Tax Rates For America’s Wealthiest Fell In 2010: Where Are The Jobs!

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Think Progress


With debate in Washington focused on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, new data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that the effective tax rates for America’s top earners fell even lower in 2010.

The average effective tax rate fell for all income groups above $500,000, continuing a drop that has occurred for years. For incomes above $10 million, the average rate fell from 22.4 percent in 2009 to 20.7 percent in 2010. The reason for the continual drop is clear: the 2003 high-income Bush tax cuts lowered the rate on investment income, and wealthy Americans are deriving more income from investments than they ever have, the Wall Street Journal reports:
The reason for the drop in average tax rates is no secret: It’s the special 15% top rates for capital gains and dividends that President George W. Bush pushed through. In 2009, taxpayers with incomes exceeding $10 million reported 35.8% of their income as capital gains and dividends. That rose to 48.5% for 2010.
Low capital gains rates have helped the wealthy pay lower and lower tax rates even as their incomes have skyrocketed. And while capital gains income makes up almost half of the incomes of the wealthiest Americans, it accounts for 2.2 percent or less for earners under $200,000. Half of all capital gains income goes to just to the richest 0.1 percent of Americans.

The capital gains rate has been steadily eroded since President Ronald Reagan taxed such income equal to wages in the 1980s, and the result has been rising income inequality. A January 2012 study found that low capital gains rates were the biggest driver of American income inequality, which now rivals the levels seen in countries like Ivory Coast and Pakistan. In 2010, the capital gains preference helped the richest 1 percent capture 93 percent of all income gains.
 
Didn't Cruise and Lamarr spend the last week before the election explaining how the jobs report was shady and it wasn't an accurate picture on hiring?
 
Didn't Cruise and Lamarr spend the last week before the election explaining how the jobs report was shady and it wasn't an accurate picture on hiring?

Which thread (citation please) are you referring to; so that I can read the explanations that you're co-signing.


`
 
I'm not cosigning the reasoning, but the acknowledgment, by Cruise and Lamarr, that the glittering jobs report wasn't gold is accurate.

And I don't remember the specific thread, I wasn't a contributor in it.
 
I'm not cosigning the reasoning, but the acknowledgment by Cruise and Lamarr that the glittering jobs report wasn't gold is real.

And I don't remember the specific thread, I wasn't a contributor in it.


HA! Reality is stranger than truth!
 
Didn't Cruise and Lamarr spend the last week before the election explaining how the jobs report was shady and it wasn't an accurate picture on hiring?

Yeah but they were wrong. Their reasoning (and they were not saying the same thing) was faulty and the only way they made sense was battling strawmen of their own making.
 
Yeah but they were wrong. Their reasoning (and they were not saying the same thing) was faulty and the only way they made sense was battling strawmen of their own making.
So what about the reasoning of the people those two were arguing with in that thread? Were they accurate?
 
Were they not ???
I think thoughtone proved they were wrong in the original post of this thread.

The report is not proof of anything of substance.

The report just happen to come out the Friday before the election, which is all it took for people to take a side.

Which is also why I didn't want to take part in the thread.
 
Nevermind. I was trying to follow your comments but I don't think that I should have to review every thread/comment over the past couple of months to do so.
 
Nevermind. I was trying to follow your comments but I don't think that I should have to review every thread/comment over the past couple of months to do so.
It wasn't a couple of months. The report is always the first Friday of the month. The thread has to be between that Friday and election Tuesday.

If you really think seeing the thread is important, it can't be that many to review in that timeframe on this board.
 
So what about the reasoning of the people those two were arguing with in that thread? Were they accurate?

Being one of them what do you expect me to say "No, I was completely off the rails and was just talking out of my ass." Since I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong, I'll take it as a compliment that you would ask.
They were just throwing out accusations with nothing to back it up.
 
Being one of them what do you expect me to say "No, I was completely off the rails and was just talking out of my ass." Since I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong, I'll take it as a compliment that you would ask.
They were just throwing out accusations with nothing to back it up.
I take it for granted that you would say you were wrong if you think you were wrong.

thoughtone would take that shit to his grave.

Lamarr and Cruise offered accusations, but they also offered some structural critiques regarding the nature of the reports which were also in dispute. I don't think what they said had less behind it than anyone else's post.

I gave my initial comment in this thread to point out how the OP really doesn't believe there was significant job growth in the country. He just drew sides.
 
I take it for granted that you would say you were wrong if you think you were wrong.


As I said, I take it as a compliment.:D

thoughtone would take that shit to his grave.

Lamarr and Cruise offered accusations, but they also offered some structural critiques regarding the nature of the reports which were also in dispute. I don't think what they said had less behind it than anyone else's post.

I gave my initial comment in this thread to point out how the OP really doesn't believe there was significant job growth in the country. He just drew sides.

They didn't offer anything substantive. They never could answer whether the things they challenged were taken into account when the numbers were bad.
To put it another way, they never explained where they thought the BLS had suddenly changed the way they came up with the numbers and even when explained in detail how they came up with the numbers, how past revisions helped, and even that it wasn't the biggest drop in the last year, they just stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "LAH, LAH, LAH!".
 
As I said, I take it as a compliment.:D



They didn't offer anything substantive. They never could answer whether the things they challenged were taken into account when the numbers were bad.
To put it another way, they never explained where they thought the BLS had suddenly changed the way they came up with the numbers and even when explained in detail how they came up with the numbers, how past revisions helped, and even that it wasn't the biggest drop in the last year, they just stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "LAH, LAH, LAH!".

They didn't offer anything substantive. They never could answer whether the things they challenged were taken into account when the numbers were bad.


The Five Stages of Grief

1. Denial

2. Anger

3. Bargaining

4. Depression

5. Acceptance
 
Back
Top