/2009 04:21:57 AM
731 Views
It's statistically insignificant and your hyperbole is reminiscent of screaming guests on CNN.
- 04/09/2009 02:07:31 PM
668 Views
Well, look at this way:
- 04/09/2009 02:24:03 PM
795 Views
That's not a solution.
- 05/09/2009 02:39:12 AM
804 Views
The Soviets weren't socialist, or even communist, so it's a false comparison.
- 05/09/2009 03:09:06 AM
743 Views
Okay, now you've just gone into Kool-aid drinking territory.
- 05/09/2009 04:32:07 AM
866 Views
Communist THEORY is predicated on democratic participation at every level,totally absent in the USSR
- 05/09/2009 04:55:00 AM
980 Views
Ever heard of the 20-80 rule?
- 04/09/2009 04:28:54 AM
657 Views
Top earners? Please define.....what income and how much more? *NM*
- 03/09/2009 04:52:25 AM
506 Views
That would be open to definition, and should change with inflation.
- 03/09/2009 05:13:02 AM
911 Views
What is your justification for taking over 50% of anyone's income?
- 03/09/2009 05:28:22 AM
865 Views
That's a good example of why I say the rate has to be set to cost of living.
- 03/09/2009 05:50:16 AM
889 Views
Still no comment on the fact that 40% of Americans don't pay any income taxes?
- 03/09/2009 02:32:12 PM
796 Views
To what 40% do you refer?
- 03/09/2009 02:42:55 PM
657 Views
Dude, you are not making this easy.....
- 03/09/2009 03:38:01 PM
695 Views
No one "gets money from the IRS. "
- 04/09/2009 02:55:02 AM
702 Views
Actually with EIC you can get money back that you never paid in.
- 04/09/2009 02:56:43 AM
696 Views
It MIGHT be possible with the EIC, but in practice few people get more than they paid.
- 04/09/2009 03:43:36 AM
749 Views
I don't know, I've known plenty of people that have gotten more back than they paid in
- 04/09/2009 03:46:29 AM
822 Views
Yet another example of your ignorance on tax policy.
- 04/09/2009 03:19:39 AM
651 Views
The word I notice is "welfare"
- 04/09/2009 03:57:01 AM
776 Views
I wouldn't say that's what it means....
- 04/09/2009 04:02:40 AM
763 Views
It's what welfare means to me...
- 04/09/2009 04:32:17 AM
771 Views
I was just talking about EIC as a form of welfare, not welfare welfare. *NM*
- 04/09/2009 04:45:13 AM
440 Views
It's a credit for people who file a return on income that's been taxed.
- 04/09/2009 04:19:57 AM
701 Views
It is only for the WORKING poor, yes.
- 04/09/2009 02:12:55 PM
690 Views
Mean it may be, but hardly illegal.
- 04/09/2009 02:31:16 PM
713 Views
No real comments, just 100% agree with you....plus the $12 trillion is terrifying to me. *NM*
- 03/09/2009 04:33:39 AM
332 Views
Excellent post - the US government is not capable of running HC.....
- 03/09/2009 04:40:19 AM
643 Views
It depends on your level of cynicism
- 03/09/2009 05:38:53 AM
812 Views
when have they ever cut the fat?
- 03/09/2009 08:35:36 PM
739 Views
This doesn't make sense to me.
- 03/09/2009 08:33:18 AM
751 Views
The key phrase is "should be. "
- 03/09/2009 09:38:15 AM
924 Views
In fairness, most Europeans don't seem to realize what ObamaCare is.
- 03/09/2009 02:34:01 PM
789 Views
As far as most people I know are concerned, opposition to ObamaCare isn't the issue.
- 03/09/2009 11:04:36 PM
883 Views
It's hard not to be horrified with a government as wasteful as ours
- 03/09/2009 11:24:59 PM
660 Views
For Americans who don't understand why Canadians like their public healthcare.
- 04/09/2009 04:23:11 AM
780 Views
Correction
- 04/09/2009 04:44:32 AM
764 Views
Re: Correction
- 04/09/2009 05:05:11 AM
881 Views


*NM*