Tax Rates for Top 400 Earners Fall as Income Soars, IRS Data

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2010 12:51 AM GMT
    I anxiously await Zack and SouthBeach's explanation for how this is a fair system of taxation.

    Tax.comThe incomes of the top 400 American households soared to a new record high in dollars and as a share of all income in 2007, while the income tax rates they paid fell to a record low, newly disclosed tax data show.

    In 2007 the top 400 taxpayers had an average income of $344.8 million, up 31 percent from their average $263.3 million income in 2006, according to figures in a report that the IRS posted to its Web site without announcement that were discovered February 16. (For the report, see Tax Analysts Doc 2010-3372 .)

    The figures came at the peak of the last economic cycle and show that widely published reports in major newspapers asserting that the richest Americans are losing relative ground and "becoming poorer" are not supported by the official income data.

    The long-term data show that under current tax and economic rules, the incomes of the top earners rise when the economy expands and contract during recessions, only to rise again. Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007.


    http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2010 2:14 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSo what? I could care less about the top 400 households.

    Go ahead and take all the money from the top 400 households, it won't make a dent in the government's annual budget.

    How about we tap into the 49% of American workers who don't pay ANY Federal income tax?

    Maybe, just for starters, $1000/year?

    The huge numbers that the 49% represents will cure much of the government's insatiable desire for more funding.


    What? How about this data from the height of the Bush tax cuts, on the even of the Great Recession disproves every economic argument you have ever made on this site.

    The Bush tax cuts were supposed to unleash investment, create jobs, etc. It didn't do any of that.

    What this and other data from progressive administrations show is that the economy does better when the rich are taxed appropriately.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2010 3:31 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 saidSo what? I could care less about the top 400 households.

    Go ahead and take all the money from the top 400 households, it won't make a dent in the government's annual budget.

    How about we tap into the 49% of American workers who don't pay ANY Federal income tax?

    Maybe, just for starters, $1000/year?

    The huge numbers that the 49% represents will cure much of the government's insatiable desire for more funding.


    What? How about this data from the height of the Bush tax cuts, on the even of the Great Recession disproves every economic argument you have ever made on this site.

    The Bush tax cuts were supposed to unleash investment, create jobs, etc. It didn't do any of that.

    What this and other data from progressive administrations show is that the economy does better when the rich are taxed appropriately.


    I think I have respectfully said this to you in the past, and I'll say it again. You and I have a difference of opinion on this issue.
    ..

    And I'll respectfully say, that while you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. That's where you lose credibility.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2010 5:52 PM GMT
    @ SouthBeach -

    You claim that tax cuts will benefit the economy when the data in this article, not to mention decades of feuding between Keynsian and Miltonian economics proponents, demonstrate that as taxes are cut, economic inequality grows, and the economy (not to mention politics) suffer for it.