The richer get more tax breaks

[celestemekent]

Think Progress reports;
'"
The Richer You Are, The More Tax Breaks You Get

By Adam Peck on Sep 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
A central premise of Mitt Romney’s now infamous speech to a room full of wealthy donors is that nearly half of the country relies heavily on the government for assistance with housing, food, and health care. Despite widespread criticism, Romney has stood by his claim that 47 percent of the country are “victims” who are “dependent upon the government.”
But while Romney decries the direct government programs that benefit lower and middle class Americans, he is silent about the plethora of government tax breaks that richer Americans enjoy. As an independent study by the Tax Policy Center found, the other 53 percent receive their own form government assistance: they disproportionately benefit from the federal government’s $1.08 trillion annual allocation for tax breaks:

The top 1 percent of income earners, those who take home in excess of $400,000 a year, account for almost a quarter all tax breaks, saving more than $250 billion a year in taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom 60 percent of wage earners — a group of people that encompasses 99 percent of the “victims” that Mitt Romney describes — are given just over 20 percent of annual tax breaks, or approximately $217 billion in breaks each year."


That system of taxes, is unfair to the bottom 60% of citizens unless you are one of the richest people.

 

[Marcella]

In 2006, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts removed millions of taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls, leaving only those at the top to pay the bill. The bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006. In other words, these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code.

The shifting of the tax burden to a small segment of high-income taxpayers is economically dangerous. The beneficiaries of government services are increasingly those who share little or none of the tax burden to pay for them. As they become more numerous, they put more pressure on Congress for more services. Meanwhile, those who bear most of the burden are being squeezed even more, shrinking their number. The result is a growing group of government beneficiaries clamoring for more of a shrinking group's wealth. Congress should put an end to this practice.

If you're wondering where I've gotten my information, it's from a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office. I'm taking data from 2006 because it's the latest available from CBO records.

 

[celestemekent]

Marcella you need to read more of the history of taxes here in America, because for the longest time those wealthy were the only ones taxed. Some of the best economic times were when the top marginal rate was over 90%. Ironically the eras when the tax burden was lower for them were the very times just before financial collapses. Where great riches exist, great responsibility is there too and lately those richest folks have been trying to avoid that responsibility claiming "fairness" where none existed before.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

If you're wondering where I've gotten my information, it's from a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office. I'm taking data from 2006 because it's the latest available from CBO records.

(1) 86.3% for the top 20% of income earners is not an all-time high. In the 1930s it was well over 90%. This information is available from the IRS, SEC and OMB. I'm not sure if CBO has been keeping track as long as that -- it's possible that CBO has only been keeping track since the 50s, in which case it would be the highest they have records for.

(2) A lot has changed in the last 6 years, hon. CBO may not have more recent stats, but IRS, SEC and OMB do, and they tell a very different story. I believe CBO is right (or at least close) on that 86% number for 2006, but when you look at 2007-2011, you see the top 20% paying less and less, and more of the burden being shifted to the middle class.

The shifting of the tax burden to a small segment of high-income taxpayers is economically dangerous.

Based on what data or examples? Can you provide specific case histories where shifting the tax burden to high-income taxpayers has had more negative repercussions? Can you provide counter-arguments against the overwhelming evidence that shifting the tax burden away from high-income taxpayers causes depression and economic sloth (as it has every time in US history, since 1776 -- not since 1950 as some "economists" like to pretend history started after WWII)?

Or perhaps you're arguing that economic sloth and depression are good things, and economic growth and stimulation is "dangerous"? If so, I'll still need some more support for that, too.

Sorry, if you're going to engage in a discussion on economics, you're going to have to do more than cite opinions.