tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post114625039640016248..comments2024-01-03T05:23:36.046-08:00Comments on The Citizens: Secrets and Tax Lies IIUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1146363167043264882006-04-29T19:12:00.000-07:002006-04-29T19:12:00.000-07:00I second Bob's request. // posted by Raised B...I second Bob's request. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Raised By Republicans</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1146280547328369572006-04-28T20:15:00.000-07:002006-04-28T20:15:00.000-07:00So here's the next graph I want you to do... :)Se...So here's the next graph I want you to do... :)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, playing with the data (in relation to my comment on Part I), I looked at the difference between percentage of tax share and percentage of income share. (If every dollar were taxed the same amount, like a flat tax, these numbers would be the same.)<BR/><BR/>As you can tell from the good tracking, this difference for each line is roughly constant, although looking at the first data point, the point between '94 and '95, and the peak point after 2000, the difference does increase slightly. (From roughly 18% up to 22% for the wealthiest 10%.)<BR/><BR/>What's a little strange is that this difference in percentages is almost exactly the same for the 10% and 5% groups, but distinctly lower for the 1% group.<BR/><BR/>Then I tentatively decided that this is just a weird coincidence, since the really important factor is the ratio of the percentages (or, if you like, the ratio of the difference [tax share % - income share %]/[income share %]). This is a measure of the progressiveness of the tax -- how much more of the total tax burden this group is paying than the average.<BR/><BR/>Taking the ratio of the difference with the income share (which is 0 for a flat tax), we find that for the three data points I mentioned at the beginning, the ratios are all shrinking, and shrinking most for the richest 1%:<BR/><BR/>Date: 85/86; 94/95; 00/01<BR/>--------------------------------<BR/> 10%: 18/34; 21/40; 22/46<BR/> 5%: 18/23; 21/28; 22/35<BR/> 1%: 12/10; 15/15; 17/21<BR/><BR/>For Mr. Moore's nefarious purposes, most interesting would be the results from 2000 onwards, which I haven't looked at. But up until then, the taxes were getting less progressive. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/2006/04/secrets-and-tax-lies-ii.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="bob dot wieman at bris dot ac dot uk">Bob</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1146277001420563712006-04-28T19:16:00.000-07:002006-04-28T19:16:00.000-07:00Great data work Dr. S! It proves the point that p...Great data work Dr. S! It proves the point that people are taxed, dollars are. The tax burden follows the wealth - plain and simple.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Raised By Republicans</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1146271246127124192006-04-28T17:40:00.000-07:002006-04-28T17:40:00.000-07:00Excellent work, Dr. S. You can compare the graphs...Excellent work, Dr. S. You can compare the graphs to GDP and you'll put the lie to another Republican myth, that high taxes = recession.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>LTGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1146261270520921052006-04-28T14:54:00.000-07:002006-04-28T14:54:00.000-07:00You're welcome! It's nice to have one's work appr...You're welcome! It's nice to have one's work appreciated (it's not easy to find this kind of data and display it in a meaningful way.) I'm glad you complained to Marketplace! Their article was rubbish.<BR/><BR/>I'd love to find similar figures for corporations, but it's much harder to find and parse the data. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I also looked for information on personal wealth or net assets, but a lot of that data is reported by the Census by <B>household</B> rather than by individual, which skews all the numbers when you try to cross-reference it with the IRS income tax statistics.Dr. Strangelovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14407042105777411150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1146252840469111692006-04-28T12:34:00.000-07:002006-04-28T12:34:00.000-07:00Excellent, Dr. Stranglove! Thanks for doing that h...Excellent, Dr. Stranglove! Thanks for doing that homework for us! Good point about corporate tax rates. Frontline did a very good series on tax shelters and their effect on overall tax revenue.(<A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/" REL="nofollow">Tax me if you Can </A>) They interviewed <A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/interviews/mcintyre.html" REL="nofollow">Robert McIntyre</A> of the Institute on Taxiation and Economic Policy. He said, "If you look at [the average share for corporations of the total tax burden], say, from 1950 to 2000, corporations averaged about 17 percent of the federal taxes. All of a sudden now, down to 7 percent -- 7 percent of the government paid for by corporate taxes, compared to [a] quarter or a third 30 years ago, and even the whole period, 17 percent. So, yes, they're paying a whole lot less than they used to, and the rest of us are picking up the tab for it."<BR/><BR/>I wrote Marketplace and complained.USWesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058471452288827920noreply@blogger.com