Can anyone help me debunk this Neal Boortz crap?

[JohnnyCougar]

I'm in an argument with a libertarian about this:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200609/09052006.html#taxes

Well, it's time to put a stop to the whining about income inequality and those big huge tax breaks the evil rich have received from George Bush. The Treasury Department is about to release the numbers for 2004, and as usual the highest achievers are taking it on the chin.

The Democrats, with no small amount of help from Republicans, are making headway on their goal of shifting the entire federal tax burden in this country onto a minority of income earners. In 2004 the bottom one-half of income earners paid only 3.3% of all federal income taxes. That's down from the Clinton years. In fact, that's the lowest share paid by the bottom half ever.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the majority of American families with incomes less than $40,000 pay no income taxes at all! When you factor in the welfare program known as the Earned Income Tax Credit, many of these families are coming close to getting a completely free ride!

OK ... but what about the evil rich?

In 2004 the top 1% of all income earners earned about 19% of all income. So ... the rich really are benefiting from Bush's tax policies, aren't they? Just 1% earning 19% of all income? Sorry to burst your bubble, but that figure was higher in the Clinton years. During the time Clinton was in office this figure went from 13.8% to nearly 21%. Funny how you didn't read a lot of newspaper stories during the Clinton years about growing income inequality, isn't it? Now, under bush, the share of total income earned by the wicked rich has fallen!

But what about the income taxes! Surely George Bush has all but wiped out income taxes for the nasty rich, hasn't he?

Nope.

In 2004 the top 1% of income earners -- that crowd that earned 19% of all income -- paid 36.9% of all income taxes. The top 5% of income earners paid a whopping 57.1% of all income taxes. That's an increase under Bush. So much for "tax cuts for the rich."

OK .. well how about the super-rich? What about the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners? Lordy, I don't even know how much you have to earn to be in this crowd. From 2002 to 2004, with the hated Bush tax cuts firmly in place, the top 0.1% of income earners saw their share of total income taxes paid go from 15.4% to 17.4%. That's up a full 2% for those of you who went to government schools.

OK ... that's income taxes. But what about capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends? Bush cut those taxes too, didn't he? That's where the rich are making out like bandits, right? Well ... glad you asked. Since Bush's tax cuts the Imperial Federal Government has seen an increase of 79% in capital gains taxes, and 35% for taxes on dividends.

Just remember these figures the next time you see some Democrat whining about income inequality and the need to redistribute income. It looks like we're doing quite a bit of redistribution as it is.

Now I know Clinton was no fiscal progressive, but I have a feeling these figures are very misleading. Anyone know if these are correct?

[grizmaster]

1. I'd start by demanding links to each of those specific figures

it's really easy to distort them by comparing dissimilar numbers.

[TexasProgresive]

2. I haven't the time to really look at it but

the real onerous tax burden on people of modest means are the payroll taxes and pundits like Boortz conveniently leave those out.

[fizana]

3. Those nunbers only include direct Federal Taxes paid to the IRS

When you include all taxes such as Gas taxes, local taxes, sales taxes etc the proportions change drastically. Lower and middle income earners pay a far higher percentage of these taxes. I've seen numbers that include all taxes and the difference between the richest taxpayers and middle class taxpayers becomes insignificantly small.

I can't remember the source but these numbers can be found by poking around on line.

[churchofreality]

4. It's pretty clever spin but easily debunked.

The use of the percentage makes it seem like the tax rate is higher which is why it seems like he is on to something. The problem is that the only way that they can be paying a higher percentage is if their income is greater. If the tax rate went down, and their income, relative to everyone elses was the same, then the percentage of taxes paid would be identical. The fact that the percentage that they paid has gone up means that either their income has gone up, or that everyone elses income has gone down(its probably a combination of both).

The part about "the majority making less than $40000" it isnt a good thing for his case. There are so many poor families that are exempt, but there are many families in the 30 - 40K range that pay plenty of taxes and are squeezed.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi churchofreality!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ck4829]

5. The number of top earners went down because of Clinton

I think it would take a couple of years for tax cuts/tax hikes to take effect on the Economy. So it still stands, that when it came to prosperity AND income equality, Clinton was the best.

[Bandit]

6. Well one glaring example is his richest 1% only earning 19%

of the nations wealth. It is far closer to 70% than 19%.

[Nickster]

7. Here's a pretty good analysis of the tax cuts.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/26/a01-284666.htm

[MiaCulpa]

8. Boortz is an egg-sucking sycophant

"OK .. well how about the super-rich? What about the top one-tenth of one percent of income earners? Lordy, I don't even know how much you have to earn to be in this crowd. From 2002 to 2004, with the hated Bush tax cuts firmly in place, the top 0.1% of income earners saw their share of total income taxes paid go from 15.4% to 17.4%. That's up a full 2% for those of you who went to government schools."


Interesting that the "No child left behind" party pundit takes it upon himself to insult those who attend/ed government schools.

The top earners saw their tax increase 2%? Should we break out the violins? Ask the dumbass how much the cost of living went up around the country, and how much the average wages went up along with it for the average wage earner. He really did get these talking points straight from Bush himself at the little get-together at the White House. It's simple, you have more money, you pay more in taxes. Or . . . you vote for Al Gore and do away with federal taxes all to-fucking-gether. Works for me.

[EVDebs]

9. P. 94 in Perfectly Legal shows overall taxes are around 20% for everyone

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/03/int04016.html

and essentially we have a de facto 'FLAT TAX' when ALL taxes, state/local/federal are added up.

from the link above see this:

""The top 1 percent of Americans pay 37 percent of the taxes -- that's for the year 2000, more than 37 percent. Well, actually, the top 1 percent, who made 21 percent of the income, paid more than 37 percent of the income taxes. When you look at all federal taxes -- gift taxes, estate taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, excise taxes on gasoline and things like that -- the top group only pays 25 percent, which isn't much more than their 21 percent share of the income.""

It's a very regressive tax system overall.

Pg 94 tells us that the BLS in its annual consumer expenditure survey, "For 2001 the government found that all taxes at all levels of government consumed 19 percent of the incomes of the best-off fifth of Americans, those individuals and families whose average income was $116,666 that year. Down at the bottom the poorest fifth, whose average income was $7,946, paid 18 percent."

So, very top 25%, best off fifth, 19%; bottom fifth 18%. And don't forget, the richest still "hide" income while everyone else with wage incomes are automatically reported to the IRS. Great deal for those at the top.

[JohnnyCougar]

11. Thanks

That link was awesome!!

[EVDebs]

12. Make sure to check out the Govt's own site at BLS

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.toc.htm

and this one too

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/effect2004/table_2_020106.pdf

BLS is the site that David Cay Johnston mentions...

Census Bureau has this info too

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html

You should also look into the Gini coefficient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient