Occupy… your afternoon commute :/

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 10997 wrote:

Unfortunately, Uncle Warren has a problem confusing average and marginal tax rates.

I disagree. Reading the original op-ed, he is referring to his effective tax rate, i.e. what he paid in taxes divided by his total income. This takes into account the progressive income tax rates, the differences in tax rates for regular income and income derived from capital, and all of the various deductions. I agree that this measure makes more sense to look at for the purpose of his argument.

In case you’re looking for the original, it’s here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 10997 wrote:

Unfortunately, Uncle Warren has a problem confusing average and marginal tax rates. His average income tax rate was a little over 17 percent. (This does not include the taxes paid by the companies in which he invested, which should be included in this calculation since taxes on capital income are assessed at multiple levels. As I discussed in my post responding to Will, how the incidence should be calculated is tricky.) His secretary is in the 25% marginal tax bracket, but her average tax rate is likely to be around 7%. Just plug her numbers into a 1040 EZ and find out!

I’m going to trust the multibillionaire on the numbers thing. Plus he was actually there.

In any event, the overall argument is that taxes aren’t progressive enough.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

There are no tax cuts proposed or recently implemented for the top 1%.

Not specifically the top 1%, but there are definitely proposals that would result in (even more!) cuts for many wealthy people, along with some increases for the not-so-wealthy. And they are very much in play. From yesterday:

The plan by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who serves on the 12-member debt supercommittee, would raise revenue by limiting the tax breaks enjoyed by people who itemize their deductions, in exchange for lower overall tax rates for families at every income level. Taxpayers who already take the standard deduction instead of itemizing – about two-thirds of filers – could see tax cuts. The one-third of taxpayers who itemize their deductions might find themselves paying more.

The top income tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 28 percent, and the bottom rate would drop from 10 percent to 8 percent. The rates between would be reduced as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/republican-tax-plan-itemized-deductions_n_1099047.html

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 11005 wrote:

Your claim is highly debatable, especially when taken in light of the deficit it engendered, but the tax cuts for the rich occurred in 2003, so the focus should be primarily on those in this discussion.

This is the functional equivalent of “Some say…”. You provide no evidence or supporting material, simply make a blanket allegation. Please provide names or official stats, or such an attempt to deflect will remain recognized as simply that.

I knew I should not have engaged, and this round will be my last…

I explicitly addressed both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Look at the rhetoric in 2001: it was “tax cuts for the rich” then as well as in 2003.
(Increasing dividends instead of retaining capital does not change real income inequality, it just changes whether the income that stockholders get is in dividends or capital gains.)
The Tax Foundation figures come directly from the IRS and is the cutoff for the top 1% in 2009. Incidentally, it has fallen from around $380,000 in 2008.

[DismalScientist]

@dasgeh 11010 wrote:

I disagree. Reading the original op-ed, he is referring to his effective tax rate, i.e. what he paid in taxes divided by his total income. This takes into account the progressive income tax rates, the differences in tax rates for regular income and income derived from capital, and all of the various deductions. I agree that this measure makes more sense to look at for the purpose of his argument.

His effective tax rate is his average tax rate. He takes his total income and payroll taxes paid (and payroll taxes paid on his behalf) and divides by his total income. For some reason, he does not include corporate taxes that are paid by firms in which he is invested. This is an interested argument: he assumes that payroll tax incidence is entirely on labor, but none of the incidence of corporate taxes is on the shareholder. Perhaps he is trying to make a misleading argument supporting his conjecture.

The source of his estimates of his underlings’ tax rates is entirely unclear and they looked a lot more like marginal rates than average rates to me.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 11023 wrote:

His effective tax rate is his average tax rate. He takes his total income and payroll taxes paid (and payroll taxes paid on his behalf) and divides by his total income. For some reason, he does not include corporate taxes that are paid by firms in which he is invested.

I don’t count the taxes of firms I’ve invested in as taxes on me either. He seems to be talking about his personal income and comparing it to his secretary’s, which is exactly what he should be doing.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 11021 wrote:

I explicitly addressed both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Look at the rhetoric in 2001: it was “tax cuts for the rich” then as well as in 2003.

I’d call an extension of tax cuts for the rich “tax cuts for the rich” too. If a change in law reduces their future tax bill, that’s a cut.

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 11021 wrote:

(Increasing dividends instead of retaining capital does not change real income inequality, it just changes whether the income that stockholders get is in dividends or capital gains.)

You are still dancing around the subject at hand – the tax cuts reduced average tax rates on the upper tax bracket.

You didn’t address any of my other points (including providing names of those who are in the top 1% and in government jobs), so I’ll assume you concur.

[mrkenny83]

Occupy the lane!
Bicycle rights!
Tax breaks for cyclists!

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 11038 wrote:

You are still dancing around the subject at hand – the tax cuts reduced average tax rates on the upper tax bracket.

You didn’t address any of my other points (including providing names of those who are in the top 1% and in government jobs), so I’ll assume you concur.

Your assumption of my concurrence is misplaced.
Husband and wife GS15 step 10 combined earn about $320,000. That’s almost there by itself.

…Upon reading more carefully your post, you are right. Tax cuts reduced the average tax rates on the upper tax bracket. …. And everyone else.
But, of course that is not the subject at hand. Under these criteria, one could argue that Bush’s tax cuts for the poor is causing the mess we are in with the same information.

[Joe Chapline]

@mrkenny83 11040 wrote:

Occupy the lane!
Bicycle rights!
Tax breaks for cyclists!

We are the three percent!

[vvill]

So 1% being $344k is based on a married filing jointly return? Or single? :confused:

@mrkenny83 11040 wrote:

Occupy the lane!
Bicycle rights!
Tax breaks for cyclists!

Now that’s what I call progressive!

[DismalScientist]

@vvill 11050 wrote:

So 1% being $344k is based on a married filing jointly return? Or single? :confused:

They took all filed individual tax returns (about 102 million) and found the cut-off point for the top 1%. So it is a combination of single and married. Returns of married filers tend to have higher incomes than single.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 11041 wrote:

Your assumption of my concurrence is misplaced.

So either you don’t have anything to address those other points or don’t believe what you have will suffice. If you change your mind, we’ll be happy to examine the substance of your claims in detail.

@DismalScientist 11041 wrote:

Husband and wife GS15 step 10 combined earn about $320,000. That’s almost there by itself.

You make up a scenario, yet still are not able to substantiate your allegation. We will assume you were simply making up a scenario intended as a distraction.

@DismalScientist 11041 wrote:

…Upon reading more carefully your post, you are right. Tax cuts reduced the average tax rates on the upper tax bracket. …. And everyone else.
But, of course that is not the subject at hand. Under these criteria, one could argue that Bush’s tax cuts for the poor is causing the mess we are in with the same information.

Either you are not a scientist, or you think that none of us can do math.

Drop the top tax rate from 39% to 35%, and that means someone making $1,000,000 pays $40,000 less

On the other hand, the little (if any) tax cut afforded a poor family can now be used to buy much needed food and shelter.

The bottom 50% own 2.5% of the nation’s wealth – there is no handwaving that can begin to point to the poor or lower middle class as the problem. I can’t believe you would even try to go down this path…

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 11058 wrote:

So either you don’t have anything to address those other points or don’t believe what you have will suffice. If you change your mind, we’ll be happy to examine the substance of your claims in detail.

You make up a scenario, yet still are not able to substantiate your allegation. We will assume you were simply making up a scenario intended as a distraction.

Either you are not a scientist, or you think that none of us can do math.

Drop the top tax rate from 39% to 35%, and that means someone making $1,000,000 pays $40,000 less

On the other hand, the little (if any) tax cut afforded a poor family can now be used to buy much needed food and shelter.

The bottom 50% own 2.5% of the nation’s wealth – there is no handwaving that can begin to point to the poor or lower middle class as the problem. I can’t believe you would even try to go down this path…

I have yet to insult you and this is my last post.

I am approaching the top 1% with my government salary and my wife’s job as an IT consultant with a government contractor. Does anyone wonder why the richest areas of the country are around Washington?

When there are tax rate cuts, this must mean that average tax rates for all taxpayers (who receive cuts, which was everyone in 2001 and every one with income from capital in 2003) must have their average tax rates fall. When I said “Bush tax cuts for the poor” I was simply addressing the absurdity of politicians adding the “for the …” rhetoric either in an ignorant or duplicitous manner.

Much of the 2001 tax cuts went to upper middle class families with children because of the child tax credits. A large amount of high income taxpayers did not see a cut because they were subject to the AMT or were thrown into the AMT. And which party claims to support fixing the AMT, which by definition only falls on relatively high income folks?

[Author]

Posts