Reuters’s David Cay Johnston has a good column today on why tax rates are lower than we generally think: We typically calculate them based on adjusted gross income.
But the Tax Policy Center has numbers on what tax rates would be as a percentage of cash income, which includes tax-exempt income excluded from the AGI. Johnston writes that this means poor folks who get net transfers from the government get less than we think, while taxpayers pay less than we think:
The percentage point discrepancy widens as incomes increase. For the next fifth of taxpayers, those earning between $59,486 and $103,465, the average federal income tax is 8.2 percent of AGI but only 7 percent of cash income, a difference of 1.2 percentage points. For the top fifth, those earning more than $103,465, the average federal income tax is 17.3 percent of AGI but only 14.9 percent of cash income.
For the top tenth of one percent - whose combined income comes close to equaling that of the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers - the disparity is even greater. The tax rate is 23.6 percent of AGI but only 19.8 percent of cash income, a difference of 3.8 percentage points.
— In the-beat-goes-on news, corporate profits continued to expand last year much faster than paychecks (average paychecks for workers, I should say. If I were forced to bet, I’d have to guess executive pay rose at a nice clip, though the numbers aren’t out yet).
Bloomberg News says that in January, average wages were up 1.5 percent over a year earlier, meaning real income growth was negative (core inflation was up 2.3 percent). Meantime, S&P 500 corporate profits were up 5.1 percent.
For example:
“In regards to labor, we currently do not anticipate significant pressure for 2012 for both wages and salary,” Gregory Levin, chief financial officer at BJ’s Restaurants Inc. (BJRI), said on a Feb. 16 conference call with analysts.
The Huntington Beach, California-based company, which owns and operates restaurants in California, Colorado, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada and Texas, said revenue increased 29 percent in the three months that ended Jan. 3 from the prior year, while net income rose 42 percent.
While Bloomberg notes there are cyclical factors at work here, it’s going to be a good long while before unemployment falls enough to put upward pressure on wages.
— FireDogLake’s David Dayen points to this passage buried in a Politico story on HUD chief Shaun Donovan in which Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller laughs at New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman for the foreclosure-scandal settlement:
Miller, who clashed with Schneiderman over the releases, said Donovan didn’t make many changes but was artful enough to sell it as a compromise to the New York attorney general, who wanted to seal the deal.
“Essentially what Shaun did was let Eric take credit for shaping the release,” Miller said, “credit that wasn’t factually correct.”
After weeks of negotiations with the banks and the states, a deal emerged and Obama made the announcement of the Schneiderman committee a centerpiece of his new commitment to getting tough on Wall Street and helping out homeowners.
Dayen:
Schneiderman has promised that he would walk away from the task force if he found it insufficient, with his co-chairs slow-walking the investigation. With the task force barely begun, here’s the head of the state settlement and insiders close to Donovan just out-and-out clowning him, alleging that Donovan bait-and-switched him. We’re waiting for that walk-away any time now.
Cute follow up here:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/02/23/briefly-responding-to-glenn-thrush/
"…also, Glenn, next time, give an outbound link to my story so people can read it for themselves. I know you know how to link, you certainly had no problem linking your own story. I grant that could be Politico’s internal style guidelines stopping outbound links, though I doubt it."
Again, I suspect that by dissing Scheinderman the Obama administration sends a message to the banks:
http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/16196/pn/all/p/0/?KSID=c2ea27ff1b8beec0b20b14e65adad9eb
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 02:42 PM
Recall:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/business/schneiderman-is-said-to-face-pressure-to-back-bank-deal.html?pagewanted=all
"Characterizing her conversation with Mr. Schneiderman that day as “not unpleasant,” Ms. Wylde said in an interview on Thursday that she had told the attorney general “it is of concern to the industry that instead of trying to facilitate resolving these issues, you seem to be throwing a wrench into it. Wall Street is our Main Street — love ’em or hate ’em. They are important and we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to support them unless they are doing something indefensible.”"
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 02:46 PM
Hey Thimbles how do you think your links are relevant when they link to articles almost a year old. The situation has changed (almost every situation) since then.
#3 Posted by Eric R, CJR on Sat 25 Feb 2012 at 09:51 AM
"Hey Thimbles how do you think your links are relevant when they link to articles almost a year old."
Well, links that are 'almost a year old' provide context to the story told. Donovan's negociations with Schiederman did not take place out of blue yesterday, as detailed in that almost a year old article. If you are attempting to figure out where today's events fit into the big picture, you have to look at yesterday's, a year ago's, ten years ago to get some context.
Otherwise, all this stuff seems like a big fat bewildering mystery.
"The situation has changed"
Maybe so, but you have to explain how it's changed, into what has it changed, and why did it change. This is the process of story development. Good journalists do this. Bad journalists fly over their readers, airdrop their story, and fly away leaving readers with semi-knowledge of what happened today, little knowledge of what happened yesterday, and less knowledge than that to predict what will happen (and how it will affect them) tomorrow.
Of course, I may be mistaken. I never attended a journalism school and I'm more of an amateur historian than a well compensated pundit, but that is my impression of how good journalism is done.
Cheers.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 25 Feb 2012 at 02:41 PM