Um, your real world data has a date at the bottom, and, um, it's 8 years old...

Also, can you give a URL reference so we can see where the data is harvested from? Is this a pie chart of just the base tax figures for 2000, without loopholes?

I can't tell what part of the "real world" your data reflects with out some background information,

You know,

TO VERIFY IT...

__________________
"And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Thomas Hobbes

Are you comfortable knowing that under Clinton, the top ten percentile was responsible for 67 percent of the tax burden?

__________________
Through any and all LEGAL means necessary, the Obama Administration's existence must be neutralized and cancelled out.
-----------------

If you are on the chopping block, just contact me. You don't need to be banned. Contact me even if I hate you.

Didn't you read the bottom of the graph, right next to where it had the date?

And if you want to question data based on age, you should at least check to see if the more recent data is significantly different before you go challenging it. Otherwise, I'll just do this:




http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...ook/PDF/T4.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...of-Income.html

__________________

You must have missed my post referencing the GAO Report that shows:

"Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period."
'Trickle down' economics?

Now, if you want my opinion on whether a progressive tax is preferable to a flat tax, my answer is yes, and here is why:


"For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

For more, see Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman's informative little book, Take the Rich Off Welfare.

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle."
http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm

I am. For a couple of reasons.

Under Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush, the tax cuts for the wealthy were financed with deficit spending, which is taxes spent but not collected. It's the Republican way of doing things: cut taxes, increase spending, and leave the painful act of paying for it to Democrats who, being fiscally responsible, will raise taxes. If the Republican's want to spend so much, they should pay for it through taxes, not deficits.

If the Republicans took responsibility for their spending while actually in office and spending the money, then the top ten percentile would have been responsible for 67 of the tax burden under Republicans. Or there abouts. You catch my drift?

Are you comfortable paying interest year after year on taxes Republican's spent (when they lied to you and increased spending EACH AND EVERY YEAR THEY HELD THE WHITE HOUSE) knowing you are still on the hook to pay each and every dollar they spent?

I am comfortable with the top 10% carrying 67% of the burden because taxes on income and capital gains are lowered under Republicans (20 of the last 28 years), while the middle class has gotten less relief. Only 8 years of Clinton leveling the field actually seems a little UN-comfortable to me.

And it wouldn't have been so bad (67%) if Republican's hadn't skyrocketed the Debt so badly. They even increased spending through the four years, 1983 and 2001 to 2003, when receipts INTO the government coffers WENT DOWN!

Looks like trouble of their own making, to me...

If the Republican's want to give the wealthy lower taxes, then they need to KEEP THEIR WORD and go with smaller government. That means less spending in my opinion. The facts are they have increased spending significantly on their watch each and every year since Carter left office.

Someone has to pay for this deficit. How much higher can you tax the middle class to pay off the deficit? Is it fair to tax the middle class more? Did they received the tax relief for those 20 of 28 years?

If the tax burden had been fair all along, if spending had kept below receipts, then the "top ten percentile was responsible for 67 percent of the tax burden" would never have happened and we wouldn't be discussing it now...

__________________
"And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Thomas Hobbes

Raw numbers look (*)(*)(*)(*)ing, I'll give you that.

You should try Googling the words "welfare for the rich" before you rely too heavily on these charts, though. There are so many other influences on the raw data that doesn't get taken into account.

For example, none of this takes into account cost of living. The top one percent could (I said could, not should) pay half again what they are paying now and not significantly reduce their standard of living. They would certainly not go hungry. The middle class, and those who are poorer, could not.

It also doesn't take into account distribution of wealth.

Here's some data: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/fac...ome&wealth.htm

Here's the study they provide a link for: http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf

And as catawba pointed out, the raw data doesn't take into account the benefit received.

The fact is, we have a government which is out of control when it comes to spending, and someone HAS to foot the bill. Spending has increased each and every year for the past 28. Period. Irregardless of whether a Republican or Democrat has been in charge in the White house or Congress.

If we had 2 political parties that were actively engaged in bettering the lives of ALL Americans, creating a system that both benefited everybody and was fair, then I wouldn't be partisan. No reason to be.

But we don't. It's been the wealthy pushing for and benefiting from the Republicans. It's been the poor pushing for and benefiting from the Democrats. When Reagan took office, the game really changed.

And the scorecard for the last 28 years sits at Republicans 20 years, Democrats 8. And it shows. The distribution of wealth has leaned toward the rich. Auto plants and their subsidiaries employing workers who received full benefits and a good wage used to be the largest employer in this country. Now it's WAL-MART.

The thread is about Trickle Down Economics. I don't think it has worked. I was there when Reagan implemented his brand and I have looked at the historical budget data from the Congressional Budget Office. Again, for 20 of the past 28 years we have leaned toward the Republican brand, and it hasn't taken us where I think we should be, with a deficit over 10 Trillion and Wal-Mart employees being advised on how to supplement their income with welfare.

In theory, Trickle Down Economics is a beautiful thing. So is Communism. We have to look at what the practice has resulted in, and in both cases, I am simply not convinced it is the way to go.

__________________
"And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Thomas Hobbes

Oh.....my....(*)(*)(*)(*)ing....God........



WE DON'T HAVE TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS

LOOK AT THE GRAPH!!!!

THE TOP 1% PAYS 40%, THE BOTTOM 50% PAYS 3%

THAT'S CALLED TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS


And of course, had you been paying attention to the economy, you would have noticed that the cause of the economic meltdown is the government intervention in the economy in the form of government sponsored enterprise, artificial guarantees, the nature of the government and Wall St. with regards to having risk covered, the nature of the government and its involvement in the economy where companies are "too big to fail," and of course, the government requiring that many lenders give bad loans. Even had there been tons more regulation, the result would have been the same, if not worse.

__________________

You've said that I haven't taken into account their standard of living and whatnot, but that doesn't matter right now. Yes, they have the ability to pay more without starving on the street. What that doesn't change is the fact that the rich are paying more than the poor, not the other way around.

There is a grand delusion from many people on the right and left that we have trickle down economics. That is absolutely not the case, as the rich are paying more than the poor are.

I'm not a Democrat, a Republican, or a partisan. I'm simply debating the issue at hand.

Trickle down economics is not a beautiful thing in theory, and neither is trickle up economics, or Communism. In all three, it is relatively easy to see where they fail in theory. If people would actually discuss the theories around them, then that would become more apparent.

__________________

That the top one percent pay more in taxes has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that top one percent have 38% of the wealth and the top 10% 71% of the wealth.

I mean, it makes no sense that someone making $40 Million would pay more in taxes than someone making $40,000. Everyone should pay, say, $30,000 in taxes a year and that's it.

If someone finds that onerous, they'll be stimulated to get off their butt and earn more.

__________________
I coulda trip out easy, but I've a-changed my ways. - Donovan