Tax Burden Continues Shift to the Rich Under Bush Tax Policy
From the Tax Foundation
New data released by the IRS for tax year 2006 show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
This will get no press and no democratic politician will allow it to get in their way as they continue to falsely claim that Bush gave a tax cut to the rich. In 2000, Clinton’s last year in office, the bottom 50% paid 3.9% of federal taxes. In 2006, we paid only 2.99% despite an average increase of over $4 grand a year in that same time period. The top 1% paid 37.42% of federal taxes in 2000 to see that percentage increase to 39.89% in 2006. The increase happened to the top 1% despite the fact that their average tax rate decreased almost 3%. The average tax rate of the bottom 50% decreased 1%.
The facts regarding the tax cuts during this administration are cut and dry. The tax cuts under Bush shifted the tax burden towards the rich and away from the poor. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid.
- Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data, XLS, 66.5 KB
- Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data, SWF, 77 KB
- Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data, PDF, 83 KB
- July 26th
What hogwash! Where are you getting your data. Please read the information from the Congressional Budget Office. You are living proof that figures don’t lie but liars can sure figure.
In the past 8 years, the National debt has increased over 5 trillion dollars, and the wealth of the nation has gone to the top 1% of the tax payers. These are the facts!
Marcus, please try to read before you ask questions that are already answered.
“New data released by the IRS for tax year 2006″
That is where the data came from.
“Tax burden” eh? That’s a conveniently loaded term given that the only way to increase your “tax burden” under a lower tax rate is to make more money. (Zmg you left out the bit about how much the highest percentiles’ income increased but you include it for the poor–I’m shocked!)
You can play all the semantic games–or link to someone in a think tank playing those same games–all you want. In the end it’s mathematically impossible to pay more *dollars* in taxes under a lower rate unless you also *make more money.*
And btw, I suspect you might want to beat your chest and declare that I just stepped on a rhetorical landmine ie ‘exactly the point of the policy’ or whatever. If you have that urge why don’t you take a look at how tax revenues changed under the Bush plan before acting on it? The Laffer curve is supposed to *increase* tax revenues, not vice versa. If the new argument is that we can decrease tax revenues by cutting taxes for people, the new answer is “duh.”
Please try to ensure that you make sense when you leave a comment, thank you.
Warren Buffet earned $46 million and paid just 17.7% total income tax, fica and medicare. His receptionist made just $60,000 and paid 30%. This tells me the tax burdern may have shifted in the wrong direction.
You aren’t paying attention. Tax burden isn’t the percentage of personal income that someone pays, it is the percentage of collected taxes that someone pays.