I linked it for the chart, not for the writing. Some people like to harp on the rich not paying "their fair share" of income taxes, and it's pretty clear from the data that they pay it and more, despite the 2003 "tax cuts for the rich."
It depends on what you think of more progressive versus more flat taxation. For example, I don't think it would be fair to tax someone making $25k a year at similar rates as someone making $250k a year. If you subscribe to progressive taxation (as do most nations in the Western world), then those discrepancies, as long as they aren't too big, are fair.
You are saying that the tax cuts in 2003 did not improve the economy because it has slowed in 2008. Not sure I follow.
No...the article made the claim that the economy has grown faster due to the tax cuts, which they have no evidence for. Since the economy has been on a downturn, I have no idea how they can make such a claim.
And as you probably know but chose not to mention, part of the increase in AGI is closure of tax loopholes as well as lower tax rates reducing the incentive to use tax shelters. In other words, that 30% increase is partially a result of more income is being reported.
I don't know that there was anything close to a substantial increase in AGI due to closing tax loopholes and lower tax rates...and I'm skeptical that it accounts for anything more than a minimal increase. Though if you have evidence for your claim, I'm all ears.
I don't know what you are trying to prove by pointing out that the % of AGI paid by the top 1% has gone down. My original point about our system of government encouraging people to vote themselves money remains - 5% of the population pays for 60% of federal spending and receives, and 50% of the population pays for 97% of spending. The bottom 50% pays for 3% of services and receives 65% of government spending - a hefty return rate of several hundred percent (1461% for the bottom 20% of earners) for each tax dollar paid.
Throw universal health care or removal of social security income caps on top of that, and those percentages will become even more dramatic.
Because % income paid is a much more honest way of laying out tax burden than what the article did. As for your original point, the level to which people will "vote themselves money" is likely directly related to the income inequality in the country. If 95% of the population pays no taxes because they're dirt poor, then yeah, they'll vote themselves money. But in the United States, we've got a large enough middle class that is taxed enough such that tax increases would hurt their bottom line. To put it another way, what is the income level where someone's tax expenditures is the same as what they get from taxes? Is that number a majority in the country? And how do they vote?
And as for abolishing the income tax...
Of course there are no major nations without income tax because there are no minimalist governments any more. It's an oxymoron in a world where some sort of socialized democracy or big-spending government is the norm.
What about the possibility that, in order to be more than a weak economic nation, things like income tax are necessary in order to develop the infrastructure for the nation to really grow? The United States has had income tax from 1913 onward, and the top rate from 1939 until 1981 was over 50%. And I think the economy was doing pretty well then...
How about anyone who has been an alcoholic or drug abuser or heavy smoker in the past? Even if they've quit, they've already done substantial damage to their bodies,right? Anyone who has ever had cancer? Diabetics? Arthritis, or high blood pressure?
