From the right: The bottom 10% are "lucky duckies"

[Vanguard]

As a subscriber to the WSJ, I have to say that its news is excellent. Its editorial page, however, is more like the comics page in most newspapers. You just scan though it trying to get a chuckle or two.

[JohnT]

GePap, do you even read the WSJ??? Obviously not, or else you would've become bored senseless with the wide range of tax options discussed on the WSJ opinion page, including the sales tax which has received positive (read, for) editorial stances.

Sava, you also don't seem to read the papers much or able to Google search, as this chart will show. The top 1% of income earners ($313k+) pay 37% of the income taxes, the top 5% pays over half at 56%, and the top 25% of wage-earners ($55,000) pays 84% of the nations individual income tax bill. The bottom 50% pays less than 4% of the TOTAL income tax bill. I'd call this progressive by any stretch of the imagination, Sava/GePap!

I wonder what the percentages for European countries are. How many of them demand the top 25% of taxpayers pay for 84% of the total income tax bill?

[Vanguard]

What the Journal is trying to do is find a way to rationalize Bush raising taxes when there are no longer any Democrats around to take the fall.

[GePap]

I would never read the WSJ. Besides the fact that Wall Street news don't interest me, the fact that they are right of Atilla the HUn in their editorials puts me off.

As for your tax chart: that is the point, that Income Tax is not the only tax out there, as the poor and lower middle class pay payroll taxes and sales taxes also. The better question is, how much of their income do each of these groups pay in overall taxes, and what is their share of the Overall tax burden, when compared to their slice of the GDP. I have never seen such a chart, and that one would be the one to interest me.

Also, will you miss GOP in WSJ?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
I bet if you did an in-depth study about who pays what, I'm sure you'll see that the top 1% and corporations end up paying much less taxes (as percentage of income) than the middle and lower classes. With all the corporate welfare, bermuda tax dodging, and Bush/Reagan style cuts, the wealthy make out like bandits.

If Sava bets it, it must be true.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by JohnT
I wonder what the percentages for European countries are. How many of them demand the top 25% of taxpayers pay for 84% of the total income tax bill?

UK

http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/it_t04_1.htm

         Top 1%    Top 5%     Top 10%     Next 40%     Lower 50%
2000-01  23%        41%        51%           38%           11% 
2001-02  23%        42%        53%           37%           11%  
2002-03  23%        42%        52%           37%           11%

Doesn't surprise me though. If you are in the top 10% you earn many times more than the average person and will thus pay much more than everyone else - and thats just in a flat tax system.

To understand the 'fairness' of it you need to look at the distribution of income.

[axi]

Some bourgeois are so naive that they want to abolish all taxes and state. They forget that those taxes and that state is what's coming between their properties and the masses.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by axi
Some bourgeois are so naive that they want to abolish all taxes and state. They forget that those taxes and that state is what's coming between their properties and the masses.

Exaaaaactly.

[Sava]

JohnT: That was exactly my point... I don't know sh!t about the actual numbers...

[Jules]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm in agreement with DanS, up to a point. Everyone should be taxed. Everyone needs to have a monetary stake in the system. However, I think the income tax structure should be far more progressive. Taxes on basic necessities like food (labeled tax loopholes by the politicians in Florida) should be substantially lowered or abolished. Tax on unemployment income should be abolished. (I know, rather self-serving of me).

I believe Republicans would respond to that by pointing out that more and more Americans own stock, therefore they do have a monetary stake in the system, further justifying their policies which are supposedly designed to help the market.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava

It is obvious to those who aren't drowning in selfishness and self-righteousness.


JohnT: That was exactly my point... I don't know sh!t about the actual numbers...

[JohnT]

GePap: "I would never read the WSJ. Besides the fact that Wall Street news don't interest me, the fact that they are right of Atilla the Hun in their editorials puts me off."

It's not just "Wall Street" news, it's the news of commerce and industry. You know, "work."

The reason I asked is that you made a couple of assertions that just were just flat out inaccuracies and lies. The statements that the WSJ has never run an editorial slanted for progressive sales tax proposals, and that the paper no longer uses "GOP" are patently false. On a personal man-to-man note, you will find that your arguing position is vastly enhanced when you actually know what the fvck you're talking about, OK?

Regardless, the rightest slant of the WSJ's editorial board no more prevents them from being the premiere daily newspaper about American Industry than the fact that the Washington Post leftist editorial bias doesn't prevent them from being the premiere daily newspaper about the US Government.

Dolphin:

code:


         Top 1%    Top 5%     Top 10%     Next 40%     Lower 50%

2000-01  23%        41%        51%           38%           11% 

2001-02  23%        42%        53%           37%           11%  

2002-03  23%        42%        52%           37%           11% 

Compared to the NTU numbers ( http://www.ntu.org/links/FAQs/whopaysincometaxes.php3 ), I think it is obvious that the US's personal income tax rates are far more "progressive" than the UK's. The middle class and the poor pay a higher percentage of the income taxes in the UK than they do in the US. Hell, compared to US millionaires, the ones in the UK pay 40% less in income taxes! Is the UK the newest tax haven for the super-wealthy?

I know, I know: ya'll screw them over other ways - BBC taxes (amazing!), VAT taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc.

Any other countries want to post their rates? Roland?

Sava, you do seem to argue a lot without knowing the numbers. I'm going to start confusing you with GePap if you're not too careful!

[JohnT]

I did find the article last night, but forgot to bring it in to the office this morning so I won't be able to quote directly. It is in the Wednesday, November 20th newspaper, on the very top left of the two-page editorial section. (There's also a number of repetitions of "GOP" in section A, btw. But I digress.) It's position makes it, I think, the "official" position of the WSJ editorial board.

The article was a mixture of what I said earlier this thread and what was reported by DanS, and it drew two conclusions:

1. That a situation where 50% of the country can vote themselves freebies out of other peoples pockets is an inherently unstable position. They don't know the true cost of government and have no financial stake in it's wisdom.

2. That any policies designed to attract votes by tinkering with income tax rates automatically excludes any benefit for 50% of the people and is becoming a decreasingly effective vote getter. In short, income tax reform as a vote-getting tool has passed the point of diminishing marginal returns and the White House had better realize that fact.

They mentioned payroll taxes in passing, but that's OK. The subject of the article was income tax payments, and payroll taxes were outside its 500-word domain. Trust me, the WSJ will bemoan payroll taxes in time - it is their destiny.

[JohnT]

Btw, the title of this thread is misleading. The article specifically calls the 50% of us who pay no federal income tax "lucky duckies", not just the "bottom 10%".

[uh Clem]

Certainly there are those who want to take without paying, and this has a corrupting effect on government.

Without taxation, there wouldn't be the revenue to fund government contracts. A provision in the "Homeland Security" bill would have excluded corporations that hide income by reincorporating offshore, etc...in other words, those who want others to pay, while they themselves do not.

Unfortunately, the lucky duckies managed to get this dropped from the bill before it was passed, thus voting themselves freebies out of other peoples pockets.

So, yeah, we need to do something about this. It's a very high priority, and I hope the WSJ can spare the time and editorial space to look into it.