I fail to see the revelency of that statement, assuming it is correct. I was asserting that the increase in the top 1% wage earner's tax share, seemed to follow the trend that the top 1% were in fact assuming a larger portion of the total wage earnings in the United States.

Sorry, I must not have read it right. I thought you were saying that income for the highest earners was increasing and it was decreasing for the lower income earners.

__________________
~Barbara

Perhaps I should just cut to the chase and make my post a lot easier for you. When I posted I was just pointing out how $38 is extremely unhelpful for pretty much everyone. Is that clear?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

This graph shows the percentage government tax revenues paid by each income group.
taxburden.JPG

This graph shows adjusted gross income levels for each group over the same time period. These are totals, in billions, not averages.
income.JPG
Tax Foundation

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

Well. I guess people don't really want to talk about tax issues.

But they sure do like to talk about talking about issues. Curious.

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

Sorry if you got that impression. I have no problem with limited taxes used to fund specifically enumerated powers that benefit all. I also think that everyone should contribute something to taxes. No one should be exempt.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

For a family of 4, yes. For an individual income, no.
This was covered somewhere earlier in the thread.

__________________
I want to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

I really appreciate all the input from this site and the graphs you provided. Makes for a very good discussion.

I think your making more out of this that what it really means. For example, I have 0 take liability every year because I'm able to take advantage of itemized deductions, but yet I pay a large portion of income tax on my income throughout the year. Under Obama's plan I'm considered a middle class American and I would pay less in taxes.

The graphs I provided earlier of Obama and McCain tax cuts. What your providing here is tax returns. A large difference.

Also consider that this graph goes to 2004. I wonder what it would be with the house market in collapse and record forclosures...people without the ability to write off interest, etc.

One last thing. From the Tax Foundation page reporting the demographics of the graph:

Broadly speaking, the 42.5 million zero-tax filers are: low-income, young, female-headed households, part-time workers, and beneficiaries of the $1,000 per-child tax credit or the Earned Income Credit.

90% of the 42.5 million non-tax filiers earled less than 30,000 a year. So, under the Bush presidency, we have more people making under 30,000 a year that is able to not pay taxes than ever before.

__________________
I want to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

Do you think its possible for them to pay even 1$ in tax?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I'm not sure who your addressing this to and who "them" is.

__________________
I want to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

This. All of these 42million wage earners who have 0 tax liability. Do you think its possible for them to pay $1? And if so, shouldnt they?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Federal Outlays by Type as a Percentage of Total Federal Outlays
Fiscal Years 1962-2008.

Tax Foundation PDF page 10

Attached Images

outlays.JPG (78.4 KB, 26 views)

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

What does federal spending have to do with the two candidates tax cut proposals?

__________________
I want to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

Everything.

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist

Obama's plan pretty much fall in line to where it was under Ronald Reagan. His plan triples the earned-income tax credit for low wage earners, increasing work incentives at the bottom and cuts taxes for all those in the middle class. McCain's plan gives a nice tax cut to the wealthiest, but is measly towards everyone else.

Low income workers get a big incentive to work, whilst the richest in theory would seem to have less. However, much of the effect on the wealthiest may--and often are anyway--offset by good personal and business accounting manoevres, re-investment and productive diversions, and other things to work around or get the best results from the tax structure. Poorer people on the ropes, however, often times wind up in economic, health and social dysfunctions where the collective financial and social costs of these dysfunctions add up on the financial and quality of life bills. Also, when the bottom economic echelon bottoms out, the effects ripple up, much like when the hull of a ship get ripped up, the water flows in and up and the ship sinks. They aren't as productive and are often destructive in distress, and they don't have the ability to buy things and services other than the barest necessities if even that, they create social and financial costs (debt, no insurance, welfare and unenployment requests, etc) and dump them for others to pay, etc.

Low taxes on the rich hasn't been proven to really increase job rates and a stronger economy. In fact, often times it takes the stimulating power of money off the table in hordings, etc. Further, Obama's plan results in an additional $1.2 trillion reduction in the deficit than McCain's plan. Reducing the amount of government borrowing leads to lower interest rates and private investment. The Clinton era is but one example of this where the top marginal rate was increased to 42.5 percent where Obama desires it and yet the US economy generated millions of new jobs and the tax increase on the wealthiest didn't really hurt their bottom line.

In many ways, the extra tax was like paying a 'vig' to the dealer who is stimulating both money and the mass public, which in turn also reduces economic and social costs created by those poorer than them for which the costs are either going to be paid anyway and/or irresponsibly deferred and dropped on someone else's lap later.

McCain, btw, used to get this. However, he also gets it that many people don't get it, and that the old saws on 'tax and spend' and 'givaway programmes,' etc on Dems still sells, even though many of the supposed justifications are shaky and insofar as spending histories, the GOP proves worse in reality.