Report: $2.4 Trillion in New Tax Hikes Coming

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Don't knock hard work. Try it some time...
Juan Williams is still a liberal.

Bill Hedges of MO 6:51PM October 26, 2010

The fact that the top 40% pay such a large share of total federal income tax is because their income has grown faster than the bottom 50%, many of whose real income has actually declined. The reason close to half of all US households owe no federal income tax is because, after deductions, their gross adjusted income is too low. Still the effective rate of taxation, the only rate that matters in this issue because it is the total amount of paid by any one taxpayer, has gone down. The share of the tax burden of any one income group is meaningless if their overall tax rate declined. This also indicates that federal income taxes overall declined as well.
The CBO has also posted there more meaningful effective tax rate figures. Table 2 shows that between 2001 when the first (and largest) Bush tax cuts were passed, and 2004 when this CBO study was published by the US Census Bureau, the top 20% saw a three percentage point fall in their total effective federal tax rate; this was more than any other quintile. According to the data on Table 4 The Differences in Effective Federal Tax Rates between taxes under the 2001 tax cut law and the pre-2001 cut was nearly 4% in 2004 for the upper 20% based on their 2001 income. No other income quintile comes close to this rate of tax savings due to the tax cuts.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf
The rich may pay a larger share of total federal taxes than the rest but their income has increased much faster as well. The effective rate of taxation on the incomes of the rich has declined much faster as well.

steve of IL 5:57PM October 26, 2010

Your estimates of added revenue by raising taxes on rich is not creditable.
You gave a lot of numbers without links. Makes your numbers fit for wastebasket not being taken seriously.
Lets get real:
MARCH 12, 2010
“Maryland’s Mobile Millionaires”
“Income tax rates go up, rich taxpayers vanish“
“Well, the state comptroller’s office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.”
“A Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysis of federal tax return data on people who migrated from one state to another found that Maryland lost $1 billion of its net tax base in 2008 by residents moving to other states. That’s income that’s now being taxed and is financing services in Virginia, South Carolina and elsewhere”
http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/tax-hikes-on-rich-proven-moron-stupid-just-ask-maryland/
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total“.
“This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Bill Hedges of MO 5:01PM October 26, 2010

Middle class voters have to decide whether they want less government or higher taxes. Raising taxes on the 'rich" will not provide enouigh revenue to significantly reduce the deficit. The current proposal to eliminate the "Bush" tax cuts for the rich is estimated to generate $700 billion over ten years. The deficit (assuming a 3.5% crowth rate) is estimated at 8.3 TRILLION over the same time period. The current tax code already restricts itimized deductions (mortgage interest, charity...) and personal exemptions for those making over approx. $200,000, so eliminating those deductions for the rich will not come anywhere close to generating enough revenue.
For those who want European style social benefits, remember that most European countries tax anything over about $20,000 per year in income at 50%, have 17-25% sales taxes, $8 per gallon gasoline and 50-100% taxes on the purchase of a new car. The middle class pays most of those taxes. You get what you pay for.

Bob of TX 4:03PM October 26, 2010

I am glad that these tax breaks are being considered for the chopping block. They distort behavior. And why should renters subsidize homeowners? Why should childless couples subsidize couples with children? What we really need is a flat tax without any deductions so that everybody pays their fair share.

Ryu of PA 1:47PM October 26, 2010

Tree Hugger of Co:
Personally, if our country's economy were continuing on an unward basis and jobs were more readily available (as in days gone by), and a national healthcare program wasn't being shoved down our throats, along with emissions trading, people countrywide weren't losing their homes by the millions due to foreclosure, foolishly spending oceans of our hard-earned tax dollars like the pathetic "stimulus measures" with huge earmarks attached (including his "healthcare program"), along with a POTUS who is renouned for lying through his teeth AND DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF "BLAMING BUSH"
....I could care less if Obama was pink, purple, white, mauve, yellow, black, or blue!
My point is: The wrong man is sitting in our White House. Nossa matta his color or race!!!!
Yet, you liberal pukes keep bringing up pathetic stories of "fear-mongering", "keeping a black man down", and yelling "racist-racist-racist", but are totally unaware of what that "head idiot" is doing to our country!!!
For once in your life, try to curb your emotions, open your eyes, and check out your surroundings .....and learn!

Chris Hampton of GA 12:40PM October 26, 2010

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total“.
“This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
CBO quote is not right wing. Most media is bias and you don't find these facts in other places other than the right.
Left will use top 2% of Bush tax cut to condemn Bush. Top 40 % shows Bush tax cuts increased amount of government revenue with tax cuts.
I am not putting a black man down. I am giving facts. On tax cuts for God's sake. Explain how that is putting a black man down. Am I to ignore the truth because he is black. Well, I do it for all Presidents. If you don't like, don't read my comments.
Destroying our economy is not good for America.

Bill Hedges of MO 11:29AM October 26, 2010

These are facts, and the source is credible!

Marc of NY 10:52AM October 26, 2010

You would be more credible if you didn't cite all your information and data from right-wing sources. American Thinker, give me a break.
You and your ilk are hell bent on destroying this country. We all know, you can't let a black man succeed. You have to keep their type down. After all, it was the whites who made this country what it is today and we have to keep it that way at all costs, even if that means pushing the USA into second or third world status.
Nice job!

Tree Hugger of CO 10:10AM October 26, 2010

I've used to read USN&WR for its fair and unbiased reporting; both sides of most issues got responsible looks. But, this article is not even close to journalism. It is more like a propaganda diatribe intended to win votes and isolate others. It does not belong in a journal that purports to be fair and balanced.

Michael P. Wein of TX 9:55AM October 26, 2010