bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (03/22/85)
Well the lastest statistics are in and it doesn't look good for those
who pooh-poohed the supply-side theory.
The numbers from the IRS show that taxes paid by higher-income Americans
rose from '82 to '83, just as from '81 to '82. The numbers show that those
with adjusted gross incomes over $50,000 paid approximately 12% more tax in
'83 than in the previous year. At the same time, taxes paid by those with
an AGI under $50,000 dropped by slightly over 6%. These numbers show that
the tax cut did just what the President said it would; it generated
additional revenue by stimulating investment and entrepreneurial income.
In case your interested, the number reported by the IRS are:
Taxes paid* % total taxes paid
Income class# 1981 1982 1983 1981 1982 1983
$0-15,000 26,571 23,949 21,037 9.1% 8.4% 7.4%
$15k-30k 80,475 74,196 67,000 27.6 26.0 23.6
$30k-50k 88,322 86,363 84,736 30.3 30.2 29.8
$50k-$100k 52,156 51,732 55,179 17.9 18.1 19.4
over $100k 43,633 49,387 55,781 10.0 17.3 19.6
over $1,000k 4,901 6,955 10,231 1.7 2.4 3.6
----
* in millions of dollars
# Adjusted Gross Income
courtesy of the Wall Street Journal
So much for Reagan's tax cuts benefiting the rich at the expense of the
middle and lower classes.
--
Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp.
...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnaplorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/25/85)
Those making over $50,000 a year increased their income while
those making middle-incomes stayed about the same and the poor
reduced their income. The percentage of their income that the
rich paid in taxes was lower, while for other groups it was
higher. Moreover, how did those making over $50,000 increase
their income? By another tax cut which will be unreported in
considering individual tax returns: tax cuts to corporations.
The price for these tax cuts has yet to be paid: it will be paid
in interest rates on the national debt largely incurred by this
tax cut which favored the rich (in terms of what percentage of
income is paid in taxes) and the arms race.
When the foreign investors paying half of our deficits in government
bonds pull out then we will be in *big* trouble.
Who's going to pay? The average American taxpayer and wage-earner.
tim sevener whuxl!orbgarys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/25/85)
Courtesy of Tom Albrecht: > > Well, the latest statistics are in and it doesn't look good for those > who pooh-poohed the supply-side theory. > These numbers show that > the tax cut did just what the President said it would; it generated > additional revenue by stimulating investment and entrepreneurial income. First, I wonder how much of the differnce is due to changes in the number of people in each income class (I also wonder if it matters; comments?). Second, the extra line for "over 1,000k" is an unnecessary source of confusion (at least it was for me); those figures were already given in the "over 100k" line. Third, the total taxes received shows a DROP in revenue, not an increase. Fourth, there are a couple of mistakes in the percentages (noted below). > The numbers reported by the IRS are: > > Taxes paid % total taxes paid > Income class# 1981 1982 1983 1981 1982 1983 > $0-15,000 26,571 23,949 21,037 9.1% 8.4% 7.4% > $15k-30k 80,475 74,196 67,000 27.6 26.0 23.6 > $30k-50k 88,322 86,363 84,736 30.3 30.2 29.9** > $50k-$100k 52,156 51,732 55,179 17.9 18.1 19.4 > over $100k 43,633 49,387 55,781 15.0* 17.3 19.7*** ------- ------- ------- ---- ----- ----- 291,157 285,627 283,733 99.9 100.0 100.0 *Originally listed as 10.0 **Originally listed as 29.8 ***Originally listed as 19.6 Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/27/85)
A fair comparison would look at all taxes, not just Federal income tax. Because of Reagan's "New Federalism" (i.e. shift responsibility for programs to the states while not shifting the funds), state taxes increased significantly under Reagan. State taxes are typically regressive straight percentages, so the overall effect of the Reagan tax "cut" was actually a net increase in overall taxation for lower- and middle-income Americans. The real standard of living for lower-income Americans also declined under Reagan as the programs benefitting them were cut first and deepest. This is because the politically unorganized are a much more inviting target. Witness, for example, the uproar over Social Security cuts, a program that would hurt the much better organized. While cuts in programs for the mentally ill, homeless and working mothers were greeted with protest, these were still cut. I'm glad that the apologists for Reagan feel that they must make the argument that his programs are "fair." That is better than the old conservative argument that people get what they deserve. However, it is only with statistical sleight-of-hand that they can ever make Reagan's policies look like anything other than what his own Budget Chief said they were: a Trojan Horse to pass a large taxcut to the upper-income taxpayers that are Reagan's political base. Mike Kelly
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (03/29/85)
<supply-side bug> In article <1982@burdvax.UUCP> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP writes: > >Well the lastest statistics are in and it doesn't look good for those >who pooh-poohed the supply-side theory. > >The numbers from the IRS show that taxes paid by higher-income Americans >rose from '82 to '83, just as from '81 to '82. The numbers show that those >with adjusted gross incomes over $50,000 paid approximately 12% more tax in >'83 than in the previous year....[statistics] > >Tom Albrecht Um, note that you are talking about ADJUSTED gross income (i.e. after all the tax shelters (oops, I mean deductions) are subtracted). I would like to see gross income vs. taxes paid. (the number of millionaires paying absolutely NO tax has tripled in the last few years). Merlyn Leroy "...a dimension between stupidity and substance, between science and superficiality, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"