Home » Groups » Democracy for Houston » Blog » Tax Lies That Republicans...

Democracy for America group blog for Democracy for Houston

Tax Lies That Republicans Tell or Tax Shifting Not Tax Cuts!

Written by: Murvin A on Aug 4, 2008 12:16 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for Houston

Linked to campaigns: Obama for America

This is going to be an "evergreen" posting for me. For those who have not wasted too much time reading everything they can get their hands on, an "evergreen" is a news story that never gets retired, it is recycled every year. This evergreen I am going to call "Tax Lies that Republicans Tell." It will be a tale of falsehoods, half-truths and tax shifting. Lets start with this:

The U.S. Income Tax Burden: The Income Tax Burden is defined simply as who pays U.S. income taxes in the form of individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and federal excise taxes. Based on this information, the following conclusions clearly emerge: * An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans: o The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. o The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes. * Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder."
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Every word in the quoted material is true, yet the conclusion drawn is a bald face lie. More below. More below.....

The lie in this case is two-fold: which taxes are counted for the comparison and what kind of income is included in the comparison.

Who Really Pays Taxes in America?
...the richest American households pay about 30 percent less tax – which includes federal, state, and local taxes combined -- than middle-income households pay.

All they are comparing is Federal income tax payments, not local taxes, not the particularly regressive Social Security Tax, which no one who makes over stops after the first 100,000 dollars a year. The second omission of the that is that the salary income is the chief source of wealth for the 233,194,000 Americans , but NOT for the more affluent classes who are paying all these "income taxes". The basic income for the more affluent is property income. These number about 98,117,000 . The breakdown is 70% of us are dependent on salaries, and 30% of us depend in dividends, rents, royalties, [ source: Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement Of course, some of the income for the properied classes is derived form salaries, thus their inclusion in the analysis here. Let's make this analysis a little more honest. Let's base our analysis of relative tax burden on wealth. See here:

Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia
If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

Increasingly, the the straight lie about the "overtaxed" affluent classes is wearing thin:

Who Really Pays Taxes in America?
...CNN/Money Magazine poll reports that, "60% of Americans said the Bush tax cut did not personally help them.

The poll dates back to the 2004 tax cuts, but things have only gotten worse for the non-affluent over the last four years. Consumer confidence is at a all time low. Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Need I add the increasing rich-poor gap (greater than the Guilded Age), the rising unemployment (officially 5.1% , but really is higher if we stop fudging the figures)? People's life experiences are trumping the lying theoreticals . Still, the meme lives on: the "Republicans are tax cutters" . Let's look at that lie in the next posting which applies our new understandings to Texas specifically. As a tease:

What’s Really Wrong With The Property Tax 1. The State of Texas relies very heavily on local governments (school districts, cities, and counties) to generate the revenue needed to pay for public goods and services that citizens want and need. 2. Local governments rely very heavily on property taxes for revenue.
[ the actual file is a word doc, so for some reason, I can't directly link to it, you have to search at the site for the titled resource ]

More next time.....

Tags:
Location: Houston, TX 77043

Discuss
 

Reply

Default_user

- Nice article about taxes

By dog soldier on Aug 4, 2008 12:15 PM EDT

A couple of other points though...
1 - The tax rate of families making over 150K needs to be raised to the Clinton years numbers. Obama said 250K and that won't raise enough money.
2 - All executive compensation - including stock options which are currently excluded - must be taxed when the compensation is ten times the lowest paid worker.
3 - I don't agree with the windfall profits tax on big oil. Exxon's net income (after tax profit) is running from 8-10% of revenues. Shell Oil is running about 6-7% of revenue. If Microsoft did that poorly, Bill Gates would have been kicked off the island years ago. The real issue with oil company profits is the profits are used to buy back stock; not explore for oil using the existing permits. The only reasons companies buy back stock is to insulate from hostile takeover or pad executive compensation.
4 - Capital gains taxes should be left alone. However, tax breaks for companies should only be allowed for hiring new workers or buying new equipment in this country.

59t13927

- Are you asking for stock options to be double taxed?

By Denise in San Mateo County on Aug 4, 2008 12:56 PM EDT

Options, once vested and executed, are taxed at either the capital gains rate if they are bought, held for a year, and then sold or at full income tax rate if flipped in a same day trade.

Just having an option does not imply immediate income so I'm not sure where you were going with that. 

Or did you mean they should be included in payment of the corporation's tax and not the individual's tax liability?  Sorry confused here :)

Default_user

- Executive options should be a Corporate Tax liability

By dog soldier on Aug 4, 2008 3:38 PM EDT

Executive stock options should count at the corporate tax level.

Most CEOs get a  big bonus if the share price goes up.  Exxon is either fighting off a hostile takeover or giving the CEO and executive staff big bonuses.  They sure are not trying to drill for more oil.

An interesting Far Right spin is oil companies will drill more now knowing they get offshore oil later.

Without offshore oil, they supposedly don't want to eat up their supply. 

This is a crock on several fronts.

1.  The limiting factors are demand and refinery space.  The oil companies blame the environmentalists for stopping refinery construction but the real truth is demand has been mainly flat and is slowly going down.  They don't want to add more supply because the price might go down.

2.  Adding more oil into the mix would drop the price down.

-more on next post

Default_user

- continuation

By dog soldier on Aug 4, 2008 3:39 PM EDT

 

3.  Supposedly we are close to peak oil as supply has flattened out.  We may be at the apex of oil production.  Oil companies want to hang on to their future supplies.

4. The price is high now but once Pres Obama reduces tension in the ME, the price of oil could drop 40% ( the long-stated figure for the price the Iraq War has on oil pricing).

5. With an 8-10 net income percentage, there are a lot better ways to invest money.  I don't own oil stocks anymore as they don't do that well.  Most oil income comes from overseas sales and not domestic activities.  Oil companies need to keep the Iraq War going to keep the price high and steal Iraq oil to keep future supplies high and oil off the market.  I don't want to be the spokesperson for the poor oil companies except to say thay make a lot of dollars but are a poor ROI investment.

 

Default_user

- continuation

By dog soldier on Aug 4, 2008 3:40 PM EDT

If we want to be off the oil wagon, we need to be more innovative on big scales.  There are a lot of pilot programs but very few large-scale systems.

I would like to see the oil companies threatened with nationalization.  If they don't want to use their leases then maybe someone else can.

Photo_124_tinythumb

- Well, the quote may be accurate, but the material is not correct.

By Monica Smith on Aug 4, 2008 1:49 PM EDT


The U.S. Income Tax Burden: The Income Tax Burden is defined simply as who pays U.S. income taxes in the form of individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and federal excise taxes.

While it's nice to put prejudices up front and anybody can define anything any way they want, payroll taxes are not income taxes and neither are excise taxes. Indeed, while the calculation of social security payments is based on income and super high income is exempt, it's not really a tax at all. Instead it's a contribution to a retirement insurance program from which only those who live long enough benefit. Which is how insurance works. Excise taxes have nothing to do with income. They're calculated on the basis of money spent--i.e. a sales tax or transaction tax.

Equating "who pays" with a "burden" is not simple, unless you consider a slight-of-hand simple. While it's not surprising that some people, who for one reason or another think they're entitled to a free ride, consider it a burden to meet their social obligations, this assertion really negates the validity of this argument. So, I won't waste time on it further.

I should note that reloading a comment box that wasn't working out brought up a box without a tool bar and no character limit, allowing me to ramble on like this. An example of a mistake having a positive consequence.

Sharon_christmas_angel_119_tinythumb

- tax the movement of money

By Phil Specht on Aug 4, 2008 1:56 PM EDT

make a progressive equivalent of the regressive sales taxes everyone pays(even if they vary by state)

 

Default_user

- need variable rates

By dog soldier on Aug 4, 2008 3:52 PM EDT

If we have a sales tax, the poor will may more of their disposable income.

Taxing money movement is the equivilaent of a value added tax where each transformation adds a little bit.

Taxes should be rendered when money is transformed.  Moving from bank-bank does not change the ownership of money.  No exchange or transformation is made.  We exchange labor for money at work and goods for money in the market place.  Here, money is transformed. 

Charging bank transfers a tax is wrong because money is not converted.  It is still money.

The iffy part is buying future comodities especially in naked shorts.  The fed should block the marketing of securiites the seller doesn't own because it is too easy to abuse to drive one way or another.  That eould end the commodities market,  Maybe we exclude commodies or maybe we limit the amount or percentage,

Sharon_christmas_angel_119_tinythumb

- the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

By Phil Specht on Aug 4, 2008 2:00 PM EDT

the theft of the fruits of labor by capital has been going on for some time

59t13927

- Hi dog!

By Denise in San Mateo County on Aug 4, 2008 4:28 PM EDT

Thanks for clarifying your statement. I get what you are saying now (I've also had two iced lattes in the meantime).

I learned a few things from you today, too. Thanks for that.

Hpim0192_tinythumb

- re: An interesting Far Right spin is oil companies will drill more now knowing they get offshore oil later.

By Jo*in*Vermont on Aug 4, 2008 4:47 PM EDT

McCain used that lie and the one about bizness hiring more folks and improving the economy if we lower their taxes in a blurb I saw today - how'd that work the last 8 yrs, John?  no one was agreeing with him, no one was clapping.  his sos isn't working so well lately...

Add your comment

(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)

Post closed to commenting
star My DFA
star Members
star Groups
star Events
star Candidates

DFA Wireless

Blog for America

Recent Blog Posts

The Watercooler