Bush's Regressive Tax Policy - Latest Numbers
[Click the post title the link from CTJ][Update 07/26/05: adding this link to the methodology for the tax base model used by CTJ to generate these numbers]
Latest data shows the same, fiscally irresponsible trend from the so-called Bush tax relief policies - that the rich get richer and the poor get almost nothing. For 2005:
67.5% of cuts to top 20%
Update #2 07/26/05: What the NYT says about this tax model:
"In all of Washington, there are three computer models built to produce what are called distributional tables--showing how any particular tax increase or tax cut would be distributed among various income levels. One model is the Treasury Department, one is at Congress's Joint Tax Committee and one is at Citizens for Tax Justice... whose numbers are completely reliable."
--The New York Times, Sunday, March 4, 2001, (referring to the ITEP model as the source of CTJ analyses)
posted by jimboses @ 1:26 PM
3 Comments:
First, thanks for being the first person that I dont already know to visit and leave a post - thanks! Except for that Worcesterite on a recent Neil Diamond post...now, back to the post -
Our society is hardly upwardly mobile. That phrase is fundamentally flawed. We're mobile, sure, but lateral mostly, and a little downward usually. It takes a long time to move up, and it's damn easy to move down.
Your flawed assumption aside, you aparently did not look at the original pdf. If you look at the year to year data from the original pdf, this is a projection based on tax and income averages. This is a one year look at 2005 assuming the sunset clauses in all the tax slashes do take effect - but for 2005, they do not.
And it's totally fine to say that people can jump - I still say people do not radically jump from Wal-Mart level salary (bottom 20%) to top 15% in a span of 10 years - or any years. Again, however, this is a single year look at 2005 so the arguement from both of us is moot. I am also an example of someone that has gone into higher brackets over time. Getting married helps out an awful lot, tho. Talk about 'combinations' - two salaries and you pay as one. I will agree with you on that.
And when you start out with a middle class upbringing and are able to afford a solid education it helps a lot to START in the middle.
If you have links to the IRS studies or something to that nature, I'd like to look it over and look at the data they're using to make that arguement.
Also, this 2005 projection study does not parse out between 'tax bracket' as the IRS defines things and this study, which looks at population v. income. So, the whole thing could be apples and oranges.
You're straight up Steve-o. Even with the entire arguement being irrelevant to the 2005 number projections - since they're a one year look and not a person-by-person look, if you will.
Still, fundamentally I believe in a progressive tax structure and not a regressive one. Simple as that. Others, like our current president, believe falsely in the supply side / trickle down theory - which we all know from Reaganomics is bunk - look at the revelations of David Stockman after he left the Reagan administration.
Post a Comment
<< Home