Seasons Greetings To The Rich ...

(from John McClaughry, who sent this in and asked us to pass it along to our rich friends.  Both of them.  ed)

Last week the Internal Revenue Service released its tax statistics for 2005. Here are some of the findings.

Let’s take the super rich first . The top one percent of income tax payers paid 39 percent of all income taxes. That’s up from 25 percent in 1990.

Now let’s look at the bottom half of all households, those below the median income. They paid three percent of all income taxes.

So the top one percent paid 39 percent, and the bottom fifty percent pay three percent.
            
The taxpayers who reported $365,000 a year in taxable income, paid ten times more income tax than all of the sixty six million American tax filers below the median income.

The Wall Street Journal (December 17 editorial) notes that that “despite the [Bush income tax rate] reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.”
            
That happened  because more people are making lots of money. So don’t complain to me about growing inequality. I just want those rich people to keep on eating into my share of the tax burden.
            

Comments

[G. Cross]

Yup, the super rich contiue to suffer. Check www.cbpp.org/3-29-07inc.htm to find these facts and other interesting tid bits:

• Between 2004 and 2005, the average income of the highest-income 1 percent of households increased by $119,000, after adjusting for inflation. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of households increased by about $550.
• Income concentration, which increased in 2003 and rose sharply in 2004, jumped again in 2005. The share of pre-tax income in the nation that goes to the top 1 percent of households increased from 17.8 percent in 2004 to 19.4 percent in 2005. Only three times since World War II has the percentage of income received by the top 1 percent risen this much in a single year (in percentage point terms). One of those three times was 2004.
• The jump in income concentration in 2005 brought the percentage of income going to the top 1 percent of households to its highest level since 1929.
• The large jump in income concentration reflects another year of very uneven income gains. From 2004 to 2005, the average incomes of the bottom 90 percent of households grew by less than 2 percent, after adjusting for inflation. In contrast, the average income of the top 1 percent of households experienced a jump of nearly 14 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Moreover, average income is pulled up by gains at the top of the income scale; IRS data suggest that even the less than 2 percent gain among the bottom 90 percent of households may well be due mostly to gains in the top half or top quartile of the income spectrum.
• The top 1 percent of households (those with annual incomes above about $350,000 in 2005) garnered 47 percent — nearly half — of the total income gains in 2005. More than two thirds of total income gains accrued to those in the top decile (the highest-income 10 percent) of the income scale. Less than one third of total income gains went to the bottom 90 percent of households.
• Income gains were even more pronounced among those with even higher incomes. The incomes of the top one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1 percent) of households grew more rapidly than the incomes of the top 1 percent of households. The share of national income received by the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households increased by 1.0 percentage point from 2004 to 2005 and was as high as in 2000, when it reached its highest level since 1929.

[GreggB]

Just because someone has more, doesn't mean that you have any less. Just be happy George. And if you can't do that then sure go out and try and tax everyone down to the lowest common income. Eat the rich. Hell eat everyone who isn't on public assistance. That should make everything all fair and equal.

[G. Cross]

Let's see, you can't dispute the facts so you attack the poster and those who are unable to defend themselves, at least on this site. Typical!!

And a Merry Christams to you, too.

[GreggB]

Sorry George. I get a little too fresh sometimes. Serious questions-if wealth disparity is such a problem what do you propose as a solution? Bill Gates is worth 60 billion dollars what percent of that should the government redistribute?

[G. Cross]

Actually in Gates case, he and his wife are doing a reasonably good job of distributing a good share of it themselves. What I am trying to point out is that the wealthy are not being mistreated by the tax codes and in fact they probably could pay a bit more and never miss it. That bit more could feed millions around the world, protect millions of children from dreaded disease and offer educational opportunity to millions. Call me a dreamer, or whatever, just don't try to tell me that my dream is impossible or detrimental to economic growth.

[Greg Decker]

Actually George, the problem with your dream is that it will never be achieved by redistribution. Nations have tried and failed miserably.

The undeniable fact on the ground is the best way to help the poor is with economic growth. And, our economic growth does not come at the expense of the poor. See, its not a zero sum game. There isn't a fixed amount of wealth that we all share. People CREATE wealth. This means the more we create the more there is to go around.

You should try watching one of the Hans Rosling videos I've linked to a few time here on the Tiger. Seeing how wealth has increased across the entire globe simultaneously is pretty convincing we're not in a zero sum game. Furthermore, the data shows that health and longevity have increased along with the increases in wealth. These are the objective we all seek.

Simply put, if there is a better way of helping people than helping them earn more, nobody has found it yet. In the end, we all want the same thing - its just that some focus on 'intents' whereas others focus on outcomes. By this, I mean that some people's preoccupation with the 'intent' of helping the poor leads them to pursue economic policies that are detrimental to growth which ultimately hurts the everybody particularly the poor. On the other hand, some people have the selfish motive of making money and could care less about the poor. These people are the ones who create great wealth that we all benefit from.

Pick your poison I guess. Personally, I'll take less-of-more over more-of-less any day.

BTW - Merry Christmas!

[Edward Charles Ponzi Jr.]

"I just want those rich people to keep on eating into my share of the tax burden"

Actual 2007 Federal Deficit Topped $4.0 Trillion (GAAP standard)

[http://www.shadowstats.com/]

Guess they ain't rich enough -- 'ey?