Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, Data Show (NY Times - registration required) (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/business/26TAX.html) The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in the year 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period.

The data, in a report that the I.R.S. released last night, shows that the average income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost $174 million in 2000. That was nearly quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. The minimum income to qualify for the list was $86.8 million in 2000, more than triple the minimum income of $24.4 million of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 1992.

While the sharp growth in incomes over that period coincided with the stock market bubble, other factors appear to account for much of the increase. A cut in capital gains tax rates in 1997 to 20 percent from 28 percent encouraged long-term holders of assets, like privately owned businesses, to sell them, and big increases in executive compensation thrust corporate chiefs into the ranks of the nation's aristocracy.

This year's tax cut reduced the capital gains rate further, to 15 percent.

The data from 2000 is the latest available from the I.R.S., but various government reports indicate that salaries, dividends and other forms of income have continued to rise since then, even as the stock market has fallen.

The top 400 reported 1.1 percent of all income earned in 2000, up from 0.5 percent in 1992. Their taxes grew at a much slower rate, from 1 percent of all taxes in 1992 to 1.6 percent in 2000, when their tax bills averaged $38.6 million each . . . . I apologize for the long quote. I wanted to get enough relevant information for those who are not inclined to register with the New York Times.

The article notes a few other interesting stats. While we talk about high taxes, I don't think the top tax bracket is 22%, is it? The top 400 pad an average of 22.3% of their income in federal taxes, down from the beginning of the Clinton administration, which era saw that portion peak at nearly 30%. The IRS, according to the NY Times, notes that bigger gifts to charity are one of the primary factors (not the primary factor, though). I point this out because I've referred to the 1990s as an "orgy of greed" before. Reduced capital-gains taxes, certes, but that the IRS is noting charity ....

And perhaps there is fuel for the "tax cuts for the rich" crowd. Is the increase in charity a direct result of lower capital-gains taxes, or does the internet age (post-1995) and the state of the world bring necessity to the forefront?

Also noted is that Bush's tax cuts would have saved the top 400 an average of $8.3 million, more than a fifth of their average tax bill.

- The tax rate paid by the top 400 equals that of a single person making $123,000/yr.

- The top 400 is not always the top 400. During the years surveyed, 2,200 taxpayers made the cut at least once.

- Direct quote: "The half of Americans who earned less than $27,682 in 2000, paid less than 4 percent of income taxes."

- Direct quote: "The figures do not include the incomes of the many wealthy Americans who use shelters to reduce their reported incomes below the level of the top 400."

- In the year 2000, there were over 2,000 Americans who earned more than $200,000 who paid no income tax anywhere in the world.

Take your time. Chew it over. These are interesting numbers.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Just puts numbers to what many already know but i suppose it will help many get an idea of whats happening / happened.

The current administration are accelerating the trend of the majority of wealth to a privalege few and increasing the reliance of the many on these few for pretty much everything.

I was watching Red Dwarf re-runs a few days back with the episode of Lister where NORWEB were chasing him down.
As he had been in suspended animation for x million years with the cumulitive interest on his bank savings he now owned 97% of the worlds wealth and the majority of the world were reduced to living like the stone age.
Funny in the film...not so funny rl.....

I was watching Red Dwarf re-runs a few days back with the episode of Lister where NORWEB were chasing him down.
As he had been in suspended animation for x million years with the cumulitive interest on his bank savings he now owned 97% of the worlds wealth and the majority of the world were reduced to living like the stone age.
Funny in the film...not so funny rl.....

The numbers tiassa cited are surely interesting, but is hardly relevant to the doomsday situation you are relating it to. Bush's tax cuts gave everyone a tax cut, and yes, the rich got a lot out of it. However, a tax cut is an economic stimulus and should not be based on need. A reduce in the capital gains taxes surely gave the rich a bigger source of income, yet it has also succeded (in my own eyes) in boosting the stock market. When the rich are prompted to make big investments, everyone invested benefits.

It is wrong and deceitful to claim that everyone but a 'privelaged few' are being shortchanged on the tax cuts. The rich pay disproportionally more than the non-rich to support the federal economy. The better end of the tax bargain has been skewed, and still is, [b]towards[b] the non-rich, because they keep more of the money that they make. If you think that the rich should be forced to give up an unfair amount of their money as some sort of duty, you are demeaning the humanistic value attched to their money. You must assume that all of deserves to own our honor, and therefore our money.

The rich get richer because they consistently expand their means to make more money. The poor get poorer because they do not.

The rich are not unworthy of their own money, and to assume that an expansion of their economic power would be a detriment to the non-rich is either to assume that money is a finite resource, which demonstartes an ignorance of economics, or that the rich are cruel and manipulative, which is degrading to their dignity.

fair enough it was an extreme analogy but what could i say it was fresh in my mind itching to be used =(

And yes its the age old addage, you need "money to make money" or even"money breeds money".

I know also that neither of these is true in their own right but it works often enough to stick imo.

I admit that i'm not an Economist and i've not taken Economics so i won't be posting an I know this and your wrong because's but it does seem to me that not neccesarily due to the recent tax cuts or economic policies of the US but simply as a trend more and more of the world wealth seems to be accumulating under fewer and fewer people.

I'm sure theres reasons for it and i also know that a lot of those that are "wealthy" probably well deserve their wealth just as many i know don't *cough* "Dubbya" *cough* and i'm also sure it will not be sustainable too the "Doomsday scenario" for so many reasons.

I don't think its a case of the rich should foot the bills for the not so well off penny for penny.
I know that the rich will always put more back into the economy in tax's than the poor thats a given.
But tax cuts specifically aimed at effecting only those with above a certain level of assets / wealth to allow them to put their money unhindered into creating greater wealth is always going to rub up a lot of people

It certainly does.

And the rubbers almost always tend to be Democrats looking to sway public opinion in their favor for '04. The facts are being skewed to effect an emotional response that will put power in the people who are least apt to run the country, as they have no altenative economic plans.

Congrats Bush's tax cuts gave everyone a tax cut ....This apparently is not true.

Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2083852/)
NY Times column (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/weekinreview/22ROSE.html?ex=1056945600&en=4bc606a0e5372b5e&ei=5001&partner=YAHOO)
Christian Science Monitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p02s02-uspo.html)

I'll share this quote from the CSM article because it makes me chuckle in a certain way: Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln - the lone Democrat to support the tax cut on the Senate Finance Committee - proposed accelerating refunds for low-income families, who otherwise would not get checks until 2005. Her proposal made it through the Senate - but was bumped in the final House-Senate compromise.

By then, a liberal think tank published an analysis that showed that many low-income families would not benefit from the new tax cut, including 6 million who would be excluded from the full increase in the value of the child tax credit because they earned too little.

Democrats began to sense an issue.At any rate, I'll get off the tax issue. The rich are not unworthy of their own money, and to assume that an expansion of their economic power would be a detriment to the non-rich is either to assume that money is a finite resource At any given moment, money is a finite resource, else it would be worthless. I know, I know, but the paucity of the assumption of finite resource is usually my line anyway.

And, frankly, the rich are cruel and manipulative, but I'm not prepared to show that this is to any greater degree comparatively than anyone else; the only difference is that since larger sums of money are involved in the mistakes of the rich, those mistakes tend to have greater impact.

Dignity does not have a financial value; if it did, the rich would have none to degrade because they would have sold theirs.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

"The numbers tiassa cited are surely interesting, but is hardly relevant to the doomsday situation you are relating it to. Bush's tax cuts gave everyone a tax cut, and yes, the rich got a lot out of it. However, a tax cut is an economic stimulus and should not be based on need. A reduce in the capital gains taxes surely gave the rich a bigger source of income, yet it has also succeded (in my own eyes) in boosting the stock market. When the rich are prompted to make big investments, everyone invested benefits. "

Rubbish. Almost everyone agrees that this tax cut is not an economic stimulus because most of the money will go to the rich who will then invest it, not spend it. And has it really succeeded in boosting the stock market? Why does it all depend on the stockmarket? Is the stock market so infallible, or is it all a mess, like the past bubble shows. Not so, not everyone benefits from big investments, or if they do so it is very little compared otthe investors. thats the whole point.




"It is wrong and deceitful to claim that everyone but a 'privelaged few' are being shortchanged on the tax cuts. The rich pay disproportionally more than the non-rich to support the federal economy. The better end of the tax bargain has been skewed, and still is, [b]towards[b] the non-rich, because they keep more of the money that they make. If you think that the rich should be forced to give up an unfair amount of their money as some sort of duty, you are demeaning the humanistic value attched to their money. You must assume that all of deserves to own our honor, and therefore our money. "
What humanistic value attached to their money? they work like everyone else dont they?


"The rich get richer because they consistently expand their means to make more money. The poor get poorer because they do not. "
The poor cannot because they have no money.


"The rich are not unworthy of their own money, and to assume that an expansion of their economic power would be a detriment to the non-rich is either to assume that money is a finite resource, which demonstartes an ignorance of economics, or that the rich are cruel and manipulative, which is degrading to their dignity. "
:rolleyes:
Dignity? Wheres the dignity in a country where they are relaxing the overtime laws so taht fewer people have to be paid it?

The rich own the right to their money because they earned it, either through their own hard work or the hard work of their ancestors.

I am not sure of this as a certainty, but I believe that those who did not recieve cuts were those who did not file income taxes. I'm sure there are others who did file taxes but did get some sort of assistance...I haven't read enough articles to reallt be sure.

However, I think that there is nothing wrong with taxing everyone. The poor should be contributing as any other citizen would. If anything, we are moving closer to a flat tax.

Originally posted by Congrats
The rich own the right to their money because they earned it, either through their own hard work or the hard work of their ancestors.



So they earned it how, exactly? Through the hard work of their ancestors? Riiiight... So how did they earn it again?

That's akin to saying that we earn our birthright, ie, disabled folk and folk with no food earned what they've got (or rather, what they haven't) for being born where they are.

:confused:
Nuts

Yes, they earned it, and each person starts off immeadiately in a place where they can deserve more.

So I assume also that people deserve the money from what they do?

I agree with guthrie - allowing the "rich" to invest further is not a bad thing. Historically, the economic situation of the world have to a major degree depended upon the amount of money invested in business and growth.

It is *so* easy to demonize the rich as evil and whatnot, but in this case I see the capital income tax cuts as beneficial. If will stregnthen the US economy, boost the stock market after the 2000 .com crash, and to some degree, strengthen the world economy, for the good of all 6 billion of us humans, rather sooner than later.

Remember that the USA alone has 25% of the worlds collected GNP. Any beneficial action in the US will surely influence the rest of the world.

Ah, the trickle-down theory of reganomics. It's been so long....

:rolleyes:

Wake up you daft gits. The way to revitalise an economy has been proven time and again through near-accidental experience. You give the money to those who will spend it - and those people aren't the rich. You're talking about the working and middle classes.