Source: Citizens for Tax Justice
Saturday, June 04, 2011
No, the Rich Don't Pay All the Taxes
For those people (like commenter CharlesH) who think the rich pay all the taxes in the U.S.--well, it's simply not true. The affluent and rich may pay most of the income taxes, but of course there are lots of other taxes too. When you look at the total, the share of taxes paid is about the same as income earned all across the income spectrum. In other worse, the U.S. tax system is just barely progressive.
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice
Keep going David.
ReplyDeleteIncome tax is very progressive.
SS and Medicare tax is not progressive. However, SS and Medicare tax benefits are very progressive. For example, I have paid SS taxes ~25x my wife's. However my SS benefits are only ~3x my wife's (when we start collecting in a few years).
Most of the "poor" in the US have it really good compared to world.
The "poor" in the US are darn lucky they the rich in the US pulling the tax wagon. Most of the world is not so lucky.
ReplyDeleteOn Medicare
ReplyDeleteI have paid >50x what my wife has paid in Medicare taxes. My understanding is that we get the same benefit. The same benefit as someone who paid zero Medicare taxes. Sounds progressive to me.
So in summary:
The top 50% pay 97% of the income taxes and VERY heavily subsidize the SS and Medicare for the bottom 50%.
The bottom 50% would be in a world of hurt without the top 50% doing most of the heavy lifting.
Since I'm now in the bottom 50% (retired) I'm very thankful for those who continue to work and pull the tax wagon.
Charles, there are no social security taxes paid on income above $106,800. There is little subsidizing of SS by the rich.
ReplyDelete> The "poor" in the US are darn
ReplyDelete> lucky they the rich in the
> US pulling the tax wagon.
I just showed you that pct of taxes paid are proportional to pct of income, across the board. What do you want, a head tax where everyone pays the same dollar amount in taxes regardless of income?
"Charles, there are no social security taxes paid on income above $106,800. There is little subsidizing of SS by the rich."
ReplyDeleteNot true.
SS and Medicare tax is not progressive. However, SS and Medicare benefits are very progressive. For example, I have paid SS taxes ~25x my wife's. However my SS benefits are only ~3x my wife's (when we start collecting in a few years).
How do you feel about expanding the "fairness" test beyond our US borders to world borders? Let's have all US workers pay higher taxes to support workers in India, China and Africa.
High US worker $300,000/yr
Low US worker $30,000/yr
3rd World $3,000/yr
What total percent should each worker pay in world income taxes to be "fair"?
high US 40% $120,000
low US 20% $6,000
3rd W 10% $300
What?
Show me data, not anecdotes. Something like amount paid into SS, and amount taken out, across the income spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThis is the chart I was thinking of when I said the lie...erm...false talking point about the rich paying more taxes was a lie...um...falsehood.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know it hits home when you see the pathetic hand-flapping going on.
Best,
D
My data is one data point and I have no reason believe that it is not representative of our respective income quartiles during our working lives.
ReplyDeleteI'll look for the study you suggest. You can too. What does it say if the SS admin doesn't publish such data? They don't want people to know that SS is strongly re-distributional? That the upper 50% heavily subsidize the lower 50%?
Do you accept the characterization that with Medicare the upper 50% heavily subsidize the lower 50%?
I don't know anything about Medicare, and it seems based on this graph (though old, a similar formula still applies) that SS is only partly redistributional:
ReplyDeletehttp://is.gd/UmRbWX
But so what? We should have some redistribution, because (1) I believe everyone should have a certain minimum income and full health benefits, and (2) it's hardly like the affluent and wealthy aren't also getting *plenty* of benefits from govt -- and even *more* benefits than the poor. People rarely get wealthy in a vacuum and the entire US government has been corrupted by the corporations of the wealthy. Wanna talk about redistribution--how about mortgage interest deductions, agricultural programs, lower tax rates for hedge fund managers, etc etc etc?
Why else do you think income inequality has grown so much in the US over recent decades, but not nearly as much in other countries?
"Why else do you think income inequality has grown so much in the US over recent decades, but not nearly as much in other countries?"
ReplyDeletea) Government favors (e.g. wall street, banks, the last ten years)
Free market (Google, NBA players, ...)
Large growth in gov and gov jobs paying well above the average. The larger gov grows and the more it regulates the more corruption with the private sector you will get.
b) Competition from China et al suppressing low skilled worker's wages.
Poor US schools, fatherless kids, drug addiction, ....
******************
From this SSA web site SS benefits are extremely progressive.
benefits =
90% of first $749 ave monthly wages
32% of additional up to $4517 ""
15% of anything over $4517 ""
Extremely progressive, 90% to 15%.
http://ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html#estimate
*****************
I'm in favor of free public school and basic preventative healthcare(e.g. immunization, pre natal, ....).
However, you have not yet answered the "fairness" question of more heavily taxing ALL US workers to provide these same basic services to the 3rd world. You believe the US rich should support the US poor. How about the US rich and poor (rich by world standards) supporting the 3rd world poor? Let's take 50% of the US rich and 25% of the US poor income to support the truly poor in 3rd world countries.
"Government favors" *ARE* the corruption we've been trying to tell you about here. Some time around the 1970s govt began to be corrupted by corporations and income inequality began to grow. Then under Reagan it took off.
ReplyDelete--
Growth in govt jobs, competition from China, etc: these refer to middle class jobs. None of these have created "wealthy" people.
And there have always been a few people with Google-like wealth around: 19th century Robber Barons, Rockefellers, Mellons, etc. Now there are more of them.
It's the corruption of govt, its favoring of corporations over citizens, the decline in highest tax rates that have created all this. I'd recommend you read Krugman's book "The Conscience of a Liberal."
"Government favors" *ARE* the corruption we've been trying to tell you about here.
ReplyDeleteIs this what you mean?
"You hit up the taxpayers for an unpopular $50 billion loan, then tell them they’ll lose $14 billion on their investment. What do you do for an encore? Government Motors CEO Dan Akerson wants to hike your gas taxes."
"In a wide-ranging interview with the Detroit News, Loose Lips Akerson — a telecom exec who is the latest CEO to come through GM’s revolving executive-suite door — let fly that he would like to see the “federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars.” Akerson’s comments are more evidence of the cozy relationship between the Obama administration and the Rentseekers’ Roundtable. From banning light bulbs for GE to giant green loans for Dow and LGChem, Green zealot Obama and his corporate henchmen have pursued policies aligned with corporate interests — not consumers."
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/269050/bail-me-out-and-i-ll-urge-gas-tax-hike-you-henry-payne
"Government favors" *ARE* the corruption we've been trying to tell you about here.
ReplyDeleteIs this what you mean?
"The villains? An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros. (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing developments.)"
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/07/fanniegate-gamechanger-for-the-gop/
David,
ReplyDeleteThis is off topic but just too good (tragically).
"One German organic farm has killed twice as many people as the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the Gulf Oil spill combined. Crickets."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110610/D9NOV37O0.html
Charles, I find your obvious delight in this news item revolting. Anything to score a political point, huh?
ReplyDeleteI don't view it as a political point. Rather a point about valuing human life over "religious zeal".
ReplyDeleteI would make the same point about those who refuse to give their kids modern medicine. Or those who favor ethanol subsidies and high food prices even though more people starve.
A large part of the environmental agenda kills people. And I am very happy to point this out in the hope that future killing will be less.
I favor human life over the environment without reservation.
David,
ReplyDeleteLet me put it another way.
The same environmentalist that want to shut down nuclear in Germany support organic farming.
Shutting down nuclear will increase coal usage and that will kill people just like the organic farming has killed people.
How many people has organic farming killed?
ReplyDeleteHow many people have been killed by industrial farming?
How many people has organic farming killed?
ReplyDeleteHow many people have been killed by industrial farming?
These are fair questions. I suspect that far more people have been killed in industrial farming than organic farming even comparing deaths/output.
More fair questions.
How many people have been killed by modern organic farming vs modern nuclear energy? Organic farming has killed far more.
How many people have been killed by coal energy vs nuclear energy? Coal energy has killed far more.
So why is organic farming and coal energy accepted but nuclear energy banned in Germany?
Why are you expecting me to defend German policies?
ReplyDelete> How many people have been killed
ReplyDelete> by modern organic farming vs
> modern nuclear energy? Organic
> farming has killed far more.
Has it? Do you have data on that?
Estimates of the number of deaths from the Chernobyl accident range from 5,000 to 1,000,000. I haven't studied it in detail.