Robin Cox – 8/1/06

This page was last updated on August 1, 2006.

Rich pay tax share, and more; Robin Cox; Beaver County Times; August 1, 2006.

Below is a copy of the letter as I submitted it. Usually, the Times doesn’t make significant edits to my letters. That wasn’t the case this time, at least in my opinion.

First, the Times omitted the quotes around “wire service reports.” I used quotes because I was quoting directly from the editorial to show some information cited in the editorial came from unnamed sources. Perhaps this nuance was lost on the Times.

Second, the Times changed “I can’t speak for the editorial author …” to “I can’t speak for others …”. I guess the editorial author didn’t like being called out.

Third, the Times omitted the final sentence, “What was that about ‘the wealthy’ getting tax breaks at the expense of ‘the working poor?’” Perhaps the Times felt I was rubbing it in, though the paper did publish the letter. Of course, since I use percent signs (%) and the Times writes out percent (why?), perhaps the Times omitted the final sentence to get the letter below its 300-word limit. As submitted, my letter was 299 words.

Title: Lottery winners - not

Last week the editorial entitled “Lottery winners” tried to convince us the Bush administration is helping “the wealthy” avoid paying income taxes.

Supposed support for this premise came from “wire service reports” asserting the IRS planned to eliminate some estate/gift tax auditor positions.

The editorial neglected to tell us those same reports also said, “the money saved by eliminating the estate tax lawyers would be used to hire revenue agents to audit income tax returns, especially those from people making over $1 million.”

I can’t speak for the editorial author, but I think you’re wealthy when you make over $1 million/year.

Since Times editorials often cite Tax Foundation data, you may wonder why the editorial didn’t quote the Tax Foundation this time.

Here’s why.

Regarding the “tax cuts for the rich” premise, the Tax Foundation reports, “Despite the charges of critics that the tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 favored the ‘rich,’ these cuts actually reduced the tax burden of low- and middle-income taxpayers and shifted the tax burden onto wealthier taxpayers.”

Further, the Tax Foundation tells us “7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts. More than 90% of the 7.8 million families knocked off the tax rolls by the Bush tax cuts earn less than $50,000 per year. Another 9.3% of these families earn between $50,000 and $100,000, while just 0.06% earn more than $100,000.”

Tax Foundation analysis of IRS data shows the top 1% of filers pays over 34% of total taxes paid. The top 5% pays over 54% and the top 50% pays over 96%. That means the bottom 50% - the so-called “working poor” – pays less than 4%.

What was that about “the wealthy” getting tax breaks at the expense of “the working poor?”