You know all that nonsense the media have been spewing that the Bush tax cuts caused the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer?
Well, the Internal Revenue Service and the Congressional Budget Office have published tax and income numbers for 2005, and the press couldn't be any more wrong.
In fact, it's almost as if the media get their data from Democrat presidential candidates, and disseminate it without the slightest effort whatsover to vet or verify its veracity.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal Monday (emphasis added throughout):
Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.
Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005.
Wait a minute. Didn't Bush's tax cuts only favor the wealthy? Isn't that what virtually every Democrat media minion - who, of course, can't add one plus one and come up with the correct answer, mind you! - has been claiming for years?
Yet, that's not the truth, is it:
[T]he share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.
Not what Brian, Katie, and Charlie have been reporting, is it? Once again, it's almost like they're getting DNC talking points rather than actually looking at the data.
Color me unsurprised.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Like Global Warming, the
December 18, 2007 - 22:00 ET by Chris NormanLike Global Warming, the myth has been established. The debate is over. No contradictory data need be supplied.
It's high time
December 18, 2007 - 22:11 ET by c5thenTime to get rid of the unconstitutional slave tax that sets the Federal government up as judge of how much of our own earnings we get to keep. A "progressive" income tax is directly opposed to the principle of equal protection in the 14th amendment
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Not since 20's - wealthiest Americans
December 18, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Gary HallAmazing Noel. A journalist at the NYTimes forwarded this to me over the weekend, and I was just looking at it. Not since the 20's Roared.
I believe that the LA Times did a companion piece at about the same time, and I remember that the MSM roared with delight; this view that suddenly - under Bush's tax policy - the very top tiny bit of the richest Americans - that top 0.1 percent - "suddenly pulled away from everyone else."
Suddenly the talk was out on the street, amongst the now even angrier left side of the isle, "did you see the news, the filthy rich are socking it to us now since Bush has done his thing."
Funny thing is, if one looks at that chart, it's quite easy to see that not only is the wording there, "and in the year 2000," but it's clear that immediately following the economic bubble collapse of 2000, this extroadinary income of the top tier came crashing down like, well - like the bubble, itself.
Now it's interesting, of course, that that story was out in mid-2005, not earlier (like 2000 or so) when it applied. The MSM would have had little interest in such a story at the height of their man man's economic bubble.
fair share
December 18, 2007 - 22:18 ET by goldboughAccording the Democrats, the rich will not have paid their fair share until they pay all of it to the government.
You Forget
December 19, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Wildcatter1980The Democrats who voice such comments are themselves closer to if not in the 1% income range than they are in the 50% of households below the median income line. Therefore, it is incorrect to say they really think the "rich" still do not pay their "fair share."
No, the proper assumption to make is that it has absolutely nothing to do increasing taxes on the "rich" and everything to do with garnering votes from the folks living in households at and under the median income line. In other words, "class warfare." The Democrat playbook is to find and emphasize "victims." In this case, they want those who are at and below the median income line to see themselves as victims of the greedy rich who do nothing but prosper on the blood, sweat and tears of the poor and then have these "victims" turn to the Democrat Party as the only political party looking out for the little guy.
Just my $0.02
Politics of hate
December 18, 2007 - 23:05 ET by dboFacts don't matter. "The rich don't pay enough taxes" is the default position on anything that comes out of a liberals mouth. Every last thing they say requires a larger and more intrusive government. Without "the rich don't pay enough taxes", their whole sick ideology falls apart.
To a liberal, the answer to
December 18, 2007 - 23:45 ET by motherbeltTo a liberal, the answer to "How much is a rich (however you define rich) person's fair share of taxes?" The answer is simple: "More."
Is this really news?
December 19, 2007 - 00:19 ET by ArcherBThis is how the Laffer curve works. If you cut taxes, people make more money. The more money they make, the more taxes they pay. The more money they make, the more money they spend. Each dollar is taxed every time it changes hands. The more money that moves around the economy, the more people are making money. The more money people make, the more they spend...
Wash rinse repeat. Of course, there is a limit. If the government charges 0%, they will not bring in any revenue. But, as proven by the booming economy and increasingly large federal coffers, we are on the right side of that curve!
This is why the federal government is making more money now than any government is the history of man! Will someone please ask why the Democrats want to raise taxes? All they will do is crash the economy and bring LESS MONEY into the federal government.
http://www.investope...
Please, read up on it and spread the word.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
despite the tax
December 19, 2007 - 08:56 ET by dscottdespite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.
Exactly, the Laffer curve, it not despite the Bush tax cuts, it's because of the Bush tax cuts that the rich saw their income rise and as a consequence paid more taxes as they were pushed into higher tax brackets. It's actually the same principle that businesses use on selling on volume and not on margin. They lower the profit margin in order to boost the sales volume which then causes them to make more money and consequently a greater return on investment.
Of course libs don't believe this, because of their narrow minded zero-sum thinking, any lowering of a percentage (tax or profit margin) in their minds is less, they cherry picked Maynard Keynes and skipped over the part where he said the purpose of taxation is to put a brake on the economy to control inflation from run away growth. Little minds are incapable of grasping paradoxes and Socialist PC minds are incapable of grasping the obvious but only the talking points.
Socialists are nothing more than petty bitter envious people who can't stand the thought that someone has more than them. All this talk about the poor and income disparity is just a diversion to cover their pettiness.
Actually Noel, you didn't tell us how much EIC money is paid out. I think that one would really be an eye popper.
edited to add:
The answer is: http://www.cbpp.org/2-1-06eic.htm You have to read it, I'm not going to tell you guys because once you see what's really happening to the taxpayer money you'll be in shock. Then google NIT - Negative Income Tax. And that thief Rangel and his buddy Obama are planning to increase it!!!!!!
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Well that explains it.
December 19, 2007 - 00:37 ET by kgWell, that explains why the Democrats are leading the Republicans in
donations the last two years. the big Inc's want Democrats back in office so they can
keep more of their money. The middle class should also feel good about the phony
rhetoric fed to them by the liberal media and congress.
". . . but they will have
December 19, 2007 - 01:35 ET by jdhawk". . . but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush."
Yeah, just you wait. Given that the dimocrats hold both the Senate and the House of Representatives and take the presidency, you will have taxes upon taxes. As a prelude of what to expect, read Congressman Charlie Rangel's proposals.
By the way, the rich can live and probably more importantly invest where they choose. If taxes become too onerous (I think they have already reached that level), the most talented amongst us will live and invest elsewhere.
We are already seeing this happening in other areas. For example, because of the onerousness of Sabarnes Oxley and an already outrageous corporate tax level - one of the highest on the planet, IPOs (standing up new public companies) are happening elsewhere on the planet and on a more frequent basis. 9 of the 10 largest IPOs of 2005 took place outside the U.S. Last year, 2006, the largest IPO in history took place in China.
First with spending, now with this...
December 19, 2007 - 04:28 ET by sarcasmoI simply don't understand the left sometimes. They've TOTALLY won on spending for quite a while to the point that people think the Republicans are a "big government" party, much to my chagrin, yet they bitch anyway. Now comes-out that "progressives" have totally-won on taxes, too. If I were getting this much of my way, I'd shut up and pray nobody notices I'm winning. Sheesh.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
My two cents
December 19, 2007 - 08:34 ET by KillgraveI think both sides are wrong.
The liberals, as usual, are resorting to the tired practice of class warfare. They set up the straw man that wealth "belongs to the people (collective)" and then make fake arguments that "the rich" don't return their "share".
But I don't believe for a minute that folks in the highest income bracket don't pull every trick in the book (and also make up some of their own) in order to hide their wealth from taxation. Part of me thinks "well, good for them", but another part of me thinks "because I can't spend thousands of dollars to hire a tax lawyer, I am going to shoulder that much more tax burden".
What I'm getting at is our tax system is extremely f--ked up. It's ridiculous that there are huge industries that do nothing else but unravel the gordian knot that is the tax code. And our government benefits greatly from all the confusion, since they reap millions from "mistakes" when people don't claim correctly.
Whatever happened to the idea of a national sales tax, or a flat tax? One of the countless benefits would be that we won't be having these stupid arguments.
90% or bust!
December 19, 2007 - 12:21 ET by the_red_stateHillary and the Dems won't be satisfied until the wealthiest 5% pay 90% of taxes. At 60%, we're not paying enough and need to have a hefty increase to take care of that. After all, it's not our money, it belongs to the people, and only the government can rationally discern where it should be allocated.
Clintons Cayman Accounts
December 19, 2007 - 12:22 ET by PawpawNGuess since they're sooooo richhhh that's the reason they have those CAYMAN Accts!!