yet again: taxes suck

[Fairweather]

AK,

 

...more reading for the research-impaired:

 

*

 

At the federal, state, and local level combined, America spends more for K-12 education than it does for defense. And if you count spending on higher education, vocational training, special education, and other educational programs, the amount the nation spends is more than twice the entire defense budget.

*

 

Since 1965, the federal government has spent more than $321 billion on K-12 education. At every level of government combined, America has spent more than $10 trillion on K-12 education over the last century. Total spending at all levels of government for K-12 education is more than $470 billion this school year.

*

 

More than 35 years after Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), public school spending per pupil has more than doubled – even when adjusted for inflation – from $3,331 per student in 1965 to $8,194 per student in 2000-01.

[cj001f]

Fairweather-

I don't know about Tacoma, but here in Portland, Lincoln High School (across the st from my Apt) replaced their track, to the tune of $1.2 million, entirely with private donations. Including $250k from one family

 

I don't understand why people bitch about our education system. It's the one thing we're an undisputed world leader in, that can't be outsourced.

[willstrickland]

I live in the most tax friendly state in the country and being a federal employee here I get a 25% tax free cost of living adjustment (which completely offsets the federal income taxes I pay). Since there are no state income taxes, no state sales tax, and the Fred Meyer is strategically placed about 100 yards outside the city limits, I effectively pay no taxes other than on gasoline and indirect property taxes through my rent. In fact, the state PAYS ME around $1500 - $2000 per year for simply living here (it's dividends from the oil revenues).

 

This coming year the Fairbanks North Star Borough will have to lay off around 50 teachers, and cut virtually all extra-curricular activities because of budget shortfalls. We don't have high-art architechture school buildings, they're all over 10-20 years old, some are probably 50 years old, and we aren't building new ones.

 

Alaskans have this illusion that they are fiercely independent, which in alot of ways is true. I love that attitude, and it fits with my personality. Part of the reason I came here was to get out of mainstream America. But, the Alaskan economy turns on the govt dime and people up here are spoiled in that sense. Until about 20 years ago there was a state income tax, and there was no dividend paid from the oil revenues. Earnings from the investment of the oil revenue royalties either went to increase the principal of the account or were used to fund state govt. Now a large portion of the profits are paid out as dividends. Our schools are getting fucked, but any talk of reintroducing a state income tax or a sales tax, or a one-time $20K payout to everyone in lieu of future dividend payments is met with scorn. Now everyone wants to bitch about the schools not getting funded, but they're not willing to give up anything. They think the govt should take care of it but it's almost as if they don't realize that they ARE the govt.

 

The point is, it could be worse.

[Fairweather]

If you don't understand the difference between capital improvement projects and educational programs, and how they are subject to different criteria and their funding comes from different sources, you must not understand much about large educational institutions and must also not care to.

 

Matt,

 

This is the classic bureaucrat bullshit argument; "now... you see....that money comes from that piggy bank over there....but this poor piggy over here is just starving...."

 

 

 

The schools that you think suck so bad are only going to get worse if you "hit 'em where it counts."

 

 

Ok, now you're trying to put words in my mouth. At no time did I state that the education my kids are getting is sub standard. My original point was to counter Alpine K's ridiculous quip that Peter Puget "didn't care about education...." simply because he questioned how his taxes are spent. Nice try though...this is just a classic MattP tactic.

[willstrickland]

Just for comparison Fairweather, in the last 40 years we spent $321 billion on K-12 (your numbers), in the last 12 months we spent over $100 billion on the Iraq debacle (costofwar.com).

[Fairweather]

Fairweather-

I don't know about Tacoma, but here in Portland, Lincoln High School (across the st from my Apt) replaced their track, to the tune of $1.2 million, entirely with private donations. Including $250k from one family

 

I don't understand why people bitch about our education system. It's the one thing we're an undisputed world leader in, that can't be outsourced.

 

Cj,

 

That's a good program, but what about schools in low income areas, or those without wealthy benefactors? Are they just SOL? One might conclude that the illustration you used blows the "level playing field" cliche to pieces.

 

...and what if that 1.2 million were spent on books or tech upgrades instead? Just a thought.

Edited April 8, 2004 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

Just for comparison Fairweather, in the last 40 years we spent $321 billion on K-12 (your numbers), in the last 12 months we spent over $100 billion on the Iraq debacle (costofwar.com).

 

That's just the federal expenditures (for education) which are a small percentage of the total spent.

 

...but your point is well taken.

[AlpineK]

AK,

 

...more reading for the research-impaired:

 

*

 

At the federal, state, and local level combined, America spends more for K-12 education than it does for defense. And if you count spending on higher education, vocational training, special education, and other educational programs, the amount the nation spends is more than twice the entire defense budget.

*

 

Since 1965, the federal government has spent more than $321 billion on K-12 education. At every level of government combined, America has spent more than $10 trillion on K-12 education over the last century. Total spending at all levels of government for K-12 education is more than $470 billion this school year.

*

 

More than 35 years after Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), public school spending per pupil has more than doubled – even when adjusted for inflation – from $3,331 per student in 1965 to $8,194 per student in 2000-01.

 

More likely I'm time spent on the internet impared.

 

I notice that all the statistics you quote are from 1965 till now. I'm sure the averages are in your favor when you use a time span that includes 8 presidential administrations. What I'm interested in is contrasting the period from 2000 to the present. To be fair a good statistic would compensate for population growth inflation etc.

 

Hmmm I can blow off work and spend the day researching and arguing with F....Hmmm I think I'll go to work.

[Peter_Puget]

A couple of comments.

 

1 J-Fisher first creates a scenario explaining how my attachment is consistent with the article. The scenario is presented as fact. Of course the fact his scenario is at odds with the data shown in the link from which the attachment is taken is ignored. What he has done is simply ignore the facts.

 

2 When I point this out he suddenly takes exception to the data because the time series ends at 2001. Note that this date was of no importance when he was using it to support his fallacious argument.

 

Here is his response:

“Huh? The data in CBO report you linked to had data through 2001, which was before the Bush tax cuts even took effect. The article was about the effects of the Bush tax cuts. The CBO report is irrelevant to the topic.”

 

I would note that in June 2001 Bush signed the “ Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 .” Some provisions of this act were effective immediately. J_Fisher’s comment is clearly contrary to fact. It is also off base because the topic was in fact the Seattle Times Article. I believe that any responsible article would mention recent trends in progressively. That this CBO report was ignored shows poor reporting. The impact of future changes in the tax code are simply speculation and should be taken as such. For example at the site linked by J_B is a wonderful write-up that contains the following quote: “Second, after Bush cut taxes for his rich friends , unemployment actually increased over the previous year.” I think that it is clear from the data that in 2001 the federal tax system had become more progressive. Typical BS from a J_B link. Most on this site are pretty young and won’t remember the screaming that went on over the Reagan tax cuts. Look over the data. The undeniable trend is to greater progressively.

 

PP

[j_b]

PP conveniently ignore the salient points: a) the real income of the lower quintiles have at best remained steady over the last 30 years (according to several serious studies it appears to have actually decreased by 7%) while the income of the top 0.01% has increased 600% percent (these numbers don't include capital gains so imagine the real increase). b) meanwhile according to cbo data the total effective tax rate has decreased less for every percentile than the top 1%. How can pp say taxes are now more progressive than 30 years ago? thus the main point made by johnston (article pasted in this thread: click here ) is when looking at subdivisions of the upper 1%, and especially the upper 0.01%, which cannot be observed from the cbo data linked to by pp. another salient point is that the cbo numbers do not include all excise taxes which are often by definition not progressive. also note, the cogent argument made by pp: "typical bs". how can you argue against that? huh?

 

anyhow, here is part 2: "perfectly legal " interview

[Peter_Puget]

The accuracy of J_B’s data notwithstanding he is confused or deliberately being an obscurantist. The question here is the progressivity of the Federal Tax system and whether a significant piece of information should have been included in the Seattle Times article.. I have little time but did prepare a simple graph of trendlines for table 1A in the CBO link. (see attachment) I simply would point out that the trendline for four of the quintiles is negative and for the other it is positive. As far as other taxes I posted a link of a study several weeks ago suggesting that when taken as a whole the US might be pretty close to a flat tax situation right now. I am not sure how accurate the study is but it is fuel for thought.

 

Further just recently a study was released by a University of Kansas Prof and a Fed Reserve member. It studied the possible impact on GDP of a change to a flat tax system. This article was also not referenced.

 

 

EDIT: By the way J_B claims I am making a judgement on data 30 years old. I am confused by this as the data I have introduced to the thread only goes back to 1979.

Edited April 8, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[j_b]

i am neither confused nor being an obscurantist. i wasn't discussing the seattle times article but rather your claim that "the progresssive nature of our tax system has in fact increased". i'll repeat again that the cbo data alone is insufficient to address this claim because it also needs to be subdivided to see what's going on within the upper 1% (johnston says that everyone but the uber rich is getting screwed)). still, the cbo data shows that the upper 1% had the largest decrease in total federal tax rate of all percentiles which hardly shows that the tax system is now more progressive. moreover, pp contradicts himself since he now says there is evidence we are now close to a flat tax system. how could a flat tax system be progressive?

 

whether pp was discussing 25 or 30 years worth of data is mostly irrelevant to this discussion.

[Peter_Puget]

You are in fact being an obscurantist. I could care less if the richest man in America had an effective rate of zero. Such a fact while being of some interest in no way would change the fact that the federal tax structure is in fact progressive and it's become more progressive over time. (For grins I made a quick & dirty graph showing trended effective tax rates for the 10%, 5% and 1% groups - notice the positive slopes!)

 

J_B says: "moreover, pp contradicts himself since he now says there is evidence we are now close to a flat tax system. how could a flat tax system be progressive?"

 

 

What I wrote to inspire that comment- emphasis added:"As far as other taxes I posted a link of a study several weeks ago suggesting that when taken as a whole the US might be pretty close to a flat tax situation right now.

 

I would only add the following comment: The study I refered to included Federal, State,Local and regional taxes in its analysis. The CBO report as supported by its title is concerned with Federal taxation.

 

PP

[j_b]

You are in fact being an obscurantist. I could care less if the richest man in America had an effective rate of zero. Such a fact while being of some interest in no way would change the fact that the federal tax structure is in fact progressive and it's become more progressive over time. (For grins I made a quick & dirty graph showing trended effective tax rates for the 10%, 5% and 1% groups - notice the positive slopes!)

 

sure let's ignore the tax rate for the richest men in america then you can declare whatever you want about the tax system

 

then you can trend the data whichever way you want too, and show us a positive slope while you ignore that the top 1% has a rate 4% lower than it did in 1979, which is a greater decrease than for anybody else. and ignore as well that said tax rate has been decreasing since 1995. also note that the positive slope for the years in between is an artifact due to the tax policies of your personal hero (reagan). it is interesting you did not plot the lower quintiles (i can't see the plots btw), then everyone would have seen that reagan lowered taxes for the wealthy only (in fact, effective tax for the lowest quintile increased during the reagan years)

 

J_B says: "moreover, pp contradicts himself since he now says there is evidence we are now close to a flat tax system. how could a flat tax system be progressive?"

 

 

What I wrote to inspire that comment- emphasis added:"As far as other taxes I posted a link of a study several weeks ago suggesting that when taken as a whole the US might be pretty close to a flat tax situation right now.

 

I would only add the following comment: The study I refered to included Federal, State,Local and regional taxes in its analysis. The CBO report as supported by its title is concerned with Federal taxation.

 

PP

 

in other words you are compartimentalizing data sets because it suits your argument. to argue that the tax system is more progressive not only do you misrepresent the cbo data but you don't consider local and state taxes. wow, how clever.

[Peter_Puget]

ya ya ya your putting me to sleep J_B..

 

Actually I graphed all the Quintiles in my first gragh today and in my last graph I graph the top 10% 5% and 1%. Clearly since you dont understand what you are looking at your argument must be most likely wrong and if correct, it is correct only by sheer luck.

 

I'd love to read your stuff but I have found a better place to hang out.....

 

.... the better place!

 

Cheers!

 

PP

 

EDIT: I added the quintile graph agian to help you out! Notice four lines with a negative slope and one with a positive one. The positive one is for the highest quintile.

Edited April 8, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[AlpineK]

I'm not sure how this relates to this discussion but I note from the chart PP provided that after tax income for the lowest quintile increased about 9% while after tax income for the highest quintile increased by 55% over the period in the study.

 

It sure looks like the rich are doing quite well compared to others.

[j_b]

classic pp for you: talk trash and banalities but certainly don't provide arguments to support your claim. i am not surprised you claim to be bored, since you certainly don't provide any minutia in your posts which to me indicate either sloppy thinking or evasion of the argument at hand.

 

i may not be an economist but my math is pretty good (although we are taking pretty basic stuff here). your drawing a positive-trending best fit (linear i assume since i can't see the graphs) through the data from 1979-2001 certainly does not mean what you want it to mean. if you added a few years before and after the sample used (1979-2001), the trend would be totally different (since 1979 had the highest tax rate of the sample and the trend has been negative since 1995 (note 2002-2003 not in sample). the decrease in tax rate is greatest (-4%) for the top percentile (reminder the top percent earns as much as the bottom 100million americans). in fact, the data you provided shows precisely that the tax system is less progressive now than 25 years ago. whether you can draw a positive best fit is irrelevant and certainlly does not reflect both overall trend and the trend of the recent past. it is a perfect illustration of the poor use of a best fit to reflect trend.

[j_b]

I'm not sure how this relates to this discussion but I note from the chart PP provided that after tax income for the lowest quintile increased about 9% while after tax income for the highest quintile increased by 55% over the period in the study.

 

don't mention it to pp, he does not want to know about it. especially since this growing discrepancy is in great part due to a nearly flat tax system.

[Peter_Puget]

Pretty simple stuff you are correct, however, what I have suggested is that during the time period for which the CBO analysis covered there is not a lessening of progressivity in the federal tax structure. Thus your claim that if earlier periods are included the trand might be different is true. I agree. One can pick several time periods within the 79-01 period and come to different conclusions. I used all the data available in the recent CBO report. Honest and straightforward. You insist on comparing the top 1% to the quintiles however that is probably not a valid comparison. As a math guy you should know that. But then again there you go cherry picking.

 

PP

 

By the way I think I posted this before but here it is again.

JEC Link

[Peter_Puget]

By the way, if we can create an enviroment where to rich get so rich that the trend on the attached table increases to close to100%, I'd be happy as hell - even if their effective tax rate was less than mine!

[AlpineK]

I used the lowest quintile to the top quintile, and I ignored the top 1%.

[Peter_Puget]

Good Man AlpineK! I owe you an aged pigs head! You can pick it up at Index.

[j_b]

Pretty simple stuff you are correct, however, what I have suggested is that during the time period for which the CBO analysis covered there is not a lessening of progressivity in the federal tax structure. Thus your claim that if earlier periods are included the trand might be different is true. I agree. One can pick several time periods within the 79-01 period and come to different conclusions. I used all the data available in the recent CBO report. Honest and straightforward.

 

no. not honest and straightforward because you know that tax rates were consistently high from the new deal to the early 80's when reagan slashed taxes for the upper brackets. so in fact the low tax rates of the eighties (data points which entirely condition your positive trend) are an anomaly w.r.t. the last 50 years. you know as well that said tax rates decreased even further in 2002-2003. so saying that including more data "might" deliver a different trend is not an accurate statement. "almost certainly" deliver a negative trend would definitely be more accurate. moreover and please stop ignoring this aspect of the matter: the upper 1% has seen the largets decrease in tax rate of all income brackets. in fact -4% from 1979 to 2001, i don't think anyone would call this a positive trend, no matter how much spin they put on it.

 

You insist on comparing the top 1% to the quintiles however that is probably not a valid comparison. As a math guy you should know that. But then again there you go cherry picking.

 

of course i insist on considering what happened to the tax rate of the upper 1% that earns a full 1/3 of all income in america today. anyone with a little math sense and/or honesty would realize that a) 1/3 of all income is not cherry-picking and b)ignoring the taxation history of 1/3 of the national income while concluding that the tax system is more progressive is a flawed exercise. to me it is pretty clear you have no idea what you are looking at; but of course, in true form, this does not prevent you from drawing self-serving conclusions.

[AlpineK]

Good Man AlpineK! I owe you an aged pigs head! You can pick it up at Index.

 

cool

[Peter_Puget]

no. not honest and straightforward because you know that tax rates were consistently high from the new deal to the early 80's when reagan slashed taxes for the upper brackets. so in fact the low tax rates of the eighties (data points which entirely condition your positive trend) (Ah now here he agress that the trend is positive! ) are an anomaly w.r.t. the last 50 years. you know as well that said tax rates decreased even further in 2002-2003. so saying that including more data "might" deliver a different trend is not an accurate statement. (I add that the data I have trended is all federal taxes. In the priod 79 80 and 81 the top marginal rate was 70 % - if memory serves. But I would add that I have made a assessment of only the data presented in the CBO report. J_B's continued reference to periods of data outside of this period are not addressing my trend assertion and certainly obscurantist in nature.)"almost certainly" deliver a negative trend would definitely be more accurate. moreover and please stop ignoring this aspect of the matter: the upper 1% has seen the largets decrease in tax rate of all income brackets. in fact -4% from 1979 to 2001, ( I believe that as a percent this is not true. I think Mr. Math is refering to percentage point drop not percentage drop. Note he claims that my simple regression is not appropriate yet he examines two data points and in essence fits a line between them to explain trends intax rates - I say this is far more inaapropriate than a ny effort to consider the data points in between.)i don't think anyone would call this a positive trend, no matter how much spin they put on it.

 

You insist on comparing the top 1% to the quintiles however that is probably not a valid comparison. As a math guy you should know that. But then again there you go cherry picking.

 

of course i insist on considering what happened to the tax rate of the upper 1% that earns a full 1/3 of all income in america today. anyone with a little math sense and/or honesty would realize that a) 1/3 of all income is not cherry-picking and b)ignoring the taxation history of 1/3 of the national income while concluding that the tax system is more progressive is a flawed exercise. to me it is pretty clear you have no idea what you are looking at; but of course, in true form, this does not prevent you from drawing self-serving conclusions.

Self serving conclusions? Heck I even posted some projections from JEC on periods after 2001 that seem to show a different trend. Self serving ? NO.