There was a fine editorial on tax rates and tax revenues in Monday's WSJ. Basically the Bush tax cuts resulted in the largest increase in tax payments by the rich in history.
2006 tax data (the most recent released by the IRS) shows that:
*the top 1% of earners were paying 40% of all income taxes
*the top 10% were paying 71%
*the top 50% were paying 97%
*the bottom 50% were paying 3%
Despite the left's dogmatic belief that the tax cuts were a huge give away to the rich, the reality is that from 2003 (the year of the tax cuts) to 2006 tax payments from millionaire households more than doubled (from $136 billion to $274 billion). Plus the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of income taxes than any point in the last 40 years. As the editorial put it, "No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts". So, let's review: lower tax rates result in higher tax revenues.
Sen. Obama's plan to raise tax rates on the wealthy and cut taxes on lower income Americans faces a big problem. When 50% of the population only pays 3% of income taxes, how can you cut their taxes? Furthermore the data is clear: if taxes are raised on the wealthy it will result in lower than expected tax revenues and therefore lower percentage of tax revenues coming from the wealthy and a higher percentage coming from the bottom earners.
How does that fit the left's of fairness?