After the Bush Tax Cuts, the Rich Pay More Taxes?

Question

After the Bush Tax Cuts, the Rich Pay More Taxes

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal updates the tax numbers. Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of wage earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% is paying 39% of a total income tax bite. That's a 2% increase in the share of total taxes paid by the rich, the top 1%, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. By the same token, before the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% paid 56% of all income tax revenue. Now the top 5% are paying 60%, after the Bush tax cuts. Now, you might be saying, "How does this happen, It's simple. You have to stop looking at things as a zero-sum game. You have to look at the dynamic results of what tax cuts cause. They cause more jobs. They create more wealth, and as more people gain wealth, they move into these higher tax brackets. There are more people in those brackets; therefore the aggregate income tax collected goes up. They are paying a bigger portion, which, you know, generating revenue to the Treasury is what this is all about. But it's really not; see, because of the Democrats, it's about control. It's not about raising revenue.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

Answer 1

absolutely but the liberals will not admit the truth when it contradicts their class warfare politics. It is unfortunate that some are so consumed with gaining power that they willingly divide the country to achieve it
Everyone pays a lower percent of the income and those of us at the bottom have been taken off the rolls altogether. As a percentage of the total federal tax liability, the top earners do in fact pay more than they used to.
The argument about the debt rising has nothing to do with tax cuts but with out of control spending by BOTH political parties and isnt limited to just the past 6 yrs- the dems spent like drunken sailors throughout the 80s and early 90s as well- two way street there.

Answer 2

hmmmmm:

The rich essentially pay the same percentage of taxes that the "middle" class does although there is a scale of taxation it is really not statistically different from one group to another.

The less money collected in taxes the more money is spent or invested and it has to be one or the other.

The more money spent or invested, the higher the GDP goes and since taxes are a percentage of GDP the more money is collected in taxes.

The Clinton recession reduced GDP to 3% until FY 2004, after the Bush Tax cuts were actually felt, and then GDP went up (6%), increasing the money collected in taxes. The Clinton deficit of 2003 was 23% and the 2006 deficit was 9% so cutting taxes reduced the deficit by about 60% in three years.

You can get the data at gpoaccess.gov or bea.gov.

Bottom line is:

Yes, I agree that the Pro-Slavery. Anti-civil-rights Democrats are just trying to oppress people the way they always have.

Answer 3

You're an idiot. 1% is 1%. More people get into the group only as the population goes up, not as people get wealthier. If tax rates go down and revenue goes up, then income must have gone up. What your numbers show is that the richest people are taking an even larger chunk of the nation's income than they used to, relative to those less well off. It's one thing if you want to argue that's a good thing ("trickle down") but don't misrepresent what the statistics mean.

Answer 4

Those numbers actually show how supply-side economics, once again, failed miserably. Middle and lower-class folks earned less money, which means they have less to spend, which cause stagnation. Interest rates have had to be lowered several times to keep posting quarters of growth, which has been terribly slow. If the Fed had not tried to control the growth curve, we would have known long ago how bad the economy really was and could have done something sooner. As it stands, Bush will not face the reality and so the next president will have to be the one to do what needs to be done. Of course, if you vote for McCain, we will get more sham and scam economics, considering the crooks he has surrounded himself with.

Answer 5

Hm. Didn't Rupert Murdoch recently acquire the WSJ and throw that chicken in the same bag with Fox?

But anyway, it is obvious that if the rich are getting substantially richer, they will pay a greater portion of taxes collected, since the poor are also getting poorer, due to job outsourcing and other Bush shenanigans, so they pay a smaller portion of the total taxes. If you will do your research, you will also find that if the group pays a greater percentage of taxes, it doesn't mean that rich individuals in that group are paying more in taxes than they used to. I take it you have never studied the use and abuse of statistics. To quote Mark Twain, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Answer 6

well... I read your article that states it a lot better than you do...

but the only problem I see here is... I'm lower middle class... and I don't know one millionaire that wasn't a millionaire before 1996?

granted, I don't run in high society circles though, so I know few to begin with...

so, what do I see? I see the people that made $500,000 before becoming millionaires now... people I don't really know...

I don't see anyone that was in a lower bracket making $500,000 now though?

the rich are getting richer... so they have to pay more taxes... and they are getting SO MUCH RICHER... they have to pay EVEN MORE TAXES than before, even if they got a tax cut...

must be nice to be in the top 10 percent... I've not seen the "drastic change" that is clearly implied in the story in anyone I know? how can that be?

Answer 7

So now that were moving into a recession how will that work.. Since 2000 the top 1% have increased there income more than the bottom 40% make total. Let me say that again the top 1% have increased not made just increased there income since 2000 more than the bottom 40% have made total. Yea thats the way to move up. The national debt has also increased and eventually some one is going to have to pay it. Since the repubs have taken office in 2000 poverty has increased and the rich have gotten richer while the middle class has stagnated. Open your eyes unless your rich then you can keep them shut.

Answer 8

Simple economics. Lower taxes, more money. More money more wealth. More wealth more revenue to the Federal Reserve.

But that's where Libs lose it. It's the "simple" part they don't understand. Their motto is, "when in doubt raise taxes!"

If I ran my checkbook like the government does theirs, I would have been locked up a long time ago.

Answer 9

You can't give democrats information from the Wall Street Journal. It has to be emotional argument for them to understand. All they want to hear is how much more the rich are going to pay, that's it, that's all, nothing more. Who cares that they already pay the majority.

Answer 10

Yes, of course.
But the Commie Tax Raising Democrats don't care about facts or truth.

The Democrat Base Hates Working People, so to get their votes-----Democrats Raise Taxes on Working People.

If it wasn't for the Welfare People, the Democrat Party would cease to exist.