Jim

He knows how the bureaucrats work from being an economist and having a stint with the feds. He's attracted a lot of attention from the left (during Clinton) and now, for his criticism of the budget. The right wing media has come unglued on this guy - he consistenly rips the current admin with a thorough analysis. The Wall St Journal editorials have even praised him - it's idealogues that don't like him. Work calls - stay dry this weekend, might be time to get that 6 mo gym membership.

I actually thought you would like this guy! He was bashing Clinton's fiscal policies almost as much as Bushie. He's a fiscal conservative who thinks we're playing shell games with things like SS, and we're going to pay later big time. You gotta widen you're reading list buddy. Do you really subscribe to that right wing newsletter trash?

I think it's just easier to keep harping on the past than deal with the grim present state of affairs (no pun intened). But that's spray....

Ya know, I think Peter's on to something here. If we just do nothing then all those worthless folks working at the burger king will eventually be rubbing shoulders with Bill Gates and his neighbors.

Fool! I spit in you're general direction and give you this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713997435/ref%3Ded%5Fsoc%5F%5F1%5F2/026-1223258-2436446 en garde!

Not if you're Exxon and can write off that little oil spill thing as a tax deduction and then pay 0 taxes. Do corp income taxes do this?

Fairness is meaningless to me as an arguement. Obviously

I just want to see more bang for my buck that's all. Let's see our legislators be a little fiscally reponsible. Pouring money on these problems year after year doesn't seem to be working...seems that all we're really funding is public employees pensions No doubt accountability is a good thing is spending. That's why I think our current administration has driven the economic ship up on a sand bar. If you think the revenue shortfalls are a problem now, wait until you see the defecit and national debt climb to unpresidented levels over the next decade. The influence of the recent tax cuts will only increase over this time. Our kids will be facing the bill.

It's curious to me how this "we're overtaxed" mantra has taken place. Clearly the data show that taxes are way down, particulary for the well to do, and have generally stayed the same, around 26% for the middle income folks. And compared to other countries we pay substantially less. The intriging part to me is how folks in the middle income bracket are fighting for reduced taxes for the rich. Do they fantisize they they too will be like Bill Gates one day? And these are the same folks who turn a blind eye to the turn around from record surplus to record deficit in a mere two years. Amazing indeed.

Oh gimme a break with the percentage of tax burden already. If you look at the group that is recieving the benifits of the recent tax cuts - the upper 1%, they'er making out like bandits. Of course they quintile will show an increase because the tax revenue total is decreasing!! This strays from the issue again. The upper income rates are at their lowest in 30 years! I assume your also advocating flat tax?

Well now that we've fully aired both positions, what is your solution to this problem of the percieved "burden" put on higher tax brackets?

PP - I think Luna's point is similar to mine (Luna?). The upper incomes are doing quite well, their taxes have been drastically cut over the past couple decades, especially recently, and they own a much larger percentage of the income and wealth pie. So they need tax relief? Is your point that a flat tax is what is needed to revise this? People who make more money pay more taxes. So what?They're at historic lows - they should go lower?

Chris - I think she mentions that in the first para. I would be interesting to calculate exactly what your taxes are. My guess is that your around 26-28%. I haven't lived in a state tax state for a while - but don't you get to deduct your state taxes off the federal income tax calculation? Interesting discussion.

Gotta be the goat. We're spinning outside Pluto's orbit now.

A recent report: Published on 9/25/2003 in the New York Times U.S. Income Gap Widening, Study Says by Lynnley Browning The gap between rich and poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000, an analysis of government data shows. The gulf is such that the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent. In 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent had just under half the after-tax income of the poorest 40 percent of Americans, analysis of new data from the Congressional Budget Office shows. The figures show 2000 as the year of the greatest economic disparity between rich and poor for any year since 1979, the year the budget office began collecting this data, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research organization in Washington that advocates tax and federal spending policies to benefit the poor. It released its analysis on Tuesday. The richest 2.8 million Americans had $950 billion after taxes, or 15.5 percent, of the $6.2 trillion economic pie in 2000, Isaac Shapiro, a senior fellow at the center, said. The poorest 110 million Americans had less, sharing 14.4 percent of all after tax money. But the higher incomes of the last decade did not lift all people equally. In 2000, the top 1 percent of American taxpayers had $862,700 each after taxes, on average, more than triple the $286,300 they had, adjusted for inflation, in 1979. The bottom 40 percent in 2000 had $21,118 each, up 13 percent from their $18,695 average in 1979. Mr. Shapiro also analyzed the budget office data in tandem with a recently updated study on income by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Cambridge, Mass. The bureau study found that in 2000, the top 1 percent income group had the largest share of before-tax income for any year since 1929. Mr. Shapiro said that findings from both studies suggested that in 2000, the top 1 percent had the largest share of the nation's total after-tax income since at least 1936 and probably since 1929. Mr. Shapiro emphasized that his combined analysis accounted for the fact that his study used after-tax incomes while the bureau's study used pretax incomes. Both low- and middle-income people shared in the boom of the 1990's, while in the 1980's the bottom fifth experienced a decline in after-tax income, according to the budget office data analyzed by Mr. Shapiro and Robert Greenstein, director for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The middle fifth had an average after-tax income of $41,900 in 2000, a rise of 15 percent both since 1979 and 1997, indicating a long period of no real economic gains for this group. "You do have gains across the spectrum from 1997 to 2000," Mr. Shapiro said, "but they are much more dramatic at the top." The center's analysis said the highest income Americans had grown richer from 1979 to 2000 both from gains in income because of economic prosperity and from tax cuts. Huge gains in executive pay were a significant factor, Mr. Shapiro said. Federal tax burdens for most Americans had declined over the previous two decades, and not risen as some conservative policy experts have asserted, the center said. Congress enacted tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were heavily weighted to the top 1 percent, which supporters said would encourage them to invest more to the benefit of all Americans. From 1979 to 2000, the total federal tax burden for the top 1 percent dropped 3.8 percentage points, but for the middle fifth the decline was only 1.9 percentage points. Tax rates for the poorest fifth declined 1.6 percentage points. The top 1 percent pay a quarter of all federal taxes, while the bottom 40 percent pay 6 percent of all federal taxes. A side note - I notice PP didn't cite any source, just curious. Gotta get some work done, then 20 mi bike ride home. It's raining, ugh.

it's because society needs it and, moreover they can. I don't see any imperical "facts" that bolster your argument. Your opinion is that the tax structure is "enslaving" the upper incomes. Mine and others is that the higher incomes can afford to pay a higher percentage (on income above a certain point) and should for a number of social benefit reasons. PP's chart that started the discussion is true enough, but that's only part of the picture. The rich in this country are not hurting and can easily affort the current structure, in fact they're making quite the leaps recently. You say it "enslaves" them - I say they're getting a pretty good deal recently.

Hey HR - if you could give me some logic I would reply in kind. I think the basis of your view goes something like this - Because the upper incomes (now I'm talking upper 10-20% here, so hope we're on the same page) pay a greater percentage of their income than the lower tax brackets they are "enslaved" by their government and the lower incomes. You may believe it. I think it's a silly notion. Enslaved? Poor choice of words in the least. How much lower taxes do you think is fair? I assume you're advocating a flat tax. Again I would say that is not fair to take 10% from someone making $30K vs 10% from $3 million. The little guy has $27K left, the big guy has $2.7 million. Doesn't seem "enslaved" is the proper context. Yes the rich should pay more, up to some debateable point, because they can afford to. The changing tax structure has resulted in a huge redistribution of wealth in the US in the past 20 years. Is there class warfare in the US? Definately - and there is no doubt who is winning and who is losing.

Hop on the clue train buddy. The vast majority of your taxes are being spent on a wild goose chase in the sands of the middle east.

No shit, Taco. CAN is not the point. I CAN shove an icepick through your ear...SHOULD I? No. Your scenario has set up a state where the successful are made to work to support those who are not so successful (for whatever reason). Thus, you have enslaved a portion of the people by requisitioning a portion of their labor to support others. Oh God. Now the upper 10% of the wealthy are enslaved who have the equivalent of ice picks in their ears because of our unfair tax laws. Such a burden. Sniff

What!!?? Oh so you drop the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and the tax on the upper 10% (which bushie has done) and they pay more?? Yes, I would like to see documentation on that magic. Maybe it's the folks that are making $30K or less that are weasling out of the inheritance tax and capital gains?

It's just the thought that the upper incomes are paying too much is ridiculous to me. You say it's "unfair" that they pay so much. Who are you talking about? The upper 10% , the middle 25%, everyone? And you side-stepped my example of a flat tax. Taxes are going down, rich are getting richer, and they're still complaining. Give it a break already. I don't suppose we'll change one another's mind. You think the upper incomes pay too little now - I'd say they are paying much less that historically and reaping the benefits big time. Really gotta go now. Later.

It's not a matter of "hurting." It is a matter of entitlement; the government claims an entitlement to the earned wealth of people who work hard and are successful. They exercise this entitlement in an unfair, and unequal way. They punish, in essence, those who have made themselves successful by imposing upon them higher taxes. Oh brother, you know, I'm gonna start crying here for the upper 10% soon if you keep it up. Poor babies. One more time - tax rates have been coming steadily down for the upper incomes - lower marginal rates, fazing out of the inheritance tax, lowering the capital gains tax. Plus if you're in the upper 10% or so you have the capability of using the tax laws to help you, gifting, living trusts, insurance investments. I'm not buying it. You earn more you pay more. No way that 10% off a $30,000 income means the same as 10% off a $3 million dollar income. Gotta go key our some Alaskan sedges - later.

Well I would disagree. I think inherent fairness is one part of a tax code. And certainly there should be limits. The trickle down theory of economics has been discredited, so let's not go down that road. And again I would point to the widening economic gap between rich and poor. If the rich are hurtin' so much then why are they raking in more and more? No whinning please.

Actually your link mixes measurements. While productivity is mention once per hour, the author switches back to GDP per capitia. This may be his intention but it's not clear. The source link doesn't work so hard to figure out. I have read a summary that states otherwise. It's at home so I could rummage for it. But the summary is that the primary reason our GDP and per capitis productivity is high is that we WORK MORE HOURS than other countries. I haven't changed my tune on this point. Productivity has doubled since 1969. Yet, unlike Europe, where productivity gains have translated into stable incomes and shorter hours, American employers have kept down wages and increased hours. The average work isn't any better than a worker in 1970. So where did the profit go from all this productivity increase. Rewind to the income distribution chart. Yea I know, lower taxes, lower taxes. Either that or bomb someone. Always a good answer.

Peter - I did read your link. You must have missed my point in my post. Your link cited productivity per capitia, and yes the US has a higher rate than the EU. But that is because US workers WORK MORE HOURS than any other country. When you figure out the productivity per hour the US drops behind the EU. So while they have more time off, they're more productive per hour. Bottom line is that marginal tax rates are at lows not seen in at least 50 years. No reasons for whinning at the upper levels.