Need help disputing right wing lies

[NJmaverick]

I have a freeper at a Giants football site that is telling everyone that the rich have been shouldering a bigger tax burden under George Bush and his tax cuts for the rich (as well as under Reagan). Can anyone help me more effectively dispute this arguement?

[Robbien]

1. If the guy really believes that then he must have his eyes and ears closed

He only listens to Rush/o'reilly.

There is nothing you could ever do or say which will make a difference to him.

[B Calm]

2. Agree with him. Tell him about this website: CEO and You

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm

[Double T]

3. This might be useful to you.................

[Lasher]

10. Gimme link.

I want to bookmark that site.

[Double T]

13. Here is the link for the chart gif.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1957.cfm

[Lasher]

14. You didn't furnish anything new

But don't bother. Your source is the Haritage Foundation. I wouldn't bookmark their site if it had a cure for cancer.

[Double T]

15. Sorry, I screwed up on the link.......it is fixed now..........

The chart comes from 'their' site But it based on data from the Office of Management and Budget, fy 2007. Also check the links listed on the 'Sources:'. Good data, good chart, bad rethuglic think tank.

[Lasher]

19. Thank you.

I know what you did the first time. You posted the .gif link for picture, which turned into the picture of the chart when posted. You remind me of me.

I figured there would be some other useful graphs there. That's why I wanted the link. Graphs are a good simple way to communicate with people who are stupid enough to be Publicans. I did notice the source data notes, which could prove useful.

But I won't be going back there soon. I thought I was going to hurl. I admire your fortitude.

[Missy M]

16. What better way is there to dispute the right winger...

than taking info off a conservative site, to prove them wrong.

[Lasher]

18. Good point but I almost lost my breakfast when I hit their site.

Amazing how many creative corruptions of the truth all that stink tank money can buy.

[maine_raptor]

4. A bit of history

Under Ike, the split between corporate income tax revenue and personal income tax revenue was something like 70%-30% (rough figures). Today it is reversed.

[Checkstub]

5. if you don't know the facts,

why do you assume you're being told lies, and why do you believe them by default?
IRS statistics could be very helpful. you don't gotta take this crap.

[fasttense]

6. The rich pay more taxes is a right wing myth based on looking at only federal taxes.

To get this pretty picture of the wealthiest paying the most in taxes you have to leave out all local and state taxes. Recently (in the last five years) the tax burden has been shifted away from the federal government to the state government. That is states are required to pay for more services with their revenues then they did five years ago. Since many states have very regressive tax systems, more of the tax burden has been shifted to lower earning people.

If you include all taxes, state, local, federal then the truth is the middle class and the poor pay most of the taxes in this country.

"At the state level, this picture is reversed. In 2002, Americans in the bottom 20% of households paid 11.4% of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the top 1% paid only 5.2% of their income in state and local taxes — less than half the rate of the poorest fifth.

In some states, such as Washington and Florida, the poorest fifth of taxpayers pay as much as 14% of their income in state and local taxes; the wealthiest 1% pays less than 3.5%."

http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTMLReports/Shifty_Tax_Cuts.html

[NJmaverick]

21. Another really good link

Thanks

[mmonk]

7. As far as percentages go, they pay less now.

In real dollars, they pay a lot because of their wealth but less of the burden comparatively in reference to their wealth. It falls in the lies, damn lies and statistics category.

[Lasher]

8. Doctor Lasher is in.

HAVE THE 2001 AND 2003 TAX CUTS MADE THE TAX CODE MORE PROGRESSIVE?

With debate beginning on the Senate budget resolution, congressional supporters of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have begun recycling old arguments for extending all of these tax cuts. Among these is the claim that the tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive.

The reality is that the tax cuts have made the tax code more regressive. A progressive tax code is one that makes the distribution of after-tax income more equal than the distribution of pre-tax income, and one tax code is “more progressive” than another if it has a larger effect in reducing income inequality. So, in order for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to have made the tax code more progressive, after-tax incomes would have to be less unequal today than if the tax cuts had not occurred. In fact, however, the reverse is true: the tax cuts made the distribution of after-tax income more unequal.

When fully in effect, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will increase the incomes of high-income households by a much larger percentage than the incomes of low- or middle-income households, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. As Figure 1 shows, the tax cuts will increase the after-tax incomes of households with annual incomes above $1 million by an average of 7.5 percent, compared to a 2.3 percent increase for households in the middle of the income spectrum and a 0.5 percent increase for the lowest-income 20 percent of households. This means that high-income households will hold a larger share of the nation’s after-tax income as a result of the tax cuts.



Claims That the Tax Cuts Were Progressive Rely on a Flawed Measure

Supporters of the tax cuts generally do not attempt to refute these facts. Instead, they frequently point to CBO data showing that high-income households paid a larger percentage of federal taxes in 2004 (after the tax cuts) than in 2000 (before the tax cuts). They claim that this shows that the tax cuts made the tax system more progressive, and they imply that it means that high-income households received disproportionately small tax cuts, or even that these households are paying more in taxes now than in earlier years. Such claims and inferences are incorrect.

The same CBO data cited by tax-cut supporters also show that high-income households are paying considerably less of their income in taxes now than before the tax cuts. In 2000, households in the top 1 percent of the income scale paid an average of 24.2 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes. By 2004 (the latest year for which data are available), that figure had fallen to 19.6 percent, the lowest level since 1986. That decline works out to a reduction in these households’ tax burden of about $58,000 per household (in 2004 terms).

http://www.cbpp.org/3-19-07tax.htm

To make a long story short, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. So much for that trickle down thing. A half truth is being employed here to distort the facts. A higher percentage of the national tax revenue comes from the wealthiest 10% for 2 reasons: They ended up with all the money and the rest of us are bankrupt thanks to Junior's assault on the middle class.

[NJmaverick]

20. Good stuff!

Thanks

[Lasher]

22. Thank you.

Know where I saw it? Here at DU of course. I had it bookmarked for just such an occasion.

Lasher

[mntleo2]

9. Idiots Will Remain Idiots

...just laugh and tell him that you hope he has a good time trying to pay for his kids' college. Much less live off that reverse mortgage and pay it all to medical costs when he gets old. Tell him to thank Bu$h who will off in paraguay with his billions.

Cat in Seattle

[KharmaTrain]

11. Tell Him The "Real" Rich Thank Him...

What are the real rich? If you have to ask, you'll never be one. Think $1 mil is rich? Not when the next guy at the clu has assets of $10 mil...and looks on you as a piker. But that's ok...he's paying the same tax rate as you are. Yep...on your $1 mil, you're paying a greater percentage of your wealth than he is...his wealth is growing faster than yours. How's that for equity.

If your buddy is making say $100k a year, he's really screwed as even more of his income is taxed than either of his two other buddies. He's paying a far greater share of his wealth than either of those guys...picking up their slack, not that of the guys making less. Fool.

Tell him that boooshie surely gave him a bigger tax burden...as when he gave his real rich friends a big tax cut, he forced the state and local governments to pick up the slack and he's probably seen a rise in his state income and local property taxes. Good chance if this moron looks, he's probably paying MORE in overall taxes not, not less.

[pretzel4gore]

12. if true, then why does mr pig love bush?

mr pig only cares about mr pig. you should tell your freeper that the best idea is for him to die asap, and truth will kick out the jams, clear away his stupidities....nothing else works for fools-even god is helpess with a fool

[ComerPerro]

17. tell him he is an idiot and that what he is saying is an absolute lie

he doesn't want to back up his claim with any kind of evidence, why should you even care?