Wednesday, July 11, 2012

"Lowest Tax Burden"? There's a Reason for That!

The usual muttheads will be flapping jaws about the "lowest tax burden" in history over the last couple of years.

You want the rest of the story?

Those with the most income were hit the hardest: the four lowest income quintiles’ before-tax average income dropped by five percent or less. But among the richest 20 percent, before-tax income dropped by 18 percent; in the top one percent, income fell 36 percent.

Further, those who made the most income also paid the greatest amount in taxes.

The highest quintile of income earners paid for 67.9 percent of all federal taxes paid by households, while the middle quintile paid 9.4 percent and the lowest quintile 0.3 percent.

Yup.  The "income burden" also dropped like a rock.

HT:  AOSHQ
at

5 comments:

  1. J. Strupp7/11/2012 11:07 PM

    First of all, "the last couple of years" is 2010 and 2011. The data referenced is 2008-09, which s the most recent data available right now.

    Second, who's talking about the lowest tax burden over the "last couple of years" anyway? Effective tax rates for top earners were well below 30% for decades BEFORE the crisis as well. Maybe 2008-2009 marked the absolute low point, but we're talking a difference of about point or so. So what? Top earner effective income tax rates are still VERY close to the lowest in a century. And, if you work in the glorified casino also known as private equity, you pay, oh, about a 14% effective tax rate. I've got world's smallest violin out again, dadster.

    And no shit top earners lost a bigger share of income in 2008-09. They take dividends. Lots of them. They're income is highly influenced by market fluctuations. The market collapsed in '08 remember? The only reason you don't see a return to parabolic income gains by top earners since 2009 is because it's too early to calculate this data.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dad297/12/2012 5:29 AM

    Effective tax rates for top earners were well below 30% for decades BEFORE the crisis as well

    You mean all those decades when the budget was near-balanced?

    Gee. So it wasn't the revenues that were the problem...

    Could it be the SPENDING?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim7/12/2012 3:55 PM

    There WERE no decades when the budget was "near-balanced". The only thing even close was during Clinton's second term.

    Source

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7/12/2012 4:48 PM

    Look at your OWN TABLE, and find the Eisenhower years, Jimbo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim7/12/2012 8:49 PM

    The reference was to when effective tax rates were below 30%. Interestingly enough, the top marginal tax rate in 1960 at the end of the Eisenhower decade was 91%. No wonder the deficit was so low! Maybe we should try it again.

    Also, that was over 50 years ago, Anonbo.

    ReplyDelete