MattM

Sound familiar, WorldTraveler? Still ROFLMFAO all these hours later....

So, I take it you've got nothing, then, considering my question to you was pretty specific? Best I could tell, you seemed to be directing me back to a 290 page text (that one needs to buy to get in usable form, BTW) and asked me to do your homework for you, as that was apparently what you were relying on to make your argument yet you can't direct me to any specific part that makes your fairly concise point? Typical--just keep changing the subject and making smart aleck remarks when you're stumped or come to the end of your logic line. The "sunshine" part is especially cute. ROFLMFAO, as the kids say.....

"I know you are, but what am I?". What a juvenile response. I'm also still waiting for an answer as to why I was wrong on granularity in the tax thread....

My buddy considered the rollover idea, but still wasn't sure how you could get so much money into a tax deferred account without gaming the system somehow (at least on initial valuation). BTW, my tax friend is not particularly political, but merely a tax wonk.....

Once again when faced with an unpleasant truth you simply change the subject. That dog really don't hunt. On the leak point, it's kind of rich that one of Romney's chief campaigners pushing that point, Eric Edelman, was himself implicated in the Valerie Plame outing--remember that? How's that for hypocrisy?

I was talking socially to a tax partner at a big NY law firm last week and he was wondering the same thing....

Exactly--like one in about ten to boot.....

Where, as what you linked was quite voluminous? The OECD report stopped at deciles, for ex. And many thanks for the change in tone!

I've taken a look at the stuff you cited above and before I address it, must note that it really doesn't address the point I originally made and that you responded to, which is that there's been no better time to be rich in recent American history (as measured in decades) from a tax perspective. Nothing you cited here goes to that at all, as best I can tell. Instead you focus on either comparative progressivity or how much of the total the rich pay. In fact, in the Frank piece, Robert Frank acknowledges that taxes for the rich have never been lower. That said, here goes: 1. The argument in Crook's piece (which links on a study using deciles and a confusing, imperfect cross-country comparison to begin with) isn't granular enough as he himself acknowledges: "What happens to tax progressivity at the very top of the US income distribution--inside the top one percent, or 0.1 or 0.01 percent? Good question. When it comes to international comparisons, I don't know of any good answers. But note that the US isn't the only country to tax capital at preferential rates." The article I quoted from the LA times yesterday shows what happens up the income scale in the US--overall rates go down to 19.9% at the very top (top 400 returns). Others I believe have shown the same thing with less granularity than the Top 400, again all largely due to capital gains treatment. I was curious to see cap gains rates across jurisdictions, so I checked Wikipedia among other sources--looked to me like the US rate is fairly low, particularly for developed democracies. On ordinary income, from personal experience I know that many jurisdictions have much higher top marginal rates than the US, so I'm not too sure how this study worked, although the unfortunately named Mr. Crook hinted at it in his article--the low rates of income tax paid by folks down the income scale in the US. This is all consistent with what I wrote way above--we have progressivity until the very top. This also noted by Hacker & Pierson in their book, which I also noted above. To quote them at more length: "The federal tax code is still progressive overall. But what used to be a key feature of the code--its steep progressivity at the very top income levels--has simply disappeared. The richest of the rich now pay about the same overall rate as those who are merely rich. Indeed, though figure one doesn't show this, the uppoer middles class--families in the top 10 or 20%--are paying an avg. federal tax rate not much lower than that paid by the superrich." [Personally, I'd argue they pay more based on the LA Times article.] This is a pattern we will see again and again: dramatic benefits for the rich that are so precisely targeted that they are only visible when we put that tiny slice of Americans [you know, those guys starting the Super PACS, but they're just doing that out of the goodness of their hearts, right?] under our economic microscope. It is as if the govt had developed the economic policy equivalent of smart bombs, except these bombs carry payloads of cash for their carefully selected recipients." 2. On the Frank article, Frank also acknowledges that tax rates paid by the rich are at an all-time low as noted above, which actually supports my original point. (FYI, before he got his CNBC gig I used to see him at the gym at lunchtime--without talking much to him he seems like a good guy--he at least lets you work in and share weight equipment!) 3. I'm steering clear of your last link, since that's taking us further afield of my original points, and I only have so much time to waste today. As I've argued with conservative friends on these points (who usually point to the facts re: how much of the income tax liabilities the rich pay as a total percentage), both sets of facts can be "right" on some of these points--i.e., the wealthy's rates can be at all time lows and due to shifts elsewhere in the Code they can also pay large percentages of the total income tax. BTW, WT, what is your interest in the Bills, as you seem to have shown up recently and basically simply post in PPP, which I usually avoid like the plague because it ends up in long threads like this one which don't solve anything or change anyone's mind.....

Many thanks for the legwork. I'll take a look and come back with my thoughts when I have a chance (ie, after work).... name='WorldTraveller' timestamp='1343051748' post='2510812'] Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.) http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/ http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us. A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false. Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period. That may sound like a minor haircut for One Percenters compared to people who lost their jobs. But when you take into account federal transfers, assistance and taxes paid, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent. In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession. Change in after-income tax (2007-2009) The result of this big drop at the top was that their share of the country's total income also fell. In 2007, the top one percent earned 16.7 percent of all after-tax income. In 2009, that portion fell to 11.5 percent. Inequality, in other words, fell during those years. We are now in an age of High-Beta Wealth, where the incomes of the One Percent have become far more manic and prone to wild drops than the rest of the country. And taxes paid? Despite the oft-repeated fact that tax rates for the wealthy are at an all-time low (which is true), it’s also true that the actual amount paid in taxes by the wealthy is higher than before the recession. The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average. So the rich lost more income and paid more of their money in taxes than the rest of the population. This is not an argument against taxing the wealthy. And the incomes and tax rates of the wealthy may have jumped back since 2009, with the rebound in financial markets. But when politicians and pundits talk about the rich just getting richer and paying less taxes, they need to pay closer attention to the actual numbers. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611 Size Matters - Why "Just" Taxing 3% of Small Businesses is Misleading July 12, 2012 By Ed Gerrish President Obama has recently called for letting the Bush tax cuts expire on families more than $250,000 a year (and individuals making over $200,000). This tax increase will affect many businesses that file under the personal income tax code rather than as C corporations – what are known as “pass-through” businesses because the profits pass through to the owners. This is small potatoes, he claims, because the tax hike will only impact 3% of these individually owned businesses, which includes businesses that file as S-corporations and partnerships. How many businesses that will face higher taxes is not the economically meaningful statistic here. What is meaningful is (1) how many people earning over $200,000 have business income and (2) how much business income will be taxed at a higher rate. While S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 [1] a year may represent a small percent of all personal income tax returns – just 1.2% in 2010 according to the IRS, they represent nearly 5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) in the U.S. More importantly, S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 a year represented more than 97% of all income earned by these entities in 2010 due to net business losses at lower income levels. This not only means that most of the positive net income from S-corporations and partnerships will face higher tax rates, it ultimately means that the most successful S-corporations and partnerships in the U.S. will see a tax hike. This is important both because there are four times as many S-corporations and partnerships than traditional C-corporations (as of 2008), and S-corporations and partnerships earned 26% more taxable net income in the US than C-corporations – 1.4 trillion to 1.1 trillion. [2] The latest IRS state data on S-corporations and partnership income and returns also demonstrates that some states will be hit harder by these new taxes than others. D.C., Connecticut, and New York, for instance, all receive more than 6.4% of their total state’s adjusted gross income from in S corporations and partnerships; allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would disproportionally draw more tax dollars from these states than others (even accounting for population). http://taxfoundation.org/blog/ In short, that 3% number reflects the total number of small businesses, not the total % of revenues. If you include the total number of revenues from that 3%, you are talking about well over half the revenues generated from small businesses. Of course, I don't expect you guys to loony leftists to understand this because you are spoon fed distorted numbers from MSNBC, The Obama administration and leftist media organizations. The facts are that this 3% number is misleading at best and doesn't truly reflect the scope of of the net of this tax policy on small businesses. Also, that we do indeed have the most progressive tax code in the world according to the OECD, and that the rich are even paying more in taxes now than then they were before the economic downturn. Those are facts. There it is, facts are facts, and you lose. Oh, and while you loony leftists have been obsessing over his tax returns, and the vast outspending from the Obama administration on this issues and the media giving mitt horrible coverage over the past two weeks, the polls have tightened. So much for your school of thought. lol

Of course, that's why I posted the long-term capital gains historical rate chart way up above, which shows that the capital gains rate was higher during the last period of high economic growth. Can we cut the condescending tone here for folks who may not share your views, please? I've got degrees from two Ivy League schools with honors and have worked in finance/investment for 20 years, ok, so no need to "go slow". In fact, I think it's kind of funny that I tend to cite/link to things like actual historical numbers or academic studies, but as usual only tend to get back regurgitated Fox News talking points....

No, it's defined as paying the taxes you owe. What will naturally occur from all of this, however, when we see the very low rate a very rich man pays is a discussion on the fairness of that. It may open the eyes of some folks who don't currently understand how the system is gained to benefit the very rich. As the article I originally posted shows we have a progressive tax system--until you get to the very top. Folks need to ask themselves why is that? Personally, I think it's because the very rich have captured the legislative process/govt over the last 30 years or so and have reaped those rewards in the form of lower taxes. Read Hacker and Pierson's "Winner-Take-All Politics" for more details--they lay it all out in a pretty good and accessible way for those who have an interest.....

Ask Mitt's father, who released 12 years' worth when he ran and made a big point of doing so. This has to be killing his son, who apparently idolized his dad, like many sons do. Candidates for high office typically release their tax returns as part of the public vetting process. It shows (a) whether they're being honest about their financial matters and their reporting of same and (b) what their business interests are for things like conflicts of interest. Mitt doesn't want to for some reason, which we can only guess at. There could be any number of embarrassing things there, from aggressive, complex tax positions (or outright "over the line" positions, but I personally doubt that), to using legal tricks to pay a much lower rate than most Americans who don't have such tricks (such as using carried interest to convert ordinary wage income into capital gains that get taxed at only 15%) at their disposal, to investing in companies that engage in business practices that go against Mitt's public campaign persona (like outsourcing firms). As noted above, all of this is even more important when the candidate makes his campaign bones on his business experience. Well, alright then, let's see what he's got under his own hood seems mighty reasonable to me and most reasonably objective independents in that case. My argument on the when no one is looking point has to do with how aggressive he was in his taxes before he knew he was running for President. If they're full of problems or aggressive positions, well then, you have a pretty good window into how civic or patriotic the guy really is, that is unless you somehow think it's patriotic to cheat on your taxes....

Then he'll suffer the consequences at the polls--his call. If he doesn't release them people will suspect the worst (and probably be right.). Despite your true believer's view here, this is not a winner for him. PS Still waiting for my education on tax principles from your learned hands that you promised above.

I'll be there. Looking for tix on Stubhub today. Can't wait to head West to watch the Bills....

I'll be there with my wife and kids and a neighbor here with his wife and son, so that's plus 7 in the Bills rooters' column....

But you'd never see that in a tax return, even were it true. It would just show capital gains. It's not like there's a box labeled "illicit proceeds of crime" on one's tax form. Don't kid yourself that Mitt's taxes are a dead issue==that's not going away any time soon. As noted above, it's a loser for Romney no matter what at this point. Let's assume that it's crystal clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong at all with his returns when he releases them--no tax haven accounts, no "carried interest" (we know that there will be some of that), no confusing artifices used to lower his taxes, etc. In that case, he just looks dumb for not releasing them earlier to quiet all this down. He gains little to nothing by that. Obama may look dumb for pressing the issue, but not in a way that will cost him many votes or swing many to Mitt. If, on the other hand, as many suspect (me included), his returns show either any or all of the above problems or even without them, show instead a ridiculously low rate (as noted above, that's my theory) for reasons that aren't easily explainable to the average American, then he's a big loser in all of this, as is the Republican brand both on the substance of the debate we'll then all have on tax fairness and progressivity in the tax code and how that's gamed by them's that's gots and also for nominating someone who wasn't really fully vetted. As noted above, were that to break badly that could really damage other Republicans, too, and have "negative coattails" so to speak. DC Tom, thanks for the appreciation, but I do think his tax returns are relevant, particularly as his claim to competence is mainly resting on his business acumen and background, and he should show them going back a reasonable amount of time. To my mind, that's to some point before he knew he was going into politics if you want to see what kind of a man he really is. I'm a believer in the old chestnut that doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when you think no one's looking. That would give Mitt the chance to show what his taxes were like before he knew he'd be sharing them with the world by going into political office. I'm certainly not alone in this, as many prominent Republicans have said the same thing that he should release his returns, for political or ethical reasons.

I'll be waiting for it. What's to refute? What I posted are all facts--percentages paid or highest marginal rates. As you can see, our tax code is actually not all that progressive when the folks at the very top pay a much lower percentage than, for ex., Bain capital's cleaning lady when you count it all up (in normal years, for ex., she and her employer pay about 12.5% into SSI alone, I believe). And I understand, Rob, about capital gains vs. ordinary income, believe me. And while I understand some of the policy reasons behind that difference, and agree with it to some extent, I don't think it would kill the rich to pay closer to 20%, as would happen should we hit the fiscal cliff. That's why I posted the capital gains rate chart, too. PS to WT--I pay in taxes multiples of what the average family makes in a year (and that's after starting out a blue collar kid who grew up in a 1400 square foot house without a shower), so please don't lecture me on hypocrisy, 0K? Some of us simply don't forget where we came from even if it's to our benefit or convenience. I'll discuss this like adults and treat you with respect when you do the same instead of going all wingnut, ok? PSS This tax policy, particularly over the last 30 years or so might also explain things like this, the recent Pew study on economic mobility across generations: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf Notice how both income and wealth have skewed towards the upper income quintile over that period? Personally, I found Figure 7 on page 11 particularly sad, since when you do the math you realize that a kid growing up in the bottom quintile (like lots of the folks I grew up with) have about 1/11th the chance of making it into the top quintile as adults as compared to the kids born there. Basically upper middle class kids are 11 times (that's TIMES, not percent) more likely to stay that way than a poor kid is to make it up the income scale. I'd wager personally that it's even worse the more granular you go up the scale (for ex., I'd say that the folks who start in the top 1% and make it back there as adults is higher than 11% of the top 1%--that's based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from knowing the class/social backgrounds of the folks my wife and I went to school with and the people I've worked with). Is that the America we want to have? I say no and a fairer tax policy is a way to help prevent this kind of "permanent inequality." We are at the stage/tipping point of turning into a society with a permanent, immutable underclass and that is good for no one, rich or poor, even if some of the rich are too short-sighted to see that. I'll take the bait. Why? Personally, my best guess is that he paid 10% or less in at least some of the years we haven't seen and that's why we won't see them unless they're leaked. While he may have done nothing illegal (or even too aggressive), the simple fact of the rate itself would lead to a discussion that Republicans will not want to have on taxes and fairness. This is really a no win situation for Mitt and them. If they get leaked/release and I'm correct on the rate prediction (which I base on the fact that he paid 14% in years he knew he'd need to release when he knew he was running for President) and it breaks the wrong way with the public, despite all of Obama's problems, the race could be over by August....

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/06/business/la-fi-mo-taxes-400-20120606 Here's some information on the rate paid by the Top 400 taxpayers. The Top 400 pay less as a percentage than most of us, I'd wager. I know they pay a lower percentage of their income than I do. Here are the historical rates paid in the highest brackets: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161 Toss in the situation with the estate tax and it looks to me like it's never been a better time to be rich from a tax perspective, yet they want more tax cuts and they certainly don't want any increases, all while pounding the table on the deficit. And what amazes me even more than that chutzpah is that there are many on the right of modest means who don't seem to understand this (you mock the uninformed on the left, but believe me, there are just as many if not more on the right) and who support the wealthy's drive to lower their own taxes without understanding that the cuts to pay for that will come out of their own benefits. It's almost gotten to the point where I'm sick of arguing that with them about that.....

I was at that game and I honestly thought Bruce might have actually killed him. You could hear the pop of the impact in the upper deck like a gunshot....

In addition, I thought I'd read somewhere that Mankins also may be on PUP to start the season due to his SB injury and Brian Waters, their other guard who's 35 or so, hasn't made up his mind as to whether he'll be back. If that's the case, combined with the Light retirement, you could be looking at a very different O-line this year. As we all know, O-lines can take some time to jell, so what was always a Pats* strength could turn into a weakness. If their line does indeed stink this year, even with Brady, I don't see how they win more than 10 games this season.....

To paraphrase our hometown boy, Rick James, HGH is a heckuva drug! Looks like the Pats* are just going back to old training methods.....

That's a high class problem I wouldn't mind us having....

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who'd be doing a Dick Vermeil impersonation--"cry" was honestly the first thing that came to my mind on seeing this question....

The whole thing seems pretty pathetic to me. A not really all that attractive blond wannabe actress ditz is the best Bob Kraft can do less than a year since the passing of his wife (who by all accounts was a good woman)? I hate the Cheats* as much as the next Bills fan, but I actually felt sorry for Mr. K last year. Now--not so much....