Tax cuts for the rich? Who exactly pays the most taxes?

The media are howling a collective "narrative" about how bad tax cuts are and, like a cultie preacher, first tried to convince their audiences that they really didn't want more of their own money in their own pockets.  Nosirree, they like it better in the government's.  That didn't work, so now they've moved onto the next hive argument, arguing that the tax cuts benefit primarily "the rich," something that will make everyone die of class envy.

The leftists at New York magazine have a prime example of this approach:

Two weeks ago, the Senate passed a tax-cut bill that would have delivered 62.1 percent of its benefits to the richest one percent of Americans. A slew of public opinion polls subsequently showed large majorities of the public opposing the GOP tax plan – with a USA Today/Suffolk University poll declaring it the least popular piece of major legislation in three decades. Virtually all of these surveys found that this widespread opposition was rooted in the perception that the bill would benefit the wealthy and corporations more than it would help the middle class.

Republicans listened carefully to this feedback. And during deliberations in conference committee, the GOP leadership decided to change the bill in ways that would alter the distribution of its benefits: Now, instead of giving 62 percent of its tax cuts to the one percent, the Republican tax plan gives 83 percent of its tax cuts to the … one percent.

Somewhat less shrill, Axios makes the same argument, complete with a chart.

So we're all supposed to burn with jealousy that the rich, who make more and pay more...get more.  And for that reason, we are supposed to want to give up our own tax breaks – back to the government.

Here's the problem with this appeal to class warfare.  The richest 10% pay 90% of the taxes.  They've been shelled and strip-mined for the past decade every time a Democrat wants a tax hike.  Starting with Nancy Pelosi, who took the House speakership in 2006, the plans were laid in place to spend up a storm and "pay for it" by taxing the rich.  The far left, including the genuine communists, has been pushing the "tax the rich" line since at least the 1980s and the Reagan era, in reaction to how popular those tax cuts became.  "Tax the rich," the leftists of San Francisco I used to know strategized.  They knew what they were doing, and at their apogee, President Obama used the argument – and the act – to harvest taxes from the rich again and again.

So it's no surprise that the rich would get a bigger slice at tax cut time, because they already pay more.

According to Heartland Institute free-market economist Peter Ferrara, writing in the New York Observer:

The latest federal income tax data reported by the IRS shows that the top 1 percent of income earners pay 39.5 percent of all federal income taxes, nearly twice the 20.6 percent share of national income they earn. The entire bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers pay 2.7 percent of federal income taxes, which is only a small fraction (about one fourth) of their share of national income.

The top 1 percent, indeed, pay a much bigger share of federal income taxes than the entire bottom 90 percent of income earners, who pay only 29.1 percent of federal income taxes, while earning 53 percent of national income. That means as well that the top 1 percent pay a bigger share of income taxes than the entire middle class combined, defined as the middle 20 percent of income earners.

According to the Pew Research, people making $100,000 or more pay more than 78.9% of taxes:

Now scroll back to the jeremiads of the media.  The Wall Street Journal, which is in on this as bad as anyone, dolefully reports at the middle class, those making less than $100,000 a year, will get only 23% of the tax cuts.

By implication, that leaves 77% of the rest of the tax cuts going to corporations and "the rich."

Seventy-seven percent?  That sounds suspiciously like Pew's 78.9% figure the rich pay, going on back-of-the-envelope calculations.

The larger tax cut goes because the rich pay a larger amount and proportion of taxes, a huge amount, one that dwarfs what the rest of the citizens pay, yet the tax cut appears to be quite fair and proportional.  Many assessments of what the rich pay, by the way, are far higher than the Pew figures.

So much for another junk argument from the press about why we should hate tax cuts and the economic growth that comes of them.

Tell us another one, media narrative hirelings.

The media are howling a collective "narrative" about how bad tax cuts are and, like a cultie preacher, first tried to convince their audiences that they really didn't want more of their own money in their own pockets.  Nosirree, they like it better in the government's.  That didn't work, so now they've moved onto the next hive argument, arguing that the tax cuts benefit primarily "the rich," something that will make everyone die of class envy.

The leftists at New York magazine have a prime example of this approach:

Two weeks ago, the Senate passed a tax-cut bill that would have delivered 62.1 percent of its benefits to the richest one percent of Americans. A slew of public opinion polls subsequently showed large majorities of the public opposing the GOP tax plan – with a USA Today/Suffolk University poll declaring it the least popular piece of major legislation in three decades. Virtually all of these surveys found that this widespread opposition was rooted in the perception that the bill would benefit the wealthy and corporations more than it would help the middle class.

Republicans listened carefully to this feedback. And during deliberations in conference committee, the GOP leadership decided to change the bill in ways that would alter the distribution of its benefits: Now, instead of giving 62 percent of its tax cuts to the one percent, the Republican tax plan gives 83 percent of its tax cuts to the … one percent.

Somewhat less shrill, Axios makes the same argument, complete with a chart.

So we're all supposed to burn with jealousy that the rich, who make more and pay more...get more.  And for that reason, we are supposed to want to give up our own tax breaks – back to the government.

Here's the problem with this appeal to class warfare.  The richest 10% pay 90% of the taxes.  They've been shelled and strip-mined for the past decade every time a Democrat wants a tax hike.  Starting with Nancy Pelosi, who took the House speakership in 2006, the plans were laid in place to spend up a storm and "pay for it" by taxing the rich.  The far left, including the genuine communists, has been pushing the "tax the rich" line since at least the 1980s and the Reagan era, in reaction to how popular those tax cuts became.  "Tax the rich," the leftists of San Francisco I used to know strategized.  They knew what they were doing, and at their apogee, President Obama used the argument – and the act – to harvest taxes from the rich again and again.

So it's no surprise that the rich would get a bigger slice at tax cut time, because they already pay more.

According to Heartland Institute free-market economist Peter Ferrara, writing in the New York Observer:

The latest federal income tax data reported by the IRS shows that the top 1 percent of income earners pay 39.5 percent of all federal income taxes, nearly twice the 20.6 percent share of national income they earn. The entire bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers pay 2.7 percent of federal income taxes, which is only a small fraction (about one fourth) of their share of national income.

The top 1 percent, indeed, pay a much bigger share of federal income taxes than the entire bottom 90 percent of income earners, who pay only 29.1 percent of federal income taxes, while earning 53 percent of national income. That means as well that the top 1 percent pay a bigger share of income taxes than the entire middle class combined, defined as the middle 20 percent of income earners.

According to the Pew Research, people making $100,000 or more pay more than 78.9% of taxes:

Now scroll back to the jeremiads of the media.  The Wall Street Journal, which is in on this as bad as anyone, dolefully reports at the middle class, those making less than $100,000 a year, will get only 23% of the tax cuts.

By implication, that leaves 77% of the rest of the tax cuts going to corporations and "the rich."

Seventy-seven percent?  That sounds suspiciously like Pew's 78.9% figure the rich pay, going on back-of-the-envelope calculations.

The larger tax cut goes because the rich pay a larger amount and proportion of taxes, a huge amount, one that dwarfs what the rest of the citizens pay, yet the tax cut appears to be quite fair and proportional.  Many assessments of what the rich pay, by the way, are far higher than the Pew figures.

So much for another junk argument from the press about why we should hate tax cuts and the economic growth that comes of them.

Tell us another one, media narrative hirelings.