Text 3737, 78 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 12:54:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4210.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Kurt Ullman to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <kurtullman-AE11A4.08251708072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-7FDE7D.12354502072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <a7uta25dnh2e14m4b7669mtogqr62a9n1d@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In fact, even if most of the money and benefits hadn't gone directly
> >> to the rich, which is to say each rich taxpayer saved a /lot/ more
> >> money on his tax bill than each middle class taxpayer
> >
> >And was and *still* is paying more of a percentage of his income than 
> >the middle class taxpayer.  You're being disingenuous by concentrating 
> >only on the refund and ignoring the higher proportionate tax bill that 
> >came first.
> 
> Er, no, not necessarily. For example, in 2000, the richest 400
> taxpayers paid an average of 27% of their income in taxes while
> everyone else paid 40%:


> http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes

  Interesting that this doesn't give a citation.  Especially interesting 
since the IRS figures don't cut it anywhere near that fine. From the 
stuff I can find, I would be willing to place a great deal of money on 
the wager that they saw the 400 in the spreadsheet and sorta missed that 
little thing at the top that indicates the Number of returns (1000s). 


Since I can't find the initial information, I have to go with the IRS 
figures that show that the top 1% have 16% of the income and yet pay 
over a third of the taxes. 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html. Hard to argue that you have 
such low rates while paying twice the amount of taxes.
     The closest I can find from IRS stats is:
Table 5.--Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross 
Income (AGI): Number of Returns,             
Shares of AGI and Total Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current 
and Constant Dollars, and           
Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of 
Returns Based on Income Size            
Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1985-2003          

    That shows that the average tax rate for the total population was 
11.90% while the top 1% paid 24.30% tax rate. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp
  Actually click on the link in the first sentence and it will send you 
an Xcel spreadsheet with the information, since you are probably going 
to write off as heresay ANYTHING the National Review has to say. 

   Another IRS spreadsheet that might have been the initial source for 
the dubious information is Table 474. Individual Income Tax 
Returns--Number, Income Tax,           
and Average Tax by Size of Adjusted Gross Income: 2000 and 2002            

http://qrc.depaul.edu/TableListing.asp?n=9
    Those making $1 million or more (169,000 returns) paid 29% of their 
adjusted gross income in taxes compared with 16% for the total 
population. There were similar findings for the next two breakouts which 
gets us to $200,000 or so per year. 
      So, this all adds up to your other figure being suspect at best 
and dead most likely. It also mean shows that those at the higher levels 
of income pay higher percentages of said income in taxes than the total. 


> And even to the extent that that isn't the case, my assertion that
> each rich taxpayer benefited far more than each middle class taxpayer
> remains correct.
        So even if you are wrong you are right? Interesting concept (g).
 However, the figures show that even if they benefited far more, they 
PAID for more.
                                                                               
                 
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)