Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Increasing Tax Share vs. Income Share Gap

A previous CD post showed the rising income tax share of the top 1% vs. the declining tax share of the bottom 50% based on the most recent IRS data through 2006. The chart above shows the income share of the top 1% vs. the tax share of the top 1% from 1986 to 2006.

The chart shows that the difference between the top 1%'s tax share (about 25% in the late 1980s) and that group's income share (about 14% in the late 1980s), which increased from 11% in the earlier period to 18% by 2006, when the tax share had increased to about 40% for the top 1% compared to that group's income share of 22%. Stated differently, the income share of the top 1% increased by about .55% per year from 1986 to 2006, compared to the tax share of the top 1%, which increased by about .75% per year.

11 Comments:

At 3/13/2009 3:07 AM, Blogger 1 said...

"Stated differently, the income share of the top 1% increased by about .55% per year from 1986 to 2006, compared to the tax share of the top 1%, which increased by about .75% per year"...

Considering the rising costs of the socialist nanny state this trend will continue until the wealthy leave or are no longer wealthy...

 
At 3/13/2009 5:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you ever going to post a log chart on this blog?

Your statement is erroneous.

It should say: Stated differently, the income share of the top 1% increased by 95.2% from 1986 to 2006, compared to the tax share of the top 1%, which increased by 54.2%.

Plug in the annualized rate, if you are so inclined.

 
At 3/13/2009 5:39 AM, Blogger craig said...

"Considering the rising costs of the socialist nanny state this trend will continue until the wealthy leave or are no longer wealthy..."

Considering the conservative nanny state got us here in the first place, what's your point?

http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Nanny-State-Wealthy-Government/dp/1411693957

 
At 3/13/2009 9:30 AM, Blogger bix1951 said...

Tax base should be broadened.
The fashion has been to eliminate income taxes for lower income people.
They should be paying some income taxes. That would make them stakeholders in government and society. It would also raise revenue.
We need more taxpayers and fewer tax beneficiaries.

 
At 3/13/2009 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tax base should be broadened.

Absolutely, hedge fund and private equity managers (otherwise, known as "carried interest" playas) should pay the same rate of progessive income taxes as Detroit3 assemblers).

The fashion has been to eliminate income taxes for lower income people.

Now if lower income people don't make anymore money (in real $$$) than they did 20 years ago, you propose that they should pay more income taxes.

Hans Blix knew that were no WMD's in Iraq, but blix1951 knows all about income taxes. Right! Blix1951 needs some remedial arithmetic classes or some corrective lenses.

Carpe Diem misrepresents data for ideological purposes, not because he is incapable of charting a line of best fit.

 
At 3/13/2009 1:12 PM, Anonymous Rand said...

The worst (most destructive to the economy) situation is one where a majority of the people pay very little or nothing in taxes and can impose high taxes upon a minority of the population.

Everyone receives governmental services, so everyone should contribute to paying for them.

Progressive taxation is nothing but a legalized mugging.

 
At 3/13/2009 2:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering the conservative nanny state got us here in the first place, what's your point?


Sometimes the truth is so obvious, so simple, that it's overlooked until someone like Thomas Sowell says it out loud:

The same politicians who have been talking about a need for "affordable housing" for years are now suddenly alarmed that home prices are falling. How can housing become more affordable unless prices fall?

The political meaning of "affordable housing" is housing that is made more affordable by politicians intervening to create government subsidies, rent control or other gimmicks for which politicians can take credit.

Affordable housing produced by market forces provides no benefit to politicians and has no attraction for them.

Link

One suspects that this is the reason that the left hates Wal-Mart so much. Wal-Mart has done more to improve the standard of living for low income Americans than almost every government program ever enacted. The left can't tolerate the idea of peoples lives being meaningfully improved without a politicians hand providing "direction".

Ditto, free trade.

We see post after post from leftists on this site about how "conservatives" are responsible for the current crisis because they embrace "laissez-faire" capitalism and deregulation. Forget the mountain of evidence that puts the lie to their argument. I have one question. Why is the left whining about the economy at all? Isn't this the world that they've been working tirelessly to create? A world with less consumption. Less trade. Affordable housing. Where the rich are laid low and dependency on government handouts replaces individual initiative. Why are they calling this a crisis? They should be celebrating and heralding their good works.

 
At 3/13/2009 3:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here it comes. juandos and OldBloodyHell calling me a dimwit ...

That would require you to actually have a wit.

Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid

- John Wayne

 
At 3/13/2009 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The banksters and fraud artists on Wall Street are receiving magnanimous services from the Treasury.

Oh, you mean like these guys?

Low income taxpayers get 8 bucks a week.

I believe it's 13 bucks, and it's called the "Obama Plan".

I actually I graduated high school ...

Impressive, for a liberal.

Carpe Diem is a white bread ...

Someone should start a stopwatch every time a leftist starts to lose an argument and time how long it takes before they scream "racist".

 
At 3/15/2009 1:05 PM, Blogger 1 said...

"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid"...

If you can just set aside your parasitic desires long enough to get a grip on that supposed John Wayne quote maybe you would figure it out that having the government steal for you isn't going to work out for much longer...

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them

 
At 3/16/2009 3:55 PM, Blogger 1 said...

"Considering the conservative nanny state got us here in the first place, what's your point?

http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Nanny-State-Wealthy-Government/dp/1411693957
"...

You mean this ever questionable Dean Baker who pimps the liberal line at: the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CNBC, and National Public Radio...ROFLMAO! Good one!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home