Correction Required From Times Union

Another letter has been printed with such obviously, objectionably wrong statements that it actually requires full corrections by the editors. The following has been submitted to opinion page editor Joann Crupi:

Blatant errors requiring correction appear in Barry Baker's letter in the Monday, April 27th paper. Ignoring the debatable issues, since I'd have more luck breathing water than getting you to correct some of his loonier claims, I'll stick with the items effortless proven wrong by actual facts and figures.

He claims: "Tax burdens were moved off of large wealth holders and onto the backs of wage earners and away from a progressive federal system..."

I find it a little hard to believe anyone edited this for accuracy. The following facts are easily obtained from the IRS. The majority of this data can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html

Year / Total Income Tax Share (percentage) Top 1% of filers, Top 5% of filers, Bottom 50% of filers
1980 / 19.05, 36.84, 7.05
1981 / 17.58, 35.06, 7.45
1982 / 19.03, 36.13, 7.35
1983 / 20.32, 37.26, 7.17
1984 / 21.12, 37.98, 7.35
1985 / 21.81, 38.78, 7.17
1986 / 25.75, 42.57, 6.46
1987 / 24.81, 43.26, 6.07
1988 / 27.58, 45.62, 5.72
1989 / 25.24, 43.94, 5.83
1990 / 25.13, 43.64, 5.81
1991 / 24.82, 43.38, 5.48
1992 / 27.54, 45.88, 5.06
1993 / 29.01, 47.36, 4.81
1994 / 28.86, 47.52, 4.77
1995 / 30.26, 48.91, 4.61
1996 / 32.31, 50.97, 4.32
1997 / 33.17, 51.87, 4.28
1998 / 34.75, 53.84, 4.21
1999 / 36.18, 55.45, 4.00
2000 / 37.42, 55.47, 3.91
2001 / 33.89, 53.25, 3.97
2002 / 33.71, 53.80, 3.50
2003 / 34.27, 54.36, 3.46
2004 / 36.89, 57.13, 3.30
2005 / 39.38, 59.67, 3.07
2006 (last yr available) / 39.89, 60.14, 2.99

Since 1980 the federal income tax burden on "the rich" has gone from under 37% of all income taxes paid to over 60%. While there is no way to classify what a "wage earner" is according to Mr. Baker, let's just say the bottom 50%, whose burden has decreased from about 7% of the total income tax burden to about 3%. This is simple arithmetic and a correction is warranted. More is not less and less is not more, even in an opinion letter.

He also appears to claim that Ronald Reagan is responsible for the EIC, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Does it really take a reader to point out that none of these programs were started under Reagan to correct a mistake or stop yourselves from printing it to begin with? A correction is warranted.

-J. Black

==

Ms. Crupi has apparently been convinced by the writer that the federal tax system is indeed less progressive, despite the fact that the rich are paying twice as much as before and the poor half as much as before. Yes, that makes sense. I have asked for the data showing this. I don't expect to get it. I have also asked for a correction to the letter on May 5 where a left-wing spewer of hate couldn't even get Justice Souter's first name right in a sentence attacking the memory of conservatives. Yes, that was delicious, thanks for asking.

Ms. Crupi also justified the writer's claim that Reagan 'owns' EIC because it was expanded under him. Fine. By that logic Barack Obama now owns the TARP program and all deficit spending under Bush. As long as we're clear on that.