Taxing Questions

Greg Mankiw links this report based on Congressional Budget Office data. Here are my own charts created from the data:

The 2005 total effective federal tax rate as a percentage of the 1979 rate:

• Top Quintile = 92.7%
• Fourth Quintile = 82.1%
• Middle Quintile = 76.3%
• Second Quintile = 69.2%
• Bottom Quintile = 53.8%

The effects of the Bush Tax Cuts ? The 2005 total effective federal tax rate as a percentage of the 2000 rate.

• Top Quintile = 91.1%
• Fourth Quintile = 84.9%
• Middle Quintile = 85.5%
• Second Quintile = 76.2%
• Bottom Quintile = 67.2%

As repeatedly noted, the cuts cut a greater percentage for the bottom quintile than for the top. (32.8% vs. 8.9%) Even more interesting is the total effective federal tax rate for households with children:

The 2005 total effective federal tax rate as a percentage of the 1979 rate:

• Top Quintile = 101.2%
• Fourth Quintile = 85.0%
• Middle Quintile = 76.8%
• Second Quintile = 60.1%
• Bottom Quintile = 14.3%

As I showed in a post last month, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of federal income taxes. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 86% of income taxes.

Finally, keep in mind the New York Times article two weeks a ago that pointed out that while the bottom quintile has $9,974 in income per household a year it spends $18,153. That means non-cash assistance (as well draws on savings in the case of retired or unemployed payers) nearly doubles the actual income of the bottom quintile.

Rather than populist outcry over "tax cuts for the wealthy," maybe we need to look at the whole package of consequences that come from tax policy. Is the final objective really to have all taxes paid by the top 1% of society?

Comments

[Keith Schooley]

I find statistics like, "The top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of federal income taxes," incredibly misleading. It's a comparison of percentage of population with percentage of contribution, with the hidden assumption that everyone is more or less able to contribute.

The real comparison is proportion of contribution with proportion of assets controlled by a particular segment of the population. The top 1% control far more than 1% of assets.

With regard to your final question, when US income taxes were first implemented, the top 1% did in fact pay all income taxes collected.

[Michael W. Kruse]

It is true that taxes were originally paid by the top 1% when the government was far smaller. Isn’t it better for most folks to have some financial stake in the political policies and programs the support?

These stats are incomplete but I don’t find these stats misleading at all. You’re right that tax rates for the highest quintile, while far higher are than the lowest quintile, constitute a smaller portion of their assets. But as the NYT article I linked shows the middle quintile consumes on 29% more in a year than the lowest quintile on a per capita basis; the top quintile consumes only double what the lowest quintile consumes.

Where does most of the excess income in the higher quintiles go? It is placed on deposit at financial institutions, invested in stocks and small businesses, invested in appreciating assets, or given in philanthropy. It creates jobs and fuels economic growth. High taxes at the highest levels of income is, de facto, a policy that penalizes risk taking, and transfers billions of dollars from productive uses into pure consumption.

During the 1930s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. The theory was to take from the rich and give to the poor. The spending by the poor would stimulate business. However, if you can only earn a fixed amount of income before you are allowed to keep only a dime on the dollar, you have no incentive to invest beyond that point. Factory owners run obsolete equipment well past its productive use life. They do little research and development and they fail to expand capacity. What would be the financial rationale for doing otherwise? World War II saved the day with the demand for updated and expanded production capacity. Tax policy was driving the economy into the ground. High top marginal tax rates are like killing the proverbial golden goose to get the eggs.

On another note, keep in mind that movement in and out of quintiles is quite fluid. Sell a house or receive an inheritance and you will suddenly find you self bumped up a quintile or two. You can be quite wealthy in retirement, living comfortably by cashing in CD’s every few months, and be in the bottom quintile. Instead of thinking of a few hundred CEO’s of major corporations or of Tiger Woods when we think of the top quintile, think of millions of small business owners, risking there assets to provide goods and services, and thereby creating employment for others. Think of your parents or grandparents selling their home as they move into retirement. Something like 80% of millionares live in homes near the median value of homes, drive cars that are four or more years old, and lead frugal lives. They are people who were good stewards with financial resources and invested them in ways that benefit countless others in society. These are the folks we are saying it is unfair for them to keep the assets they have amassed.

[Mike L.]

I think you've misrepresented the whole point of a progressive tax rate structure. The point is to have people who BENEFIT the most from our government pay the most back to fund our system. It is that simple.

Our government provides many systems that allow a certain section of the population to accumulate more wealth based on their connections, status, genetics, etc. Those people have an obligation to pay back a share in proportion to what the system pushes in their direction.

Our current tax system has become not only more flat, but thanks to Bush it is growing more regressive. One of the big reasons is the low capital gains tax. The wealthiest people in our nation have a "real" tax rate very close to 15% because all of their income is on capital gains while most middle class people pay a rate higher than that despite the fact that they don't benefit as much from our systems of finance, education, and justice.

Taxes rates have nothing to do with "capability" to pay them. They are about paying based on benefit. When you benefit more from our systems you should pay more to fund them.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I also forgot to add that by cutting a higher percentage at lower brackets and raising the threshold at which taxes are owed, the net impact of the Bush tax cuts is to shift a greater percentage of the tax burden on the wealthy.

So if the issue is about the wealthy paying a greater share of the taxes, why are the Bush tax cuts vilified instead of praised?

[Michael W. Kruse]

Hey, Mike L. I think we cross posted there. The comment above touches on the issues you raised.

The "Tax Shares" table is for federal income tax alone, and so you are correct that capital gains is not included there. However, the two charts I created and the attached data is the federal effective tax rate with includes capital gains taxes.

Again, taxes are down for everyone but to a much more significant degree the lower down the economic ladder you go. Therefore, it has not become more regressive but rather progressive. The wealthy are paying a greater share of the total tax burden due to the Bush tax cuts.

When it comes to benefit, is there any benefit received from the larger population of people putting their wealth at risk to run businesses, create goods and services, and create employment, and give philanthropically? Is there any benefit from people being good stewards with their money, and living within their means while saving and investing responsibly? Don’t these people benefit us by not being drain on the social safety net as well as by amassing capital that can be used in the productive ways I mentioned above. There is some considerable reciprocal benefit here, not a one way street of benefit only for the wealthy.

When does fairness according to benefit cross over into envious appropriation of others hard earned and well managed resources?

[Mike L.]

There is a good way to spot envy. Just look for the people being stingy. Look at the people asking to contribute less. There is only one reason for these tax cuts. It is because the people who have the most to benefit from tax cutst that lobby congress to cut taxes.

To make matters worse, your charts don't include the 6% of social security that is not collected on the majority of the nations income (capital gains and income over 90k). You charts should add that 6% on the bottom and middle rates which makes the over all chart much less progressive.

Also, your charts do nothing to compare benefits to the contributions. You simply attempt to minimize the effect of the tax cuts as a percentage of former rates.

I'm asking for my taxes to be INCREASED. I'm wealthy. I don't need a bigger break. I need to contribute more because I benefit more. A patriot should not be asking to contribute less.

[Keith Schooley]

"Something like 80% of millionares live in homes near the median value of homes, drive cars that are four or more years old, and lead frugal lives. They are people who were good stewards with financial resources and invested them in ways that benefit countless others in society."

Ah. The wealthy are more virtuous argument.

As for the rest of the argument, I believe David Stockman had a term for it.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Mike L. and Keith, here is a quiz. Who said the following to the American public in advocacy of his proposed tax cut?

"It will include an across the board top to bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long needed tax reform, that logic and equity demand.... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary, and these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries, and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."

Those are the words of Jack Kennedy in his August 13, 1962, address. Check out my post from a few days ago Tax Cuts? Senators Obama and Clinton, You're no Jack Kennedy. See the YouTube clip of JFK.

Mike L. wrote: "There is only one reason for these tax cuts. It is because the people who have the most to benefit from tax cutst that lobby congress to cut taxes."

Was JFK just a puppet for lobbyist for the rich? Was this JFK’s motive? Why do you ascribe in the most recent rounds when unlike Kennedy’s cut, this actually shifted the tax burden toward the wealthy.

Mike L. wrote “…don't include the 6% of social security…” If you look in the parentheses under the title, you will see that it says “Income, payroll, and excise taxes.” Payroll includes Social Security and Medicare withholding. The CBO attempts to capture all federal taxes paid in calculating this number. I think you are right that this does not capture benefits like pre-tax employee health insurance. No measure is perfect. But neither does this measure pick up the non-cash and unreported income of the bottom quintile which is half of their income.

Mike L. wrote: “You simply attempt to minimize the effect of the tax cuts as a percentage of former rates.”

You have missed my point entirely. My point is that the tax rates for the lower quintiles (especially Q1) have decreased much more precipitously than for the top quintile. That means that the top quintile is paying a greater proportion of all federal taxes.

Mike L. wrote “I need to contribute more because I benefit more.” Then by all means give! I believe that we need to be giving at a minimum, 10% of our pre-tax income. We need to be fostering a culture of compassion and benevolence. Taxes are not a contribution. Why is the default way to help the poor federal taxation, instead of creating families, communities and local institutions that support each other?

Mike L. “A patriot should not be asking to contribute less.” When Republicans questioned the patriotism of the Democrats who “supported the troops but opposed the war,” a cry went up that resembled a chorus of scorched cats. But raise legitimate factual questions about taxation and the progressive response is? ;)

[Michael W. Kruse]

Keith

“Ah. The wealthy are more virtuous argument.”

I said nothing of the sort. There are many virtuous people who are hopeless with money. There are some rascals who very good with money. Most who amass capital come by it through honest careful stewardship over time. The question is what kind of behavior do we want to create incentives or disincentives for. From an economic standpoint, are you telling me this is behavior we don’t want to incentivize but rather we should be penalizing people who are gifted and disciplined with financial resources? The top 25% are paying 86% of taxes. How much is a fair share?

[Keith Schooley]

And I'm back to the misleading nature of that type of argument. What would be a fair share of the top 25% is directly related to the share of assets they control. "The top 25% are paying 86% of taxes." Sounds unfair. But what if the top 25% control 90% of the assets? Then it's suddenly not so unfair. It's all related to what proportion of wealth they control.

I have no problem with people amassing capital through honest careful stewardship over time. But the top taxpayers are not workers with carefully invested 401Ks and IRAs. They are people whose hard work the market has deemed hundreds of times more valuable than the hard work of other people. So if we're going to talk about "fair share," lets pull the income side into the equation.

I've heard all these arguments during my years of subscribing to National Review and listening to Rush. I don't buy them anymore. They say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. What do they call a conservative who has been mugged by reality?

[Keith Schooley]

Let's put it this way: the percentage of population - percentage of contribution comparison suggests that there should be a 1:1 ratio between the two. So therefore, for example, the top 5% of income earners should pay 5% of the total tax burden, and the bottom 5% should also pay 5% of the total tax burden.

Is that an argument you really want to make?

[Mike L.]

Your quotes from Kennedy are out of context and the two different types of tax cuts are not comparable. It is one thing to cut taxes accross the board in a time of surplus. It is completely a different position of complete irresponsibility to cut taxes when we are already deeep in dept while increasing the white collar welfare payments to Halliburton and Dick Cheney to new levels of corruption.

http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/

You tell me how the Bush tax cuts lowered tax rates for the middle class (75k - 200k). Their rates were NOT cut in any significant way. Are you talking about the rebate that he gave all those with kids? Are you somehow suggesting those people have vast wealth taxed at the capital gains tax?

When you use these numbers that compare totals on given sections of the population, you are missing the point. Your numbers are skewed by the total amount of income that shifted from middle to upper incomes. The growing divide between rich and poor means more wealth is going to the rich. Even as their rates have been cut, THE WHOLE GROUP does pay more as a percentage of the total bill, BUT they pay less as a percentage of their own income.

Here are some better graphs:

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/03/24/us-income-of-top-01-percent-vs-marginal-tax-rate/

[Michael W. Kruse]

Well, to start with, I’m not Rush Limbaugh or National Review, nor would I consider them to necessarily be good sources for solid theological reflection on economic justice. But similarly, to adopt positions because they are contra-Rush or contra-National Review is to allow your self to be defined by those sources as well. I’ve presented factual data and asked legitimate questions.

“It's all related to what proportion of wealth they control.”

Why is this the measure?

Take two American families. The Stevens and Taylors make similar salaries over a twenty year period. They live in similar neighborhoods with similar sized houses. The Stevens have never saved a dime. They rarely give of their resources. They travel to resorts and gamble every chance they get. They buy the best high end consumer products and dress in the best clothes they can buy. They have no resources to send their two kids to college or to take care of emergencies. The only asset of substance they have is their home, which they have taken out loans against to finance their lifestyle, and because of that and credit card debt, have a negative net worth.

The Taylors live within their means. They save and invest 10% of their income every year and give another 10% to charitable causes. They buy only practical used cars. They buy their clothes when they are on sale at the end of the fashion season. They buy modest consumer products and use them as long as they can make them last. Eating out is a treat. Travel is an infrequent luxury. By making extra payments each year they have just paid off their thirty year mortgage in twenty years. Through careful saving and investment they have amassed a net worth (including their house) of $800,000, and its growing. They have resources to help their kids with college and are on their way to providing for their retirement.

If taxation is to be based purely on assets controlled, then the Stevens should pay zero taxes and people like the Taylors should be obligated to pay the overwhelming share of taxes in society, part of which will go to provide subsidized loans and grants to the Stevens’ kids for college and take care of the Stevens’ in their retirement. I can’t think of a more perverse taxation method. (Again, this not to say that everyone in need was irresponsible or that everyone who has wealth is virtuous.)

You mention top CEO salaries. In studying CEO salaries, Xavier Gabaix found that:

“The sixfold increase of CEO pay between 1980 and 2003 can be fully attributed to the six-fold increase in market capitalization of large US companies during that period.” (See my post.)

In other words, they are being compensated directly proportional to the size of assets they are managing, the same logic you are using to for taxation. Why does it not cut both ways? (For the record, I think there are problems with CEO compensation at these top levels but that goes beyond this topic.)

Furthermore, there were 300,000 CEOs in the US in 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Fortune 500 CEOs make up 0.17% of CEOs. Average salary for all CEOs was $144,000 and amounted to 4.9 times the amount of the average hourly production worker ($29,544).

As to “the percentage of population - percentage of contribution comparison,” that has not been my argument, nor have I argued against some form of progressive taxation. I have pointed out that indeed the current taxation system is progressive and the Bush tax cuts made it more progressive. I’m asking on what basis should it be made even more progressive. All we get is the endless demonization of “tax cuts for the rich!” Where is the just level?

[Michael W. Kruse]

Mike L., I wanted you to know I saw your comment but I'll be away from the computer for about four hours. I be back in the afternoon.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I'm asking for my taxes to be INCREASED. I'm wealthy. I don't need a bigger break. I need to contribute more because I benefit more. A patriot should not be asking to contribute less.

Mike L., I assume you know that the Treasury will happily accept checks from you. How much additional have you paid this year?

[Mike L.]

Charlie,

I'm aware, and I do give as well as refuse to take certain unfair deductions that are not available for all. I will also give back or donate to charity this irresponsible tax rebate currently planed to "stimulate the economy". The stimulus package should have been more targeted. I think lower taxes for middle and low incomes is good, but it should be paid for. It is irresponsible to borrow that money to mask our financial problems.

However, I can make little progress on my own. I need some help. I'm suggesting that we all give according to our level of benefit.

[Mike L.]

Michael,

You've still not addressing the problems with your charts. The Bush tax cuts have NOT in any way increased the effective tax rates of individual taxpayers in the top brackets.

Find me one person (or even pose a hypothetical scenario) who was in the top bracket and now pays a higher individual effective tax rate after the Bush tax cuts than before. It is mathematically impossible outside of a major shift in how they earned their income.

Your comparison of the "Stevens" and the "Taylors" above is really missing the larger point. The disparity we've addresses of taxes is not between any of these middle class families. It is between both those middle class families and the large wealth holders that did not earn their wealth from saving pennies out of their paychecks, but from massive government subsidies and biased infrastrure. People like George W. Bush who made $17 million soley from a tax INCREASE funneled into a subsidy for his baseball team in Texas. Insurance companies, HMO privitization, banks, oil companies, and large corporate retailers all get massive hand-outs that allow them to benefit disproportionally. Another example is people with massive homes who buy them simply to get the disproportional mortgage interest tax break.

Those values are not included in your chart. The charts are based on "taxable income". Huge mortgages, business deduction, corportate expense accounts, before tax retirement savings, etc. are all ways to exclude income from taxes. I know. I own a business, commercial real estate, and have a corporate expense account. My "real" taxable income would not show on your charts and it skews the effective rates. I'm not nearly as wealthy as many in that top bracket and it gets more ellusive and more obscene the higher up you go.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Mike L.

“The Bush tax cuts have NOT in any way increased the effective tax rates of individual taxpayers in the top brackets.”

I have in no way claimed they have. I don’t think you’ve captured my point here, so let me be clear hear what I’m not saying and what I am saying here.

I’m not saying:

I’m not saying that the wealthiest tax payers are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than they did five years earlier. The percentage of their income that goes to taxes has declined slightly. They are paying a slightly lower percentage of their income in taxes.

I am saying:

I am saying the wealthiest taxpayers (probably at least the top quintile) are paying more in taxes in an absolute dollar amount than they were five years earlier. They are a paying a slightly lower percentage on a larger income. That means more taxes collected.

I am saying that he wealthiest taxpayers are paying a greater proportion of the total national tax burden. If you drew up a pie chart of the percentage of tax revenues that came from each quintile in the 2000 and 2005, you would see that the top quintiles proportions of the total amount has grown. While everyone’s tax rates have been cut, the bottom quintiles have been cut more significantly so a smaller amount of total annual tax revenues are coming from the bottom quintiles. That is to say, that despite having received a modest cut in their tax rates, the wealthy shoulder a greater proportion of the total tax revenue. Taxes have become more progressive.

More coming…

[Michael W. Kruse]

Mike L.

Thanks for the link to the slate article about Kennedy tax cuts. Some good background. My observation is that Kennedy saw the cuts as a demand-side impact while Regan and Bush saw them as supply-side. My personal assessment is that cuts likely have an impact on supply and demand. That is a question that would have to be to a professional economist to get some useful data. The commonality is that presidents saw cutting taxes including those of the rich as a way to stimulate the economy.

Kennedy (as I recall) cut all rates by a similar percentages across the board. Bush cut rates by a smaller percentage for the wealthy and a larger percentage for the least wealthy. He raised the threshold at which taxes are owed. Both cuts were around 2% of national income while as a percentage of the nation of the federal budget the Kennedy cuts were 8.8% and Bush 8.1%.

Concerning budget surplus or deficit at the time of the cuts, we have to keep in mind that Bush’s cuts came in three phases. Here is how the National Tax Foundation reports the surplus (“-“ equals deficit) at the time of each cut.

Kennedy (1964) = -1.0%
Bush Phase 1 (2001) = +1.5%
Bush Phase 2 (2002) = -1.7%
Bush Phase 3 (2003) = -3.2%

I don’t see there being a significant difference here.

But I want to come back to the point that got all this going. The outcry is about “tax cuts for the wealthy,” not “Bush cut taxes when we had a deficit.” These are two unrelated issues. There is nothing sinister in cutting taxes for the wealthy particular when it is included in larger package of cuts that results in a more progressive system.

[Mike L.]

Michael,

Nobody argues against the fact that more tax revenue comes in from the top brackets. The problem is that you've used the wrong chart to make an arugment about a completely different subject. These charts in no way support your assertion that the Bush tax cuts raised the burden on people in the top 1-2%. It simply points to the fact that these people have more and more money to pay tax against.

The numbers you presented are completely irrelevant and designed to send a false message of equality that simply doesn't exist. Your entire line of argument is silly and designed by people who are not being honest about the facts.

Some one like Warren Buffet pays more total taxes than his secretary, but the problem is that his secretary pays a higher percentage of his/her income in taxes than Mr. Buffet despite the fact that Buffet is a Billionaire. How is that a fair tax system? I know this because I've heard Buffet himself suggest it is unfair and that he doesn't "need" and didn't ask for the unfair Bush tax break. The obscenity of the break is increased when you realize this particular cut was made completely with borrowed money. When Kennedy suggested a tax decrease the top marginal rates were more than double what they have been since we started this cut and borrow mentality (started in the 80's). Also, there was an anticipated budget surplus which is why Kennedy even considered it.

I've been a conservative all my life until recently when I compared my conservative fiscal principles with the clear messages in the Bible and realized I had been duped by false teachers in the church and I was lying to myself about my own responsibilities.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Mike L.

Concerning non-taxable income, that is always going to be a tricky piece to deal with. But there is potential for significant unintended consequences by making substantial increases on the wealthy. The higher the tax rates go, the greater is incentive to find more tax shelters and ways of getting non-taxable income. It also incentivizes the wealthy to partner with politicians to create loopholes that help them avoid the taxes. This fosters a wedding of corporate and political interests. Instead, a tax that is widely seen a reasonable will simply be paid and done with.

The “visualizing economics” chart you linked shows lower percentages of income going to the top 1% when the tax rates are high and the higher percentages when taxes are low. As you note, the wealthy have ways of generating many non-taxable income forms of income. Is it possible that when taxes are high that the wealthy are not truly making all that much less but have simply found ways to move their earnings into to non-taxable income sources? Do lower tax rates bring more income into the taxable stream because the effort to shield income is no longer worth the trouble relative to just paying the taxes? That is hard to measure but I think it is a critical question.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Mike L.

“The numbers you presented are completely irrelevant and designed to send a false message of equality that simply doesn't exist. Your entire line of argument is silly and designed by people who are not being honest about the facts.”
On the contrary the charts demonstrate precisely what I have claimed and are true to the facts presented here. Additional facts (as opposed to assertions) might shine a new light. I’m open to those and I’ve tried to respectfully but forthrightly engage with you on this. For my efforts I’m now labeled not only unpatriotic but now silly and dishonest.

The charts show that the overall proportion of total taxes being paid into the government coming from the highest earners is increasing, despite a slight drop in the tax rate for these earners. That is by definition an increasingly progressive system. Unless the CBOs facts are in error how can you come to any other conclusion.

None of this changes the fact the someone who made a $1,000,000 last year and paid 25% in taxes has $750,000 left over verses some who made $50,000 and paid a lower percentage of about 15% in the middle quintile has $42,500 left over. Is that fair? I don’t know. It is a progressive tax structure. How progressive should it be?

“Some one like Warren Buffet pays more total taxes than his secretary, but the problem is that his secretary pays a higher percentage of his/her income in taxes than Mr. Buffet despite the fact that Buffet is a Billionaire. How is that a fair tax system?”

Yet I’ve shown you stats from the Office of Management and Budget that show the Effective Federal Tax Rate (inclusive of all federal taxes) is at 25.5% for the highest quintile (which includes the highest 1%). Lower quintiles pay less. Are you saying the top 1% is paying less of a percentage than the remainder of the top cohort? Give me some facts.

My charts have shown how progressive the tax structure is, which is more progressive than I think most people realize. That was the central focus of the post. The charts also show the Bush tax cuts increased the progressive nature of the tax system.

I do this blog because I enjoy engaging with people on a variety of topics, not flaming wars. I think you’ve made clear your evaluation of my motives and character. I don’t think there is much point in continuing the dialog further. So I’ll just say peace to you and your’s.

[pgl]

Why this post really misses the point is explained here:

angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/03/everyone-cut-tax-cut.html

State and local taxes? The deferred tax obligations from those Federal deficits? I trust Greg Mankiw knows about both - do you?

[Mike L.]

Michael,

Thanks for the information and the discussion. It has been very helpful. The divisive rhetoric commonly used in political discussions make these conversations difficult. I appreciate your willingness to clarify your position. It seems your heart is in the right place.

[Michael W. Kruse]

PGL, I don't think anyone is suggesting we ignore the impact of state and local taxes when thinking about economic justice but A) these taxes vary widely from locale to locale and B) they are not under the control of federal tax policy. I don't see what these taxes have to do with whether or not the federal tax policy is just.

The impression being suggested by the cry of "tax cuts for the wealthy" is that these cuts have made the tax code less progresive and absolved the wealthy of obligations. What these numbers demonstrate is that the tax code is progressive and that the Bush cuts made them more progressive.

Now we can argue all sorts of reasons why these cuts were not appropriate. Maybe they set all the rates to low. Maybe they didn't go far enough in their progressiveness. Maybe they shouldn't have been made in the fiscal climate in which they were made. But I don't see that any of these are warrant for the outrage of "tax cuts for the wealthy." The wealthy come out of the process shouldering a greater proportion of the total federal tax burden. I would think that Democrats would at least want to celebrate this aspect. State and local taxes are not within the control of federal authorities.