• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fun with US Tax statistics.

specious_reasons

Graduate Poster
Joined
Jul 23, 2002
Messages
1,124
So, at lunch today, I decided to see the effects of recent tax cuts to the tax distribution:
Code:
[url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls[/url]
[url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in02ts.xls[/url]

         Top 1    Top 5   Top 10  Top 25  Top 50
Adjusted gross income share (percentage):
1986  11.30    24.11    35.12    59.04    83.34    
1987  12.32    25.67    36.90    60.75    84.37    
1988  15.16    28.51    39.45    62.44    85.07    
1989  14.19    27.84    39.00    62.28    85.04    
1990  14.00    27.62    38.77    62.13    84.97    
1991  12.99    26.83    38.20    61.85    84.87    
1992  14.23    28.01    39.23    62.47    85.08    
1993  13.79    27.76    39.05    62.45    85.08    
1994  13.80    27.85    39.19    62.64    85.11    
1995  14.60    28.81    40.16    63.37    85.46    
1996  16.04    30.36    41.59    64.32    85.92    
1997  17.38    31.79    42.83    65.05    86.16    
1998  18.47    32.85    43.77    65.63    86.33    
1999  19.51    34.04    44.89    66.46    86.75    
2000  20.81    35.30    46.01    67.15    87.01    
2001  17.53    31.99    43.11    65.23    86.19    
Total income tax share (percentage):
1986  25.75    42.57    54.69    76.02    93.54    
1987  24.81    43.26    55.61    76.92    93.93    
1988  27.58    45.62    57.28    77.84    94.28    
1989  25.24    43.94    55.78    77.22    94.17    
1990  25.13    43.64    55.36    77.02    94.19    
1991  24.82    43.38    55.82    77.29    94.52    
1992  27.54    45.88    58.01    78.48    94.94    
1993  29.01    47.36    59.24    79.27    95.19    
1994  28.86    47.52    59.45    79.55    95.23    
1995  30.26    48.91    60.75    80.36    95.39    
1996  32.31    50.97    62.51    81.32    95.68    
1997  33.17    51.87    63.20    81.67    95.72    
1998  34.75    53.84    65.04    82.69    95.79    
1999  36.18    55.45    66.45    83.54    96.00    
2000  37.42    56.47    67.33    84.01    96.09    
2001  33.89    53.25    64.89    82.90    96.03    


Year   bottom 50 bottom 75  bottom 90  bottom 95  bottom 99
Adjusted gross income share (percentage):
1986  16.66        40.96        64.88        75.89        88.70        
1987  15.63        39.25        63.10        74.33        87.68        
1988  14.93        37.56        60.55        71.49        84.84        
1989  14.96        37.72        61.00        72.16        85.81        
1990  15.03        37.87        61.23        72.38        86.00        
1991  15.13        38.15        61.80        73.17        87.01        
1992  14.92        37.53        60.77        71.99        85.77        
1993  14.92        37.55        60.95        72.24        86.21        
1994  14.89        37.36        60.81        72.15        86.20        
1995  14.54        36.63        59.84        71.19        85.40        
1996  14.08        35.68        58.41        69.64        83.96        
1997  13.84        34.95        57.17        68.21        82.63        
1998  13.67        34.37        56.23        67.15        81.53        
1999  13.25        33.54        55.11        65.96        80.49        
2000  12.99        32.85        53.99        64.70        79.19        
2001  13.81        34.77        56.89        68.01        82.47        
Total income tax share (percentage):
1986  6.46        23.98        45.31        57.43        74.25        
1987  6.07        23.08        44.39        56.74        75.19        
1988  5.72        22.16        42.72        54.38        72.42        
1989  5.83        22.78        44.22        56.06        74.76        
1990  5.81        22.98        44.64        56.36        74.87        
1991  5.48        22.71        44.18        56.62        75.18        
1992  5.06        21.52        41.99        54.12        72.46        
1993  4.81        20.73        40.76        52.64        70.99        
1994  4.77        20.45        40.55        52.48        71.14        
1995  4.61        19.64        39.25        51.09        69.74        
1996  4.32        18.68        37.49        49.03        67.69        
1997  4.28        18.33        36.80        48.13        66.83        
1998  4.21        17.31        34.96        46.16        65.25        
1999  4.00        16.46        33.55        44.55        63.82        
2000  3.91        15.99        32.67        43.53        62.58        
2001  3.97        17.10        35.11        46.75        66.11

So, in 2001, the bottom 90% of taxpayers have 57% of the total income, and pay 35% of all taxes. a change from 54/33 in 2000, and 55/33.

2002 results aren't published yet.

So, are taxes becoming more or less fair and equitable?
 
specious_reasons said:

So, in 2001, the bottom 90% of taxpayers have 57% of the total income, and pay 35% of all taxes. a change from 54/33 in 2000, and 55/33.

2002 results aren't published yet.

So, are taxes becoming more or less fair and equitable?

That depends quite a bit on your definition of fair and equitable. But do these statistics include taxes other than income tax? The social security tax, for example, is quite regressive. And is the income only earned income, or does it include dividends, capital gains, etc?
 
specious_reasons said:
It's strictly income tax, from what I understand.

OK, but then there isn't really enough information here. We can't really say that only the income tax is fair or unfair since that's only part of a person's tax burden - for example, would making only the income tax fair actually improve things if its unfairness was offfsetting the unfairness of another tax?

Last I heard, total tax rates were somewhere in the range of 25-30% average across the board for taxpayers of any income, when you include things like deductions, state taxes, sales taxes, and social security (the last two being rather regressive). It's easy to create the impression of an overly progressive tax system by doing things like only refering to the marginal federal tax rate for ordinary income, but that's not representative of total tax burdens, which is really the important thing.
 
specious_reasons said:
So, are taxes becoming more or less fair and equitable?

Does a burglar become more or less fair and equitable when he steals more from rich people than poor people?
 
Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

shanek said:


Does a burglar become more or less fair and equitable when he steals more from rich people than poor people?

I thought that question had long been settled.
 
Does a burglar become more or less fair and equitable when he steals more from rich people than poor people?

Kinda funny, but a burglar doesn't provide national defense, free public education, roads, postal service or public parks.

As for fairness in taxes, there are only two models that can be reguarded as fair. Progressive and Linear. A linear is 10% tax for everyone, no matter what income, progressive is high taxes for the rich, lower for the poor. The debate is around that. I haven't really heard anyone doing a good job arguing in favor of a regressive tax.

Gem
 
Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

shanek said:


Does a burglar become more or less fair and equitable when he steals more from rich people than poor people?

Is it your contention that taxation is a criminal offence?
 
Gem said:
Kinda funny, but a burglar doesn't provide national defense, free public education, roads, postal service or public parks.

Ah, so if a burglar steals your money and contributes to these various services then it's justified? A burglar can defend his actions based on what he did with the money? The ends justify the means?
 
Re: Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

Jon_in_london said:
Is it your contention that taxation is a criminal offence?

It is my contention that taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun. And it is.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

shanek said:

It is my contention that taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun. And it is.
Quick question: is income taxation in the United States constitutionally valid?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:


That's an easy one. More.

You know, I thought the distribution of tax burden was relatively fair during the Clinton years, but I it looks that the distribution hasn't changed that signifcantly. I was really curious about TY2002, but the IRS seems a little late in publishing the information.

One thing I don't like is the mild increase in tax burden of the bottom 50% and 75% I hope that does not turn into a trend under Bush.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

shanek said:


It is my contention that taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun. And it is.

I dont get these "taxes are a crime" people. Is the goverment supposed to run on happy thoughts???
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

shanek said:


It is my contention that taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun. And it is.

So if you were 'king' you would abolish all taxation?
 
Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

shanek said:


Does a burglar become more or less fair and equitable when he steals more from rich people than poor people?

Relatively speaking, yes. He does become more fair and equitable.
 
You're not forced to pay any taxes.

Dont want to pay income tax. Then dont work.
Dont want to pay sales tax. Dont shop.
Dont want to pay property tax. Dont buy any land.

You can take your tent and go live up in the mountains in a tax free paradise.


I think its worse to steal the last loaf of bread from a poor man than to steal 1 loaf of bread from the rich man who has 100.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

shanek said:


It is my contention that taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun. And it is.

Yep. Called government. The "point of a gun" is some nice drama as we could say the same thing w/r/t parking tickets. It is a point against government all together, even those acts of government that protect property.
 
Gem said:


Kinda funny, but a burglar doesn't provide national defense, free public education, roads, postal service or public parks.

As for fairness in taxes, there are only two models that can be reguarded as fair. Progressive and Linear. A linear is 10% tax for everyone, no matter what income, progressive is high taxes for the rich, lower for the poor. The debate is around that. I haven't really heard anyone doing a good job arguing in favor of a regressive tax.

Gem

Frankly,

I don't understand how you can claim that regressive taxes are obviously unfair, yet also claim that progressive taxes might be fair.

What is the rational, not emotional, basis for claiming that progressive taxes are "fair"?

AS
 
Tmy said:

I think its worse to steal the last loaf of bread from a poor man than to steal 1 loaf of bread from the rich man who has 100.

Hmmm. The implication is that society has a right to take property it decides is excessive from private property owners.

One might also call that socialism.

It is antithetical to the concept of individual rights and liberty. It is anti-American to claim such a thing.

I shake my head at anyone who claims to value individual freedom and who also champions income redistribution schemes.

They are utterly inconsistent.

AS
 

Back
Top Bottom