Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

Pretending to Balance the Budget

Kevin_Williamson (1)

from Kevin Williamson at National Review, We’re Not That Far from a Balanced Budget

One, Americans earning $100,000 or more pay basically all of the federal income taxes, about 80 percent. That is far in excess of their portion of national income (“national income” being another thing that does not exist but which we are obliged to talk about), and they are only about 15 percent of all taxpayers. Households earning $250,000 or more, a tiny group (2.4 percent of taxpayers) pay about half of all federal income taxes, which is, again, disproportionate to their income relative to the rest of the population.

You do have to stop pretending that you can give the American middle class a big income-tax cut when it hardly pays any income taxes, and stop pretending that you can get spending under control without touching the tiny handful of popular programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national security) that constitute the vast majority of federal spending. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel; you just have to cut federal spending from 21.4 percent of GDP to 19.1 percent a couple of years from now, and maybe reform the tax code with an eye toward making revenue meet spending halfway. That isn’t going to make everybody happy, but it isn’t landing on Omaha Beach, either.

Read more at:

Print This Post Print This Post

A Low Information President

From The Washington Times, Lewis Uhler and Peter Ferrara write The rich pay more than their fair share.


The latest CBO report shows that the top 20% of income earners pay 70% of all federal taxes, while earning just over 50% of before tax income. The top 1% pay 24% of all federal taxes, while earning only 14.6% of before tax income.

By contrast, CBO reports that households in the middle 20%, the real middle class, pay 8.9% of all federal taxes, while earning 14.1% of before tax income. Households in the bottom 20% pay 0.6% of all federal income taxes, while receiving 5.3% of before tax income.

If we look just at federal income taxes, where the policy debate is, the disparity is even worse. The bottom 20% of households pay an income tax rate of -7.5%, CBO reports. The next lowest 20% pays an income tax rate of -1.3%. That means that instead of paying the IRS, like the rest of us, the bottom 40% are paid by the IRS.

The middle 20%, again the real middle class, pays an average income tax rate of just 2.4%, while earning 14% of before-tax income. Obama has been telling them for years the deck is stacked against them. Apparently, he has been pitching to low information voters who don’t know anything about IRS or CBO data. Or maybe we got a low information President.

Read more: Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Print This Post Print This Post

The Gini Distortion

In The Wall Street Journal Phil Gramm and Michael Solon write How to Distort Income Inequality- The Piketty-Saez data ignore changes in tax law and fail to count noncash compensation and Social Security benefits.


An equally extraordinary distortion in the data used to measure inequality (the Gini Coefficient) has been discovered by Cornell’s Mr. Burkhauser. In 1992 the Census Bureau changed the Current Population Survey to collect more in-depth data on high-income individuals. This change in survey technique alone, causing a one-time upward shift in the measured income of high-income individuals, is the source of almost 30% of the total growth of inequality in the U.S. since 1979.

Simple statistical errors in the data account for roughly one third of what is now claimed to be a “frightening” increase in income inequality. But the weakness of the case for redistribution does not end there. America is the freest and most dynamic society in history, and freedom and equality of outcome have never coexisted anywhere at any time. Here the innovator, the first mover, the talented and the persistent win out—producing large income inequality. The prizes are unequal because in our system consumers reward people for the value they add. Some can and do add extraordinary value, others can’t or don’t.

How exactly are we poorer because Bill Gates Warren Buffett and the Walton family are so rich? Mr. Gates became rich by mainstreaming computer power into our lives and in the process made us better off. Mr. Buffett’s genius improves the efficiency of capital allocation and the whole economy benefits. Wal-Mart stretches our buying power and raises the living standards of millions of Americans, especially low-income earners. Rich people don’t “take” a large share of national income, they “bring” it. The beauty of our system is that everybody benefits from the value they bring.

Yes, income is 24% less equally distributed here than in the average of the other 34 member countries of the OECD. But OECD figures show that U.S. per capita GDP is 42% higher, household wealth is 210% higher and median disposable income is 42% higher. How many Americans would give up 42% of their income to see the rich get less?

Vast new fortunes were earned in the 25-year boom that began under Reagan and continued under Clinton. But the income of middle-class Americans rose significantly. These incomes have fallen during the Obama presidency, and not because the rich have gotten richer. They’ve fallen because bad federal policies have yielded the weakest recovery in the postwar history of America.

Yet even as the recovery continues to disappoint, the president increasingly turns to the politics of envy by demanding that the rich pay their “fair share.” The politics of envy may work here as it has worked so often in Latin America and Europe, but the economics of envy is failing in America as it has failed everywhere else.

Print This Post Print This Post

A Parabolic Tax Curve

From Mark Perry at his AEI- Carpe Diem Blog, Top 400 taxpayers paid almost as much in federal income taxes in 2010 as the entire bottom 50%

Early last year Obama reiterated his belief that the wealthiest Americans still aren’t paying their “fair share” of taxes. Here’s an analysis using recent IRS data that suggests otherwise.

1. In 2010 (most recent year available), the top 400 taxpayers based on Adjusted Gross Income earned $106 billion collectively, and they paid $19.1 billion in federal income taxes at an average tax rate of 18% (see chart above).

2. In 2010, the bottom 50% of taxpayers, a group totaling 67.5 million Americans, earned collectively almost $1 trillion and paid $22.4 billion in federal income taxes at average tax rate of 2.4% (see chart above).

Bottom Line: A small group of 400 of America’s most successful earners in 2010, about the number of residents living in a typical apartment building in Washington, D.C., paid almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom half of America’s 135 million tax filers, which is a population equivalent to the combined number of residents living in America’s 29 least populated states, plus the District of Columbia. What makes this disparity possible is the fact that 41% of individual income tax returns filed in 2010 had a zero or negative tax liability, according to The Tax Foundation. And a recent CBO study (featured on CD here) found that the entire bottom 60% of American households are “net recipient households” and received more in government transfers than they paid in federal taxes in 2011.

When you have only 400 Americans paying almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom 50% of Americans filing income tax returns, I think we can dismiss any notion of the rich not paying their “fair share” of taxes. In fact, maybe the IRS should publish the names and addresses of the Top 400 taxpayers (or provide a forwarding service to protect anonymity), so that we can all send them “Thank You” letters to express our gratitude for shouldering such a disproportionately large share of our collective tax burden.


An amazing statistic.

Print This Post Print This Post

Inequality and The Tax Reform of 1986

In The Wall Street Journal Phil Gramm and Michael Solon write How to Distort Income Inequality- The Piketty-Saez data ignore changes in tax law and fail to count noncash compensation and Social Security benefits.


Messrs. Piketty and Saez also did not take into consideration the effect that tax policies have on how people report their incomes. This leads to major distortions. The bipartisan tax reform of 1986 lowered the highest personal tax rate to 28% from 50%, but the top corporate-tax rate was reduced only to 34%. There was, therefore, an incentive to restructure businesses from C-Corps to subchapter S corporations, limited-liability corporations, partnerships and proprietorships, where the same income would now be taxed only once at a lower, personal rate. As businesses restructured, what had been corporate income poured into personal income-tax receipts.

So Messrs. Piketty and Saez report a 44% increase in the income earned by the top 1% in 1987 and 1988—though this change reflected how income was taxed, not how income had grown. This change in the structure of American businesses alone accounts for roughly one-third of what they portray as the growth in the income share earned by the top 1% of earners over the entire 1979-2012 period.