The Corner

Why Democrats Should Support the Extension of the Bush-Era Tax Rates

Democrats always complain that the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes. Obviously, the complain misses the fact that the top ten percent pays 70 percent of the income tax collected. But I have more good news for them. They can drop their grumpy attitudes toward the extension of the Bush-era tax rates and embrace it with joy. The attitude switch won’t be so hard once they actually look at the data, since it shows that the main impact the rate reduction had in the first place was to make the rich pay an even bigger share of taxes that they paid before.

Look at these tables from the Tax Foundation. They provide some very good data about taxes paid by income levels, including the percent of federal income tax paid by each income group.

Table 6 in particular is interesting. In 2001, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 33.89 percent of all income taxes collected. In 2008, they paid 38.02 percent, down from the 2007 level of over 40 percent. The top 50 percent of filers saw their share of tax collection increase from 96.03 percent in 2001 to 97.3 percent in 2008. The bottom 50 percent of filers saw their share of the income tax burden fall from 3.91 percent to 2.7 percent.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More