In this morning's column, Bruce Bartlett explains the lack of knowledge amongst members of the New York Times editorial board of taxation in this country. Teresa Tritch mentions in an editorial about taxation that "[A]ny reduction in tax rates, especially on saving and investment, has nothing to do with raising growth, but is nothing but a give-away to the ultra-wealthy."
Alright, it's a good thing she's so well-qualified in the field of economics to explain this to us simple folk. I mean she DOES hold degrees in German and journalism, so obviously that means she has extensive experience in the field of economics. She would have to be an expert to know so much about the American tax system.
Oh, excuse the sarcasm, I sometimes get carried away. As you can see in Mr. Bartlett's column, Tritch's claim is so off base one must wonder if she did any research for her column. Then again, to get a job at the New York Times, conducting quality research isn't really a job requirement, but contempt for conservatism certainly is.
Nevertheless, with a little research maybe the statistic showing how the bottom half of taxpayers account for only 3.5% of tax revenue would have been unearthed. Or even further research would have shown that Britain's lower half tax bracket accounts for 11%. Where's the criticism of their tax system? It's lost in the blind hatred of American conservatism. The truth is that were it not for President Bush's fiscal conservatism with regards to taxation, America's poor would be much worse off and then liberals would have yet another thing to complain about.
A nice closing statistic is this: the 3.5% of tax revenue taken from the bottom half of American taxpayers equates to a meager 2.9% average tax rate. However, those in the highest of the high tax brackets, the top 10% of the top 1%, earned only 7.6% of the national income but paid dearly with an average tax rate of 23.6%. This means that the richest 129,000 Americans paid four times more in taxes than the poorest 64 million combined! Hardly what I would call a "give-away to the wealthy." Actually, I would call it a "give-away to the poor" since much of the revenue gained from these individuals goes to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which are perenially guaranteed sources of income to those 64 million "disadvantaged" Americans.