<img src="http://www.investors.com/image/A1tax_121129.png.cms"> The rich paid more. Despite endless claims by critics that Bush's tax cuts favored the rich, the fact is the rich ended up paying more in taxes after they went into effect. In fact, IRS data show that the richest 1% paid $84 billion more in taxes in 2007 than they had in 2000 â that's a 23% increase â even though their average tax rate went down. What's more, their share of the overall income tax burden grew, climbing from 37% in 2000 to 40% in 2007. At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom half of taxpayers paid $6 billion less in income taxes in 2007 than they had seven years earlier â a 16% drop â and their share of the total income tax burden dropped from 3.9% to 2.9%. Millions dropped from the tax rolls entirely. Another unheralded feature of the Bush tax cuts is that they pushed nearly 8 million people off the tax rolls entirely because, among other things, Bush doubled the per-child tax credit to $1,000 and lowered the bottom rate to 10%. http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-635034-5-secrets-about-the-bush-tax-cuts.htm
Of course they are. They may even decide to rob our IRA's and 401k's and give us a government annuity in return on the false promise to use the money to pay down the debt. Like I said about a month ago. The American experiment is not going to end well and the end is very near. If December 21st is the end of the world, we should be so lucky.
If these stats were translated into effective rates then they would be more legitimate. The top 0.1% also had their net worth increase dramatically during the same period of time, I don't recall the numbers, but I believe it was more than 23%. So although the revenue may have increased from the 0.1%, their actual effective rate could have dropped. E.g. not paying their "fair" share.
hypo--- lets say you traded options on the floor at the cboe -- as a floor trader would our rather make 5 million... or 3 million but have a higher rank vs your fellow floor traders. who gives a shit about effective rate... we are not here to serve the govt they are to serve us... and if tax cuts make us all wealthier and the govt takes in more revenue... how can effective rates matter... in fact we should always want more revenue and lower effective rates... its better for the country the govt and the people.
That's a broad hypo that doesn't take the recession into consideration. The top 0.1% have done very well for themselves, especially during the recession, while the bottom classes have been losing jobs and going further into debt. So, obviously, less revenue will be generated from the bottom classes. By the way, how does taxing less increase revenue?
? <- This is a question mark. This character generally follows sentences intended to be questions, which seek answers or explanations of the said question.
I'm asking you, if you think your question has internal validity, if not why bothering to answer it : but I guess you're too stupid to realize that.
let me answer... 1. just today we saw a post that in 2010 England raise taxes on Milllionaires... they now collect much lower revenue from that group. 2. after the mellon tax cuts tax revenue went up. after kennedy tax cuts revenue went up after reagan tax cuts revenue went up after bush tax couts revenue was up by about 40 percent and the revenue collected from the people receiving cuts went up. why... because they made more money and or declared more. also some take more risk and make more investments when the earnings after taxes are higher. finally we know that if we eliminated personal income taxes our economy would take off... correct... so if you are in a stagnant economy cutting taxes enough will eventually cause the economy to grow which will eventually raise revenue. Which is why Keynes... actually suggested cutting taxes to grow out of recessions. Of course the left will never tell you that.