Pawlenty to Bush: See You and Raise You!

June 15th, 2011 at 11:45 am

You think the Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the wealthy?  Well, get a load of this blog by my CBPP colleague Chuck Marr re the proposed Pawlenty cuts.

“Specifically, in 2013 the Pawlenty plan would give people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent on the income scale (i.e., people with incomes above $2.7 million) an average annual tax cut of $1.8 million — which is more than four times what they got last year from the Bush tax cuts.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 comments in reply to "Pawlenty to Bush: See You and Raise You!"

  1. Tyler says:

    Pawlenty is just another Republican trying to cut away at our progressive tax system.

    Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776: “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

  2. Chigliakus says:

    Where’s the populist outrage?

    • comma1 says:

      It’s right there in those numbers. With the current slate of DINO’s in the Whitehouse, that graph is sure to be reality soon. You know what else that graph represents, a breaking point. The state of economics in america, if not already broken, is near breaking. As Colin Powell said, once you brake it, you own it.

  3. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Well, okay.
    I see the red lines wayyyy outpace the blue lines.

    But what I don’t get from this graph is how teensy-tinsy that whole 1/10th of 1% of the population is.

    I suppose that if I had 100 dots (1 per 1/100th) that would be a start.

    I would have to multiply by ten to get the 1/10th of 100.
    So then, I’d have 1000 dots.

    So one dot in 1,000 would get… welll…. let’s just say this graph would be more helpful for me if that ONE single dot was calculated in size relative to those other 999 dots.

    Then, I might have a better grasp of why Pawlenty’s so-called economics are knuckleheaded. Plus, I wouldn’t have to think too hard nor take 5 minutes to do the math and get a rough guestimate.

  4. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    I really am not enjoying making myself obnoxious on JB’s very nice blog, but just to better clarify:

    Visually, when I look at those lines, it makes it ‘seem like’ the lowest quintile contains ‘about the same amount of people’ as the top 1%. After all, those are equally sized bars there.

    I realize that the point of this chart was to show the relative Bush-Pawlenty lucre heading to the stratosphere of the uberust amongst us, but still… that’s kind of visually misleading.

    Note also there is no real visual distinction **in terms of population, in terms of ‘numbers of human critters’** between the second quintile, or the top quintile or the top 1% or the top .1 percent.

    We kind of ‘appear’ to all be equal. Population densities are all smooshed together, and therefore these do not really appear to be meaningful.

    If I saw 1000 dots, and a few (like, ten of them for the top 1%) were about 20 times the diameter of all the rest, then I might get a clue.

    Then measure the diameters of that .1% and wheeee!! The areas covered by those dots would really be even more revealing AND also you could have a better sense of the population distribution underlying that data.

    You could even do a two-color graph of the dot concept; have the blue at as one layer atop the red ‘Pawlenty’ layer.

    Perhaps we might then all begin to grasp the relationships more accurately, rapidly, and cogently.

    • Michael says:

      Yeah, well, we all know that cogent communication is sadly not on the Obama Administration’s radar. 🙁

  5. dsttexas says:

    I don’t agree with lessening the progressive taxes we have now, and think perhaps we need 1 or 2 more brackets on the high end to account for the increase in wealth and earnings of the top earners over the past 10 years or so. Here’s some more data (I think it’s from 2008)

    Top % of wage earners Paid this per cent of total taxes rec’d
    .1% 20%
    1% 37%
    10% 68%
    25% 85%
    50% 97%
    And the bottom 47% paid zero taxes. So that’s pretty progressive by any standard, and has been for some time. The problem is the current tax rates don’t keep up with the shift in income from middle income to very high income. A couple more tax brackets could help fix that. Pawlenty’s overall cuts are ridiculous.

  6. Auros says:

    Is Pawlenty actually giving the rich refundable credits? I thought at the current (Bush) rates, the ultra-rich were already paying less than 35% overall, with the very wealthiest paying barely more than the capital gains / dividends rate of 15% (since almost all of their income comes in that form).