Luna just wrote another Finnagin’s Wake! Like that famous tome it says a lot but just what it means is hard to decipher but let’s try to figure it out. Although I usually do not think the “point by point” method is a proper response, since Luna’s post is so long I am going to respond in that manner.
While PP's table is interesting, it is a cleverly simplistic tool used by the conservative right to show how burdened the upper income levels are taxed. So here's what I say. It's a complicated issue.
Well we agree it’s a complicated issue but I must say that I have made no claims based on fairness or equity. In fact I believe that I have expressly rejected such claims. Luna’s mention of conservative right and use of terms clever simplistic are attacks not against any argument I have put forth or even directly against me but against an evil third party! Is he/she trying to use guilt by association? I think so, the silly devil!
1) One ploy often used to play down growing inequality is to rely on rather coarse statistical breakdowns - dividing the population in to quintiles. From there it's a short step to deny that we're really talking about the rich at all. PP's table comes from a Republican committee (aren't they all now) and bears a striking resemlence to info put out by the right-wing conservative Heritage Foundation. You can present data that show there has been some increase in the share of income (and tax burden) to the top 10% of taxpayers and then point out that anyone with income over $81K is in that top 10%, which is middle class - right?
Luna never says the data is wrong but casts a shadow on it by saying the table comes from a “republican committee” and a similar one has been used by the “right wing heritage foundation”. Of course if the information is correct, all tables of a similar structure would be similar. Where does the structure come from? The IRS. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls) Perhaps that is why this table was chosen. Note also that Luna claimed only that the table came from a republican committee but made no comment regarding the data! Was Luna trying to avoid admitting the data come from the IRS?
I expressly showed the income levels for each grouping in my first post – nothing was hidden. The data I presented shows that the AGI floor for the top 10% is in fact $92,754 not the $81 income as presented by Luna. I’ll assume that Luna meant AGI when he/she used the term “income” if not his/her error is even greater.
Wrong: the top 10% contains a lot of people whom we would still consider middle class, but they aren't the big winners in the last 30 years of tax reduction. Most of the gains in the share of the top 10% were actually gains in the top 1%. In 1998 the top 1% started at $230K. In turn, 60% of the gains of that top 1% went to the top 0.1%, those earning more than $790K. And almost half of those gains went to a mere 13,000 tax payers, the top 0.1%, who had an average income of $17 million. (Pikety-Saez research institute and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office data).
In 1970 the top .01% of taxpayers had 0.7% of total income, that is they earned only 70 times that of the average. But in 1998 the top .01% received more than 3% of all income. The 13,000 richest families had almost as much income as the 20 million poorest. And the trend continues more so in the Bushie Admin, Hmmm, who needs tax relief?
Wrong? What claim have I made that is wrong? What assertion? Earth to Luna: come in please! This is non-responsive to any argument I have made so I will let it pass with only a few small comments. Luna mentioned that people present data in a manner that best shows what they want to show. For example, see the argument presented above. Now Luna has done the same darn thing here! The scoundrel! Look he is using five year old data! Any reader interested in more recent data would find that the higher income levels have suffered disproportionately during the current downturn. Hmm maybe somewhere on this site PP has posted some data regarding this some time ago (hint: it was from the IRS!)
Ok I’ll admit it I am pretty much bored with this. I believe my argument is clear to someone willing to put aside their rejoinder until they finish reading my posts. Suffice to say that Luna has missed it by a mile. Luna was getting close with the dividend tax change put missed the point my argument would suggest was important.
Even worse Luna has resorted to the very tactics decried in his/her post. What gives?
PP
