According to this, Bush's proposed budget and tax cuts will cause the top 5% of the population by wealth to begin to pay an additional piece of the total tax burden. They are already paying more than 50%. "So the notion that the president's tax cuts have somehow made the code less progressive is wrong. The president's tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive," said White House budget director Josh Bolten.
OK... let's have 51 people.An example, the top 5 percent in income in this country -- that's people making above about $140,000 -- without the president's tax cuts that top 5 percent would be paying about less than 52 percent of our total income tax revenue.
Hm... but he is saying it went UP.After the president's tax cut that group is paying more than 54 percent of our total tax revenue. So the notion that the president's tax cuts have somehow made the code less progressive is wrong. The president's tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive.
Re:need more data...
pudge on 2005-02-09T00:22:43
So your argument is that it could be that this only works because under Bush's projections, either fewer people have jobs, or more people have lower paying jobs.
These are unreasonable suppositions. His budgets always assume income and employment will go up, as all budgets do.
this administration has made a habit of saying things and hoping that we fill in the content to mean something that they did not say. So, what they do not say interests me very much.
Pot, kettle, yadda yadda.Re:need more data...
phillup on 2005-02-09T19:57:03
No.
Open your mind, remove your bias... and read it again.
Especially this part:Which more closely mimics the tax differential between the poor and wealthy, and is most likely the scenario that the speaker seems to be implying.What other scenarios work?
Let's try 30 percent for the rich person.
That is 150,000 in taxes (on $500,000).
For that to get close to the 50 percent point, we'll need to throw more poor people into the problem.
So, now we have 150 poor people paying 10 percent of $10,000 for a total of $150,000... plus the $150,000 paid by the wealthy person. That is 50 percent of the total paid by the wealthy.
Now, let's enact our tax cut again... one percentage point for the poor, two for the wealthy.
The new total taxes become $135,000 from the poor (at 9 percent) plus $140,000 from the wealthy (at 28 percent). That gives $275,000 of which the wealthy person pays 50.9 percent.
So, that seems to be going in the right direction also. (where "right" is the direction being quoted)
And, I did not say these are the only scenarios... or even try to imply that.
Specifically, I said:His budgets always assume income and employment will go up, as all budgets do.Of course, that is most certainly (and purposefully) a contrived example designed specifically to show that there is more than one way to interpret what was said. And, to show how something negative could be "spun" to sound good without telling a lie. (As some do)
His assumptions, like his ability to tell the truth, varies with need.Just as your own ability to accept some facts seems to do.The way Bush uses numbers selectively is a telling example. He promises to cut the deficit in half by 2009 by reducing it from 3.5 percent of the size of the economy's GDP to 1.7 percent. To do so, he's projecting an economic growth rate averaging 5.5 percent each of the next five years (in current dollars), based on an expansion of GDP from $11.7 trillion in 2004 to $15.3 trillion in 2009. Fine. Take him at his word and his calculations.
But when the president turns to calculating Social Security's future health, he bases his assumptions of economic growth on the Social Security Administration's notoriously pessimistic calculations: An average annual growth of 1.8 percent over the next 20 years, an annual average worsening to 1.3 percent after that (the last 20 years' average was 2.6 percent) and anemic wage growth. The Social Security Administration's calculations are also based on zero net increases in immigration, even though the 1990s saw an increase of 11 million immigrants (compared with 6 million in the 1970s and 7 million in the 1980s). It is under that scenario that the trust fund would not be able to meet 100 percent of its liability beyond 2042. The scenario is so unrealistic that Bush would never dream applying it to his other economic projections.
However, my post does not address the president's budget. Perhaps you are trying to change the subject? (And while you may feel free to infer that other's have said something, you are not free to infer that I have said something when in fact I have not. I've got enough problems actually saying what I mean without people trying to read between the lines.)
My post addresses what was said about the budget and how much was data vs. implications. I then went to show that the data could be negative and the message still be true.
Pot, kettle, yadda yadda.
I see that recently you have been responding quite a bit to my posts with crap like the above.
When I post I try very hard to make sure that the post is reasonable, as I did with my first comment in this thread by providing examples... or in previous ones by providing links to sources that support my opinion.
I understand that people can disagree. I like this site because the discussion is mostly reasonable, even when there isn't agreement.
However, I see no reason at all to post things like this. Especially when it isn't followed by explanation or supporting evidence.
You hurt the community, and yourself.
If you are too bored to respond respectfully, you should reconsider responding.
Or simply 'foe' my ass... that is what it is there for.
Otherwise, I really would appreciate reasoning that counters the point. (A link or two wouldn't hurt either.)
I have no time or interest in pissing contests.Re:need more data...
pudge on 2005-02-09T20:15:44
I have no time or interest in pissing contests.
A lie, on both counts.
Thank You...
phillup on 2005-02-10T01:36:28
for another thoughtful, well reasoned response.
I could not help but noticed that out of the very long post I made your response was a personal attack on myself, never addressing the substance of the post.
It isn't the first one either.
I'm not sure what it is like to have God-Like powers where you know how much time or the intentions of people you've never met.
But, you can use those powers to contemplate our meeting in person at a future Perl or Open Source conference.
At which point I'll be sure to bring up your calling me a liar.Re:Thank You...
pudge on 2005-02-10T03:08:42
There was no substance worth responding to.
I'm not sure what it is like to have God-Like powers where you know how much time or the intentions of people you've never met.
You just spent a long post doing what you then said you had no time or inclination to do. Call that what you will.
