[i]The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.
These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.
People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003…
[/i]
[quote]lixy wrote:
[i]The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.
These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.
People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003…
[/i]
Can I get some outrage? Please?[/quote]
You have been completely routed and schooled in history and politics - are you begging to get housed on economics, too?
As usual, Lixy leaves out useful information. A few items:
The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.
The I.R.S. data showed that the number of Americans making less than $25,000 a year shrank, down by 3.2 million, or 5.5 percent.
The number of taxpayers making more than $100,000 grew by nearly 3.4 million and accounted for more than two-thirds of the growth in the number of returns filed in 2005 compared with those in 2000.
And, of course, mathematically, any broad-based tax cut that affects all brackets will generate more tax savings on the whole for the upper paying brackets, for the exact same reason they pay more into the system than lower brackets - a percentage of a larger number is bigger than the exact same percentage of a smaller number.
Thunder, that’s why the tax revenue this past year has been the greatest ever.
It is observed that the more people are taxed, the less the government brings in. The less the tax burden, the more tax collected. Why? More money for investment, which leads to more jobs and more individuals being taxed.
The trickle down effect in action. It’s a thing of beauty. Thank you, Ronald Reagan.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Thunder, that’s why the tax revenue this past year has been the greatest ever.
It is observed that the more people are taxed, the less the government brings in. The less the tax burden, the more tax collected. Why? More money for investment, which leads to more jobs and more individuals being taxed.
The trickle down effect in action. It’s a thing of beauty. Thank you, Ronald Reagan.[/quote]
Please don’t mention “voodoo economics”. It throws the left into a tailspin.
Lower taxes = higher revenue. It is proven every time it is tried.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As usual, Lixy leaves out useful information. A few items:
The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.
The I.R.S. data showed that the number of Americans making less than $25,000 a year shrank, down by 3.2 million, or 5.5 percent.
The number of taxpayers making more than $100,000 grew by nearly 3.4 million and accounted for more than two-thirds of the growth in the number of returns filed in 2005 compared with those in 2000.
And, of course, mathematically, any broad-based tax cut that affects all brackets will generate more tax savings on the whole for the upper paying brackets, for the exact same reason they pay more into the system than lower brackets - a percentage of a larger number is bigger than the exact same percentage of a smaller number.[/quote]
Stop using big numbers and facts, you know how that confuses Lixy!
ADDENDUM: Note, the link is about some other issues with the article’s numbers.
As for the “outrageous” numbers, it’s all in the presentation. For instance, if I had $10,000,000 last year, and made a 1% increase on that amount, I would have an extra $100,000. If my brother made $100,000 and his income increased by 10%, he would have an extra $10,000. For this example, I would have had the nerve to grab an outrageous 91% of the gains! The nerve of me…
You’d have to give a decent number of years for the trend to work its way out. Of course, at some point the guy who is increasing more will move into a new tax bracket so his gains can be attributed to the rich, allowing for more stories like this one.