The Blind Blogging about the Blind.

I'll admit it. One of the conservative blogs I make a regular point of reading is SCSU Scholars. More accurately, I read King Banaian. I agree with him infrequently, but I appreciate that he's writing in his field of expertise, he supports his points and links to sources, and he often seeks to instruct, not simply to persuade.

I have learned to skip the posts of Janet Beihoffer, the other "scholar" who writes there, for reasons that quickly become apparent. Here's one of her latest reports on an appearance by Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Our speaker was Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, mother of five, foster mom of 23. Anyone who has heard her speak knows how dynamic and accurate her talks are. Michele has a law degree [CQ Note: from the now defunct Bible-based Coburn School of Law, an affiliate of Oral Roberts University] and masters degree in tax law from William and Mary College. She focused on two topics today: taxes and energy.

In the early 1950's, families paid about 5% of their total income in taxes; today, they pay about 50%. In 1987, when Michele was getting her masters degree in tax law, she did a projection of what her son, then age 4, would have to pay to support all the government programs put in place by liberal baby boomers. 25% of her son's earnings in his highest earning years would be needed just to pay social security for boomers. This did not include taxes for medicare, state, estate, income, etc. In total, up to 85% of what her son would earn in his 30's and 40's would go to pay for boomer socialist programs. Breaking the backs of future generations is not wise.

Let's assume for the moment Janet is accurately reporting what the dynamic and accurate Bachmann said.

Here's table showing the federal income tax rates for 1953. The "normal" taxa rate was 3%, but various surcharges and adjustments that began post-Depression and were continued to pay off World War II costs boosted the marginal rates much higher.

A family of four earning median income in 1955 also paid an average of 1.71% for social security. And we still haven't added any state income taxes, sales and property taxes, excise taxes on fuel, booze and tobacco...

Now, let's look at that 50% families are supposedly paying today.

The Congressional Budget Office calculates an effective federal tax rate. In 2008, for middle one-fifth of households, it's 15.9% of income. In Minnesota, the oft-cited Tax Incidence Report puts a middle-earning household's total state taxes at about 12.4%, depending on which decile you choose.

Now, you can argue differences between the published rates, effect of averages and what individual families actually pay in taxes, but it's pretty clear that most 50s-era families paid more than 5% of their total incomes in taxes and today pay much less than 50%.

Bachmann's calculation of her son's future tax burden is equally loony, but scholar Beihoffer — a part-time, adjunct information systems instructor at Metro State University — reports it all with a straight face.

Comments

[Ollie Ox]

I know what you mean about accurate reporting. Over at True North today, I found a post which cited two dicey urban legends. The second compares tax rates under Clinton and Bush; Snopes explains how it's misleading here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/clinton-bush.asp

[Spotty]

Regarding King Banaian: expertise in the pseudo-science of economics is a little like a working knowledge of alternative medicine; some interesting ideas but nothing you probably want to bank on. Banaian's coffee enemas are mostly just his ideological bent, not science. He's really a political (shudder) philosopher.

[Charlie Quimby]

And what does that makes us?

[Hal Davis]

"Political economy" used to be the term for what we do. Still an honorable term.

[Spotty]

Charlie,

But neither you nor Spot thinks he is a scientist.