AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
IT's not often you get attacked as a "liar" by Paul Krugman and a "clown" by a member of the UC Berkeley economics faculty on the same day, but that happened to me recently, in response to an NRO article I wrote on tax fairness. The Berkeley economist, Brad DeLong, scolded, "Everyone trying to do serious research ... finds their credibility dragged down into the gutter by this guy."
What had gotten the class-warfare crowd so worked up was my statement that no one can credibly call the Bush tax plan a "tax cut for the rich" because the rich pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have if Bush hadn't cut taxes.
My source is a study by the Treasury Department on tax shares paid by income groups. Treasury estimates that the top 1 percent will pay about 32.3 percent of all taxes this year. Treasury also estimates that absent the tax cuts, the top 1 percent would be paying only 30.5 percent of taxes, down 10 percent from 2001.
It's true that the rich paid a smaller share of their incomes in taxes in 2001, 2002, and 2003 than they did in 2000. But remember, 2000 was the year the stock-market bubble reached its peak. There were massive gains to the federal treasury in that year from taxes paid on capital-gains and stock-option income. Yet when the stock market crashed and the economy tanked, incomes of the rich plummeted and so did their tax payments.
The Left was exuberant over a recent Congressional Budget Office report concluding that the rich pay a smaller share of the tax burden under the Bush tax cuts. But there were two flaws with that analysis. First, the base year for the CBO study was 2000, the year when incomes and tax payments were anomalously high. Second, the study uses static ...
Source: HighBeam Research, The rich and taxes.