You're going to need an internet poll to back up that claim.

No I won't.

Paul feels smug because he understands it enough to get to 0% effective rate a few years ago.

Therefore, he'll nod his head in agreement with a stupid smirk on his face and won't question my numbers.

OMG if i got a 0% rate, i'd pay off my doublewide and buy my kid a shoe.

Smug about what, being a married homeowner with kids? Not much rocket science involved there. redflip

Dude, look around. The elderly and the poor, are the "regular" citizens now.

I'll grant you that the blind are just freeloaders.

That said, I didn't see you call out Ed for throwing "those escalade/foodstamp people", (that's Ed code for anyone who isn't White or Asian) or illegal aliens (Ed code for everyone else) into the mix. There must be balance in emotional warfare, and I am here to provide just that.

I have Dellortos soaking in Pinesol, I must go.

JC

1) Fair
2) Right

But, whether the IRS selected the right behaviors to reward, or is doing a good job of reducing abuse, is another subject....

I already told you the most likely reason why that less than 1% paid no federal income taxes. In 2008 the Dow Jones lost over 35% of its value. There were plenty of investments that lost significantly more. The way it works is that investment losses can be written off from a person's income. Do you think it is feasible that under 1% of those making over a $1 million per year realized losses that were more than their annual income? That isn't some loophole. That has been a part of the tax code for quite a while and is available to anyone. Calling that a loophole isn't any different than saying those who don't pay taxes because they make shit are taking advantage of a loophole.

What remains that even after factoring in those who didn't pay any federal income taxes, and the investment losses many of the rest of them were able to write off, as a group they averaged an effective tax rate over 29% for only federal taxes.

You did, and I don't dispute the assumption. That is the most likely reason.

Shmike asked for real world examples of rich people paying no taxes through loopholes*, and since I don't know any rich people personally, that article was the nearest convenient evidence. For the most part I threw it out there because I never appreciate being completely ignored when I feel I've made a good point or asked a valid question during one of these arguments. ETA: And I think shmike's was a valid question.

My back-and-forth with shmike during this thread has been tangential on our original disagreement: whether or not the rich can afford to be taxed as easily as the poor or vice-versa. The post you quoted was more in response to that argument than anything you've posted.

*With that in mind, I do consider to be a loophole any tax break that allows anyone who still takes home $1 million or more to pay no effective tax. And, I believe those 1,470 millionaires who watched their portfolio tank during the recession can still afford to pay 35% in income taxes much more easily than the people taking home $20K a year can afford 5%. Or 0%, because they're still living on $20K a year.