How To Explain Taxes And The Budget To Non-Economists

[Playinghardball]

MoveOn.org

[ret5hd]

1. Compelling, direct and simple.

k&r

[RC]

2. This needs to make it to the Home page.

How can it not open some eyes and raise some blood pressures?

Link to OP graphic.
http://front.moveon.org/how-to-explain-taxes-and-the-budget-to-non-economists/

[hfojvt]

3. this economist does not think that is at all accurate

the top 20% does not have 93% of the income.

According to IRS stats from 2006 (a pre-recession year) total income was $8.12 trillion. (meaning, presumably that there is $5 trillion in income that the IRS does not consider income. Some of that is IRA contributions, which are largely made by the richer workers, other is perhaps retirement income and social security income and income from tax free sources)

the top .1% had 11.22% of all income
the top .9% had 11.57% of all income (for 22.79% for the top 1% (compare to 12.52% for the bottom 50%)
the top 4% had 13.87%
the next 5% had 10.66%
and the next 15% had 20.8%

leaving 31.8% for the bottom 75% over 4 times as much as they claim for the bottom 80%.

Further, this analogy jumps from the top 20% down to the top 1%, ignoring all the income of the top 19% (meaning the top 20% without the top 1%), which, as you can see from the facts - is huge. It's 45% of the pie.

Trouble is that even the great Buffett does not talk about raising taxes on the top 19%. Nor does Obama, touting the Buffett rule as well as preserving the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 2% (meaning a very rich person at the 95th percentile keeps a huge tax cut (and so do many richer people since they keep the tax cuts on their first $250,000 of income). Under Obama's plan the top 1% get 13.3% of the tax cut, the top 4% gets 13.2% and the top 19% gets 40.9%. (compare that to the 26.4% going to the bottom 60% and it is clear that Obama's compromise heavily favors the rich).

Even OWS ignores the top 19% and wants to pretend they are on our side. Some of them are, but a large majority of them - are not.

[ieoeja]

4. The difference between Liberals and Conservatives: we'll call you out on your false spin.

Why are comparing contributions by the top 1% to income of the top 20%? Assuming the missing contribution is the remaining 19% then:

Top 20% earn 93% of income
Top 20% contribute 60% of taxes

If the assumption is correct, why in the world did MoveOn introduce an apples-to-oranges comparison allowing Conservatives to dismiss this? Why not give us 1% to 1% comparison? Or 20% to 20% comparison?

Telling a lie when the truth works just fine is sort of stupid.

[hfojvt]

5. since it was asked on moveon's site

tax shares by income group (2006)

total income tax - $1.02 trillion
tax for top .1% - $200.3 billion (19.6%)
tax for top .9% - $208.1 billion (20.4%)
tax for top 4% - $207.3 billion (20.3%)
tax for next 5% - $109.1 billion (10.7%)

then I did not put the top 25% in my spreadsheet, so I only have

tax for bottom 50% - $30.56 billion (3%)

although using my math skills I can figure

tax for middle 40% - $264.6 billion (25.9%)

so top 10% paying 71.1% of all income taxes
bottom 90% paying 28.9%

Now FICA taxes, which are, or should be, separate from the budget, fall disproportionately on the poor and also on working people.

HOWEVER, since as I have stated almost ad infinitum, the top 20% get 46.4% of the payroll tax cut, they must also be paying 46.4% of all payroll taxes. Whereas the bottom 60% pay only 27.1% of the payroll taxes.