This article says that the taxes of the rich have mostly stayed the
same over the last twenty years while the taxes of the middle class
have dropped considerably.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3504

mr_antone <mr_antone@> wrote

cbuse@hotmail.com (Buse) wrote:

Yep. Seems lost his veto stamp. Not his fault. Must of been the maid
that lost it.

Wasn't his legislation that was initiated. A veto doesn't necessarily
guarantee that it wouldn't have passed in the first place. And I guess
we've just skipped blaming those that propose the legislation and have
gone straight into blaming those that put a signature on it?

Bush didn't get his tax breaks for the rich passed in to law ?

This article says that the taxes of the rich have mostly stayed the
same over the last twenty years while the taxes of the middle class
have dropped considerably.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3504

-----------------------------------

Who's Paying Whose Fair Share?
by Bruce Bartlett
Posted Apr 6, 2004

Just in time for tax season, the Congressional Budget Office has
released new data on distribution of the tax burden. Contrary to
popular belief, they show that taxes on the wealthy have risen over
time and that the Bush tax cut in 2001 barely kept it from rising
further.

A convenient starting point is 1984. The Reagan tax cut was then fully
phased in (which reduced the top statutory income tax rate from 70
percent to 50 percent) and the 1983 Social Security tax increase had
already taken effect (which raised the OASI tax rate from a combined
9.5 percent to 10.4 percent). In that year, those in the bottom
quintile (20 percent of households) paid an average federal tax rate
(individual, payroll, corporate and excise) of 10.2 percent.

Those in the top quintile paid 24.5 percent, the top 10 percent paid
25.2 percent, the top 5 percent paid 26.1 percent, and the top 1
percent paid 28.2 percent. Thus, those at the top paid about two and a
half times more than those at the bottom.

Fast forward to 2001 (latest year in the CBO study). The top statutory
income tax rate has fallen to 39.1 percent and the total payroll tax
rate has risen from 14 percent to 15.3 percent. If one knew these
figures in 1984, almost all economists would have projected a sharp
decline in taxes paid by the rich and an increase in those paid by the
poor.

In fact, the data show that those in the bottom quintile are only
paying about half what they did 20 years ago: 5.4 percent. This is
down from 6.4 percent just the year before, owing to the Bush tax cut.

Those in the top quintile did pay a little less in 2001 than they did
in 2000: 26.8 percent versus 28 percent. But this is still well above
the average tax rate they paid in 1984. Interestingly, those at the
very top saw virtually no cut at all, even though liberals constantly
say that they got the lion's share of the 2001 tax cut. Between 2000
and 2001, those in the top 10 percent of households saw a drop from
29.7 percent to 28.6 percent and those in the top 5 percent saw a
decline from 31.1 percent to 30.1, but those in the top 1 percent saw
their effective tax rate virtually unchanged: 33.2 percent versus 33
percent.

All of those in the middle 3 quintiles paid less in 2001 than they
paid in 1984. In other words, between 1984 and 2001 average tax rates
for the wealthy substantially increased, while at least 80 percent of
households paid considerably less. Progressivity rose as the wealthy
now pay about 6 times more than the poor.

Looking at the share of taxes paid shows a similar pattern. From 1984
to 2001, those in the bottom quintile reduced their share of the total
tax burden from 2.4 percent to 1.1 percent. Those in the top quintile
saw their share rise from 55.6 percent to 65.3 percent. Among the
ultra wealthy, the top 10 percent increased their share from 39.3
percent to 50 percent, the top 5 percent raised their share from 28.2
percent to 38.5 percent, and that of those in the top 1 percent went
up from 14.7 percent to 22.7 percent.

In short, the poor paid half as much of the federal tax burden in 2001
as they did in 1984, while the rich paid about 50 percent more. Those
in the middle paid about a third less.

One would think that those on the left would be happy about this
trend. Instead, they constantly demagogue the wealthy as deadbeats
unwilling to bear their "fair share" of the tax burden, and berate the
Bush tax cuts for having "slashed" taxes for the wealthy while the
rest of us pay more. As is so often the case, the truth is exactly the
opposite of that portrayed in the liberal worldview.

Unfortunately, all taxpayers pay a price for the steeply graduated tax
system that has evolved. A new study by economists Steven Cassou and
Kevin Lansing shows that a flat rate tax would add significantly to
economic growth. Published in the April issue of Economic Inquiry, it
concludes that real per capita gross domestic product might rise by
0.143 percentage points per year. This may not sound like much, but
it's the difference between doubling in 33 years instead of 36 years.

The Cassou-Lansing study found that flattening the marginal tax rate
schedule causes most of the economic gains, which explains why tax
burdens on the rich rose as their statutory rates fell. Raising
statutory rates on the rich, as John Kerry proposes, likely would
reverse this trend, causing taxes on the poor and middle class to
rise.

Mr. Bartlett is a nationally syndicated columnist and a senior fellow
with the National Center for Policy Analysis.