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 ]
I liked Myth #9 better:
"Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts. "
That explains the multiple recessions. One wonders why, given the great successes of Bushs tax policy so well documented by the ever objective Heritage Foundation, the economy got Obama elected. Myth #7 is good, too, in conjunction with the quotation of #10:
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Makes sense; since, as you note, those people aren't paying taxes anyway, obviously tax cuts for them reduced revenue the most. Those rebate checks referenced above were not, unlike the accelerated reduction in upper class taxes, annual affairs; there was one when the changes were made in Bushs first term and a later one as a part of his stimulus package. As opposed to being the gift that keeps on giving through 2011, I believe it is. As someone who managed to collect the EIC in 2004 but made FAR too much last year I can tell you that 1) it's never going to suck billions from revenue; the most you can get out of is around $350, last I checked and 2) because, again, last I checked, the most you can earn and still qualify for it is $15,000 we're never going to get a lot revenue from people collecting it anyway. Which is also why changing their tax rate from 15% to 10% is rather revenue neutral; 10% of 0 is still 0.
I'm very sorry, but what the Heritage Foundation unsurprisingly seems to be saying isn't "we need to cut taxes" but "we need to raise taxes on the poor so we can cut taxes on the rich. " I won't put words in your mouth (though you did quote them) but I still maintain that's not only absurd, but abusive. I am terribly sorry, however, that old commie George Bush insisted on expanding the tax credit for the working poors children; perhaps if Republican wins in 2012 he can provide a more Swiftian solution....

The working poor aren't the reason your taxes are so high, the non-working wealthy are, and part of the problem here seems to be you can't decide if you're among their numbers or among the middle class, which affects what kind of tax policy you prefer. Lemme help you out: As long as you have to show up for work every day to put food on your table, you're not one of them.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
For Europeans who don't understand why Americans are against ObamaCare
03/09/2009 04:24:35 AM
- 1257 Views
I'd be happy to tax top "earners" more and suffer Europes economic "collapse. "
03/09/2009 04:30:31 AM
- 727 Views
The US will never work with socialism.
03/09/2009 04:40:21 AM
- 795 Views
Re: The US will never work with socialism.
03/09/2009 04:58:47 AM
- 780 Views
I don't think the mistrust of the government is really all that overblown
03/09/2009 05:04:34 AM
- 714 Views
It's advanced beyond what it was during the Revolution, I think.
03/09/2009 05:18:22 AM
- 753 Views
I would say it's grown with the government
03/09/2009 05:23:52 AM
- 733 Views
The key is that government shouldn't be heavily involved in personal lives.
03/09/2009 05:58:39 AM
- 764 Views
Re: I don't think the mistrust of the government is really all that overblown
04/09/2009 03:30:23 AM
- 678 Views
How much more can we really tax the wealthy??
03/09/2009 04:41:14 AM
- 638 Views
A lot; before Reagans "reforms" we already taxed them less than any other industrialized state did.
03/09/2009 05:06:00 AM
- 755 Views
I hear a lot of socialism coming from you.....
03/09/2009 05:19:08 AM
- 619 Views
Re: I hear a lot of socialism coming from you.....
03/09/2009 05:40:32 AM
- 702 Views
Nice non-answer answer.....
03/09/2009 05:52:04 AM
- 712 Views
You want detailed answers that require detailed data I don't have.
03/09/2009 06:06:55 AM
- 768 Views
Here are some facts and analyses.....
03/09/2009 02:40:22 PM
- 820 Views
The Heritage Foundation, huh?
03/09/2009 03:01:17 PM
- 827 Views

The non-working wealthy? Please quantify.....
03/09/2009 03:31:58 PM
- 786 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
- 699 Views
You're so full of shit on this issue I don't know where to begin.
04/09/2009 03:15:55 AM
- 802 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
- 887 Views
Less than 200 people were said to be US persons with Swiss accounts
04/09/2009 04:16:24 AM
- 691 Views
And yet account for many millions of dollars; what does that say...?
04/09/2009 04:21:57 AM
- 683 Views
It's statistically insignificant and your hyperbole is reminiscent of screaming guests on CNN.
04/09/2009 02:07:31 PM
- 619 Views
Well, look at this way:
04/09/2009 02:24:03 PM
- 747 Views
That's not a solution.
05/09/2009 02:39:12 AM
- 750 Views
The Soviets weren't socialist, or even communist, so it's a false comparison.
05/09/2009 03:09:06 AM
- 697 Views
Okay, now you've just gone into Kool-aid drinking territory.
05/09/2009 04:32:07 AM
- 816 Views
Communist THEORY is predicated on democratic participation at every level,totally absent in the USSR
05/09/2009 04:55:00 AM
- 938 Views
Ever heard of the 20-80 rule?
04/09/2009 04:28:54 AM
- 612 Views
Top earners? Please define.....what income and how much more? *NM*
03/09/2009 04:52:25 AM
- 488 Views
That would be open to definition, and should change with inflation.
03/09/2009 05:13:02 AM
- 869 Views
What is your justification for taking over 50% of anyone's income?
03/09/2009 05:28:22 AM
- 809 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
- 831 Views
Still no comment on the fact that 40% of Americans don't pay any income taxes?
03/09/2009 02:32:12 PM
- 752 Views
To what 40% do you refer?
03/09/2009 02:42:55 PM
- 612 Views
Dude, you are not making this easy.....
03/09/2009 03:38:01 PM
- 652 Views
No one "gets money from the IRS. "
04/09/2009 02:55:02 AM
- 658 Views
Actually with EIC you can get money back that you never paid in.
04/09/2009 02:56:43 AM
- 650 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
- 703 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
- 782 Views
Yet another example of your ignorance on tax policy.
04/09/2009 03:19:39 AM
- 600 Views
The word I notice is "welfare"
04/09/2009 03:57:01 AM
- 713 Views
I wouldn't say that's what it means....
04/09/2009 04:02:40 AM
- 720 Views
It's what welfare means to me...
04/09/2009 04:32:17 AM
- 728 Views
I was just talking about EIC as a form of welfare, not welfare welfare. *NM*
04/09/2009 04:45:13 AM
- 418 Views
It's a credit for people who file a return on income that's been taxed.
04/09/2009 04:19:57 AM
- 655 Views
It is only for the WORKING poor, yes.
04/09/2009 02:12:55 PM
- 642 Views
Mean it may be, but hardly illegal.
04/09/2009 02:31:16 PM
- 669 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
- 307 Views
Excellent post - the US government is not capable of running HC.....
03/09/2009 04:40:19 AM
- 601 Views
It depends on your level of cynicism
03/09/2009 05:38:53 AM
- 770 Views
when have they ever cut the fat?
03/09/2009 08:35:36 PM
- 696 Views
This doesn't make sense to me.
03/09/2009 08:33:18 AM
- 698 Views
The key phrase is "should be. "
03/09/2009 09:38:15 AM
- 869 Views
In fairness, most Europeans don't seem to realize what ObamaCare is.
03/09/2009 02:34:01 PM
- 746 Views
As far as most people I know are concerned, opposition to ObamaCare isn't the issue.
03/09/2009 11:04:36 PM
- 837 Views
It's hard not to be horrified with a government as wasteful as ours
03/09/2009 11:24:59 PM
- 613 Views
For Americans who don't understand why Canadians like their public healthcare.
04/09/2009 04:23:11 AM
- 724 Views
Correction
04/09/2009 04:44:32 AM
- 720 Views
Re: Correction
04/09/2009 05:05:11 AM
- 828 Views