The Economy Bomb - Ticking Down Faster

Action America ^ | May 10, 2004 | John Gaver

[Action-America]

The Economy Bomb
Ticking Down Faster

More proof that legislative attacks upon the wealthiest 1%
of Americans could soon wreck our economy.

---

May 10, 2004 by John Gaver Publishers note: To reflect the large amount of relevant new data that has emerged over the last year, we felt that the annual update to our popular Tick-Tick-Tick article deserved a new name. Although this article contains much of what is in that article, the additional volume of new data actually constitutes a significant rewrite. Unfortunately, this means that the Economy Bomb is ticking down faster.

Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay one third (33.9%) of all federal individual income taxes collected.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers earn only 17.5% of all federally taxable individual income.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay 12.8% higher tax rate than they did ten years ago, amounting to one third more (36.5%) of the total individual income tax load.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are facing frivolous lawsuits in phenomenal numbers, simply because our lax tort laws make them easy targets of opportunity.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are in more danger of government seizure (forfeiture*) of their private property than ever before in our history.
Fact:	The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are Leaving the USA at the highest rate in history.

An insidious, creeping cancer is eating away at our economy. Not only the Income Tax, but other legislative and regulatory attacks on wealth are forcing many of the people who pay the lion's share of taxes, to leave the United States and because of some of that legislation, they are taking their wealth with them, thus, very disproportionately reducing the tax and investment base in the United States.

The facts cited throughout this article are based upon statistics and calculations derived from data released by the US Internal Revenue Service, the US Census Bureau and supported by other reputable sources. Links are provided to the source data, throughout this article. We ask you to note the impeccable sources of the statistics presented here, since it is the integrity of those sources, as well as their variety, that seals the case. We invite you to follow the links provided and see for yourself. The facts are real and cannot be denied. Examine the numbers, use your own assumptions and do the math for yourself. When you recalculate the numbers, using your own assumptions, you will see just how serious the problem really is. It's real and it's daunting and it could very well spell disaster for the US economy, if certain positive actions are not soon taken.

The IRS numbers cited above are not some bureaucrat's pie-in-the-sky projections, but rather, they are are totals of actual IRS receipts, that are released every year, about 18 to 24 months after the close of a the tax year. A link to the raw IRS data for this year and an explanation of it can be found in the the companion article to this article, "1986-2001 IRS Collections Data by Income Category" (www.ActionAmerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.html).

Let's start by looking closer at some of that IRS data and see how those numbers work out.

• There were roughly 129 million tax returns filed in 2001.
• The IRS collected $888 billion in personal income tax in 2001.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) earned 17.5% of the income.
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) accounted for $300.9 billion in income tax paid
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) paid over one third (33.9%) of the $888 billion total individual income tax collected that year. Do the math ($300.9 billion / $888 billion).
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (1.29 million) paid almost double their share of taxes (1.9 times) in relation to income. Do the math (33.9% of taxes / 17.5% of income).
• The top-earning 1% of taxpayers (income over $292,913 in 2001) now carry 37% more of the tax burden than they did 10 years ago, when their share of the tax burden was only 24.8%. Do the math (33.9% / 24.8%).

Since the original publication of "Tick-Tick-Tick - The Economy Bomb", the earlier version of this article, in 2000, more oppressive legislation, aimed squarely at the top-earning 1% has made matters even worse. This is presenting a serious problem for the top-earning 1%. But, before you start shedding crocodile tears for those poor top income earners, remember that these people are almost all problem solvers. To them, this is only a speed bump. To you and me, it's quite a different issue. You see, it is their legitimate and justified response to the problems being created for them by, US laws and the US tax structure, that represents a ticking time bomb that presents an even more serious threat to the remaining 99% of taxpayers. If you make less than $292,913 per year, then that's you.

What's wrong with making the wealthy pay?

Many people who look at the above statistics will immediately say, "So, what's wrong with making the people with the most money, pay more tax?" Many people seem to think that the wealthy have, in some way, committed some horrible sin, just by being wealthy and such being the case, they should be forced to pay a larger proportional share of the tax burden, as penance. Such absurd arguments are not only immaterial, but serve to show how completely uninformed of the real problem now facing the United States, many people are. The problem that I am talking about is a direct result of the position in which the wealthy now find themselves.

The wealthy are being systematically backed into a corner by our government. They are paying double their share of taxes. They are facing frivolous lawsuits by the greedy, in ever growing numbers. Their businesses dealings are being saddled with onerous Patriot Act requirements that often take so much time that otherwise profitable deals end up costing money, if they happen at all. And, their property is being confiscated (forfeited) by the government at an ever increasing rate. Everything for which they have worked so hard, is now being threatened by the same government, whose job it is to protect citizens from just those types of abuses.

Should we then be surprised if the top-earning 1% of taxpayers, facing an untenable situation, take the only legal route left open to them, even if such a response threatens the very fabric of the US economy? I think not. Their response is really quite simple.

The wealthy are leaving.

Since most of those who leave are seeking privacy, they avoid leaving many trails and thus, factual data about expatriation is very difficult to come by. Because of that, in past versions of this annual article, although I have used a number of very reliable sources to come up with the best estimates available, at the time, I only presented the most conservative estimates. As it turns out, new factual information that I have uncovered, originating from the US Census Bureau, indicates that I should have been using the most generous estimates and even so, those numbers would have been well below reality.

According to the US Census Bureau, as reported in the "2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service" (6.2 MB download), by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the wealthy are leaving the United States in record numbers. According to that report, last year, roughly 363,000 US citizens and permanent residents quietly left the United States permanently. Now granted, not all of those 363,000 expatriates were rich. But, think about it. How many do you think were poor? How many do you think were even middle class?

Personally, I think that it would be reasonable to expect that 80 to 90 percent were, at least, somewhat wealthy. But, don't use my estimates. Use your own. Just keep in mind that poor people come to the United States, with their hand out, because of all the economic benefits that our government offers them, using our taxes. Why would the poor leave? In fact, for all of their protestations, even our middle class has it much better here than in any other country. The only class of people who can have it better in another country are those who are at least moderately wealthy - roughly, the top-earning ten percent (those who earn at least $92,754 a year).

Furthermore, that INS report indicates that this is the highest expatriation rate ever. Other data, such as records of citizenship and permanent residency applications at key foreign consulates, support these facts and some even indicate that the problem is much worse than suggested by the US Census Bureau. But what's worse, is that this exodus appears to have increased significantly since that report; most notably, since the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. It cannot be denied. The wealthiest Americans are leaving the USA for more wealth friendly climates at the highest rate ever.

"So what? Let'em leave!"

One of the most absurd statements that I have heard, in response to the above facts is, "So what? Let'em leave." In fact, that attitude is actually contributing to the problem and making it much worse. You see, as a result of one of the laws (discussed below) designed to punish the wealthy for leaving, the wealthy are now taking ALL of their investment capital with them, when they leave. And, therein lies the true problem. When the wealthy leave, it creates severe problems for the rest of us, since we are the ones who have to make up the difference in taxes.

What really surprises me is that even a few well-meaning conservatives, who realize that the real problem is Native Capital Flight, have fallen into the greed trap, right along with the liberals. In fact, the most inane argument that I have heard on this issue has come uniformly from both ends of the political spectrum and goes something like, "Well, we just need to pass more laws to keep the wealthy from taking their money out of the country." Duh?!!!...

It is precisely those laws that are some of the primary reasons why Native Capital Flight has become such a severe problem in the first place. To the wealthy, each such law represents yet another brick in an economic Berlin Wall, that they see being erected by our government and meant to limit their financial options. But, by limiting the financial options of the wealthy, instead of forcing the wealthy to stay here, those laws are actually forcing them to move more of their wealth out of the US, while they still can. Of course, the more wealth a person has invested offshore, the more likely he will be to see expatriation as a viable option.

This creates serious problems for you.

To some, who have not achieved such wealth, the wealthy who are fleeing the US, for more wealth friendly jurisdictions, are "cowards", "unpatriotic" and "quitters", who we don't want around, anyway. Be that as it may, I won't argue those points here. That's because what people think about them is immaterial to the problem at hand. Like them or not, when the wealthy leave, it creates serious problems for those who remain in the US.

To understand the threat that this represents, we must look at what this all means for the other 99% of taxpayers (those who make less than $292,913 per year)? Why is the fact that a handful of wealthy people are leaving and taking their money with them, such a problem for you? After all, wouldn't it take a tremendous number of wealthy people leaving, to have a noticeable effect upon our economy? Actually, no. Until you look at the actual numbers and do the math, it doesn't appear to be a serious issue, but it is. So lets look at the numbers again and this time, let's do the math.

The chart to the right shows in blue, the percentage of individual income tax revenue that the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers were responsible for in 2001 and the percentage of tax revenue that the rest of us paid, in red. The full circle represents the amount of personal income tax revenue that must be collected to fund the government for a year. It demonstrates that if only the top-earning 1% of taxpayers were to leave the USA permanently, we would all be in a world of hurt, since those who remain would face a greater than 50% tax increase, just to stay even. Without that 1% of the wealthiest Americans, every remaining taxpayer would have to pay over 50% more in taxes to equal what was lost. Can you afford that?

Those who argue that Americans with the most money should be taxed at a higher rate will find themselves being taxed at a much higher rate, instead. If you are paying $5,000 in income tax today, then imagine paying an additional $2500 in taxes. If you are paying $25,000, then imagine paying an additional $12,500. If you are paying $100,000 - well if you are paying $100,000 in income tax, there's a good chance that you already have your bags packed and your second passport in hand, so you don't need to imagine anything.

As the most wealthy leave, the additional tax burden shifts to the next level down, so lets think about the fact that the top-earning 5% of income earners pay 53.25% of all taxes collected. While the wealthiest 1% are "escaping" ("escape" is the popular term used by expatriates), do you think that the top-earning 5% will just be sitting around waiting for a 50% tax increase? Of course not. And, when they leave, your tax bite will more than double!

Then, of course, there is the top earning 10%. But, I wouldn't worry about them. By that time, the government will have either repealed all of the wealth punitive laws and abolished the Income Tax, in lieu of a National Retail Sales Tax, to encourage the wealthy to return, which is really unlikely, or they will have done what so many other repressive governments have done when faced with native capital flight on a massive scale - they will have closed the borders to keep the remaining wealth in the country.

But then, as shown by every case where that has happened, ranging from Nazi Germany in the 30's to South Africa in the 70's and 80's, to to the more recent case of Malaysia, even closing the borders to capital, only increases native capital flight, albeit on an illegal basis. So, maybe you should worry about losing the top-earning 10%, after all, because if they can manage to get out with their wealth in tact, your taxes would almost triple! Have I got your attention?

Although it's interesting to think about, for other reasons that I will explain, I seriously doubt that it will ever get that far.  The problem goes much deeper.  But, staying with just the tax issue for now, let's look at the actual numbers.

Do the math.

Here is the math for the top-earning 1%:

100% - 33.9% of taxes lost = 66.1% of taxes left

33.9% _{= 51.3% additional tax burden for those remaining}
66.1%

Here is the math for the top-earning 5%:

100% - 53.3% of taxes lost = 46.7% of taxes left

53.3% _{= 114% additional tax burden for those remaining}
46.7%

THAT'S MORE THAN DOUBLE!

Here is the math for the top-earning 10%:

100% - 64.9% of taxes lost = 35.1% of taxes left

64.9% _{= 185% additional tax burden for those remaining}
35.1%

THAT'S ALMOST TRIPPLE!

Think about it. If only the top-earning 1% of taxpayers leave the United States, the remaining taxpayers will find that they will have to pay more than 50% more taxes. 1% is not that much. If you were to put 100 pennies on a table and then take away just one, you couldn't tell the difference visually. In fact, I will demonstrate later, just how quickly we could lose that 1%. Then, consider that if 5% of taxpayers leave the United States, the tax burden will more than double. And yet, our government is making it almost impossible for the wealthy to remain in the United States. Legislative attacks upon people with any significant degree of wealth is a ticking time bomb for our economy and we haven't even touched on the issues of frivolous litigation or government confiscation of private property.

It creeps like a virus.

The legislative issues contributing to this growing exodus have gone largely unnoticed, since the growth in expatriation of the wealthy has taken place over so many years. It really began back in 1968, shortly after the riots at the Democrat National Convention in Chicago. This is not to say that it was a problem at that time. Let's just say that the trickle of expatriates that any country experiences became a barely noticeable flow at that time. If it had stayed at that level, it would not be a problem today. But, indications are that the flow increased slowly, but steadily until the 1980's. For a short time during the Reagan administration, there was an attempt to roll back some of the wealth punitive, anti-privacy laws and tax rates that were contributing to this exodus and indications are that it did have a significant effect. But, such is the nature of the income tax and the lust for ever more power that often infects elective officeholders, that no sooner than President Reagan left office, the attacks resumed and have been increasing since. So has expatriation of the wealthy.

Evidence from key foreign consulates indicate that the number of US citizens requesting foreign citizenship or permanent residence applications for those countries, jumped significantly in the months after the Democrats in Congress tricked George H. Bush into a huge tax increase and the numbers have continued to rise. Other jumps occurred just after the Clinton tax increase and again, after the HIPAA legislation was signed into law in 1996. Indications are that in the first year of the George W. Bush administration, the expatriations increased much more slowly, as the wealthy seemed to think that maybe Bush would relieve some of the pressure on them. But, shortly after the President signed the USA Patriot Act into law, all of the indicators show that expatriations quickly shifted into high gear again.

Just the timing of those increases points even further to the fact that those who are leaving are wealthy, since each of those events represented an attack on wealth. The slower increases in the first year of the Bush administration indicate that the wealthy expected Bush to roll back some of the previous administration's wealth punitive legislation. But, with the passage of the Patriot Act, they knew that they were wrong and expatriation spiked again.

Again, let's do the math.

As shown above, approximately 363,000 mostly wealthy Americans chose expatriation in 2002. That rate has been increasing at a rate significantly higher than the growth of wealth in this nation for many years. Even so, for our calculations, we will assume that the number of wealthy Americans that are leaving remains stable, which further assumes that Bush and Congress hold back any more legislation that the wealthy see as detrimental to themselves, their business or their rights. Granted, with the onerous Patriot II waiting in the wings, that's a very rosy assumption. But this is, after all, meant to demonstrate a "best case" scenario. To see how bad it might really be, we invite you to recalculate, using your own assumptions.

Based upon past history, currently proposed legislation and other incentives, it would probably be reasonable to assume a 10-20 percent growth in expatriation every year. But, my purpose is to be as conservative in my projections as possible. So let's just stick with the stable rate assumption. Multiply it out and you will find that if that rate continues for just three more years, the number of wealthy Americans that may have left the United States in that time (including 2002) could easily reach over 1.4 million or well over the 1.3 million taxpayers that make up the top 1% of taxpayers and that number could be well over 2 million in five years (see table). Note: Numbers expressed in thousands

Year	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Annual Expatriation	363	363	363	363	363	363
Total Since 2002	363	726	1089	1452	1815	2178

What this means, is that if this rate of expatriation continues for only four more years, what appears to be a minor problem today, could turn out to be a catastrophe for the US economy tomorrow. Remember that in 2001, the top-earning 1% amounted to only 1.29 million taxpayers. You can see that it's quite possible that most of those people could be gone by the time Bush leaves office.

Granted that not all of those expatriates are going to be wealthy. But, ask yourself, "how many of them do you really think will be poor or even middle class?" Use your own estimates, based on common sense. After all, the poor don't leave unless they have to. They can't afford it. But, we are making it increasingly expensive for the wealthy to stay.

Other than the US Census numbers and sparse data from foreign consulates, there is a lot of ancillary data that points to the fact that wealthy Americans are expatriating at phenomenal rates. This ancillary evidence ranges from telltale social indicators to more hard numbers. For example, only a few short years ago, it was very difficult to find the single small bar or restaurant in most foreign countries, where American expatriates would gather. Today, they are more common than car dealerships. It seems that there are now quite a few in every small country.

On the other end of the spectrum is the Forbes Magazine annual lists of "400 Wealthiest Americans" and the "Worlds Billionaires". An analysis of those lists in recent years shows that while the number of billionaires in the US dropped by 13%, the number of worldwide billionaires grew by over 80% in the same time period (1999-2001). (See, "Defending the American Dream" at http://www.ActionAmerica.org/taxecon/defdream.html for more on this point.) Then there is the annual Merrill Lynch/Cap Gemini Ernst & Young "World Wealth Report". A comparison of the 2002 and 2003 versions of that report will show you that there were 100,000 fewer millionaires in the US at the end of 2003, than were here in 2002. There is no doubt about it. The wealthy are leaving in large and increasing numbers.

But, consider this. Let's just assume that the Census numbers are off by a whopping 50% and that the expatriation rate is only half as high as the US Census numbers indicate and not increasing, we still have a serious problem. Do the math. Then consider that in reality, those 2000 Census numbers are probably off in the other direction and that expatriation is, in fact, increasing at an even higher rate than the Census Bureau predicted back in 2000, due to events and legislation that have transpired since the 2000 Census. It might be much worse...

Actions speak louder than words.

Of course, officials of the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies deny that expatriation of the wealthy is a problem. But, the government's actions belie their words. Consider this. If the government's claims are true, why did both Republicans and Democrats in Congress suddenly find it necessary to add an amendment to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (26 USC 877(a)(1)), that claims the right to tax expatriate Americans for 10 years after they renounce their US citizenship and are taxpaying citizens of another country, if the US government thinks that one of their reasons for expatriation was to legally avoid US taxes? (Find that hard to believe? Click on the link and read it for yourself.) Actions speak louder than words.

Why then, did they follow-up that abominable law with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which modified the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1182(a)(10)(E)) to permanently deny expatriates entry into the United States, if the US government thinks that one of their reasons for expatriation was to legally avoid US taxes? (Click on the link and read it for yourself.) Actions speak louder than words.

And, what does the government use, in both of those laws, to determine if tax avoidance was among the reasons for a taxpayer's expatriation? Income and/or net worth. If an expatriate had a net worth of $500,000 at the time of expatriation or earned more than $100,000 per year for the five years immediately preceding expatriation, then he is assumed, by the US government, to have expatriated to avoid US taxes. (It's in those links, in surprisingly easy to understand verbiage.) Actions speak louder than words.

These laws are clearly aimed at punishing anyone who has the audacity to be rich and leave with their wealth, intact. If the IRS and lawmakers are not seriously concerned about the number of wealthy taxpayers who are leaving IRS jurisdiction, then what reason would they have to pass such autocratic laws? Think about it. Actions do speak louder than words.

[Click here for the rest of the article.]

 

[Remember_Salamis]

the bigger problem is capital flight. True, somebody will be there to fill the job, but what if they take alltheir assets out of country??? that's a bigger problem.

[taxtruth]

Scrap the code and do not start another new tax.

[ovrtaxt]

Because even with the way things are, you can make more money here.

These people to which the article refers are generally done making money, as the risk to losing it outweighs the possibility of making more. A NRST would keep them in the tax generating category, as they would be free to make as much income as possible with no taxation. When the time come to spend it, (and they will) taxes are collected.

I have a client whose job is the maneuvering of assets into trusts and insurance policies and such for the sole purpose of avoiding the death tax. This guy makes a living off of the fear of taxation. He told me he would rather see a NRST in place because active investors are much more profitable to him as a financial planner than people trying to hide their money.

[Gorjus]

Over time, this [rich people leaving] degrades the tax base and makes us raise taxes on those remaining.

Why? Why doesn't it just make room for others to become rich? If there is a need, that need doesn't go away because the one filling it leaves. It just makes room for another to become rich. The real wealth is the wealth of those who are willing to pay to have their needs met. That's where the income comes from that the top 1% of taxpayers earn. And that doesn't go away.

Again, some wealth is leaving the country. Both real wealth and unearned income. It always has. Even the modest retirement pensions of the ex-pats that I know of - who moved to where their limited income provides a better standard of living - represents wealth leaving the country. Other wealth is coming into the country. If that's the real issue, then the article is one-sided at best. Overall, this article and the reasoning behind it are flawed an unconvincing.

Put it another way: Suppose not one single rich person were leaving the country. Would it still be a good idea to move away from confiscatory income taxes on those who are best at providing goods and services someone wants to pay for? Of course it would be. So why dilute that strong argument with weak crisis-mongering that relies on unjustifiable assumptions?

[Gorjus]

[T]he bigger problem is capital flight.

Probably so, and since most capital is owned by corporations, this is identified not by counting taxpayers who emigrate, but by counting corporations who move their headquarters out of the country. If that had been the theme of the article, it would have been much more convincing (though it would no longer have been addressing personal income tax rates at all).

[Know your rights]

But on the average not as well (or they'd have already had those jobs), nor would the people who filled the new owners' old jobs do them as well, so income over the whole business would decline [if the original top 1% taxpayers left]

Perhaps, but by a whole lot less than the total amount of the original owner's income. As an example, if a MLB relief pitcher (one of those lives right down the street from a friend of mine - admittedly in the nicest house on the block) making $2 million a year were to leave the country, his replacement might make only $1.8 million a year

You're completely ignoring the second-order effects I noted (see above in bold italics).

It's not automatic that someone will fit exactly into the hole left by any individual rich man who leaves, but overall, that void makes it easier for others to become rich

But less rich than the previous occupant of that economic niche, and so on down the line, so the overall effect is a decrease in income. If it were otherwise, our country could prosper by deliberately throwing out successful people.

[Know your rights]

I dont believe there are 360K plus per year wealthy tax payers leaving the US. Where are they going

See post #56.

We would hear about this if it were true.

Right, the media never suppress important news ... particularly not news that challenges liberal shibboleths like 'tax the rich.' What color is the sky on your planet?

[Know your rights]

If there is a need, that need doesn't go away because the one filling it leaves. It just makes room for another to become rich.

Wealth generated is a function not only of the demand but of the ability to supply. Since a more qualified person has left and a less qualified person stepped in, that amount will decrease ... and this also applies to the job that person left, and the job left by the person who moves to fill that job, and so on down the line. The bottom line is that a person's income reflects their creation of value, and when they cease to create value in this country we are poorer by the entirety of that amount.

[Gorjus]

The bottom line is that a person's income reflects their creation of value, and when they cease to create value in this country we are poorer by the entirety of that amount.

Less whatever ability to create value is imported..,
Or created as people develop their skills..,
Or available through underutilized skill among people who are still here.

The key fact is that people in the top 1% of taxpayers move out of the top 1% all the time. They retire, they lose their positions, their company goes under, the stock market wiggles down instead of up. All those effects exist regardless of whether anyone actually leaves the country - and the economy doesn't collapse, nor do tax rates double on the next tier down. Neither will those effects happen if a few rich people emigrate a few years early instead of retiring. It's still a bogus argument.

[Know your rights]

The bottom line is that a person's income reflects their creation of value, and when they cease to create value in this country we are poorer by the entirety of that amount.

Less whatever ability to create value is imported..,
Or created as people develop their skills..,

Both of which would take place even if we didn't chase successful people out of the country.

Or available through underutilized skill among people who are still here.

That lessens the loss only if underutilization is greater at the lower income tiers; this seems unlikely, since underutilization is caused by government hobbling the economy, and the government messes with the higher income tiers at least as much as the lower.

[Gorjus]

this seems unlikely...

This whole argument - as I said in my first posting on it - sounds like something the liberals would put forth. It declares a crisis that doesn't exist, and it transitions from facts to 'seems likely' whenever the facts don't support the crisis statement.

It 'seems likely' to me that there is movement in and out of the top 1% all the time. People retire. People move up. In fact, every single person in the top 1% of income entered that bracket at some point, and will leave at some point. Which meant before they entered it they were creating less wealth than those in that bracket already - but had or developed the ability and so joined them. And there are plenty of others standing by to enter that bracket - many of whom (about 1.29 million families overall in this country) will someday make it. I thought only the liberals felt everyone was locked into a narrow earning bracket despite whatever they might try to do.

The whole thrust of this false crisis is the contention that by driving rich people out of the country - a problem of a magnitude never established and quite possible trivial - we are losing so much wealth that we will have to explode the tax rates in lower brackets in order to keep adequate revenue flowing to the government. Every single part of that argument is flawed - most importantly the basic contention that we need to keep the same revenue flowing to the government. If you want to worry about something, worry about the idiocy of penalizing the average middle class and upper middle class workers in their peak earning years who are not leaving the country. Focus on that problem. It will take care of the minor tail (emigration of rich people) on the great big dog of a self-destructive tax structure.

[leprechaun9]

For FY2003, the following is the breakdown on the sources of Government Revenues:

Personal Income Tax = 44.5%
SSI = 40.0%
Corporate = 7.4%
Excise = 3.8%
Other = 4.3%

The PERSONAL INCOME TAX BURDEN data:
Top 5% of Income Tax Payers:
1986 = 42.6% to 2000 = 56.0%

Bottom 50% of Income Tax Payers:
1986 = 6.5% to 2000 = 4.0%

With a small % of the Income Tax Payers paying such a large portion, and governments at all levels following this punitive practice, then when the economy tanked and the high incomes earners wern't making those big bucks, then all the government sows came up short of funds!

[boxsmith13]

this information would be available in census data. Rush Limabugh or Sean wouldbe talking about this. Instead it is a lonely shrill paleo-con

[Know your rights]

What makes you think the census tracks expatriates by income?

[boxsmith13]

show me that they dont.

I dont beleive there are 360k american citizens leaving the US every year regardless of income

[ExSES]

Ooops, you caught me!

Don't worry, when "Willie" is mentioned, I always process "Horton" first!!!

[Know your rights]

show me that they dont.

It's your claim that the census has this data, so you show me it's true.

I dont beleive there are 360k american citizens leaving the US every year regardless of income

Sadly for you, that *is* supported by the census: "According to the US Census Bureau, as reported in the "2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service", by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), [...] last year, roughly 363,000 US citizens and permanent residents quietly left the United States permanently."

Are you for or against high tax rates on the rich?

[boxsmith13]

I am against high taxes on anyone.

That figure of 363,000 probably includes people who are transferred to a new job outside the United States. the clue to your over exaggerating is the world permanent. How can the census bureau know if when someone leaves the country it is permanent.