14 replies to this topic

[franklin_turtle]

But the truth is that most households probably pay a lower rate than Mr. Romney. It is impossible to know for sure, given that he has yet to release his tax return. What is clear, though, is that a large majority of American households — about two out of every three — pays less than 15 percent of income to the federal government, through either income taxes or payroll taxes.

This disconnect between what we pay and what we think we pay is nothing less than one of the country’s biggest economic problems.

Many Americans see themselves as struggling under the weight of a heavy tax burden (partly for the understandable reason that wage growth has been so weak). Yet taxes in the United States are quite low today, compared with past years or those in other countries. Most important, American taxes are not sufficient to pay for the programs that many people want, like Medicare, Social Security, road construction and education subsidies.

What does this combination create? An enormous long-term budget deficit.

Together, all federal taxes equaled 14.4 percent of the nation’s economic output last year, the lowest level since 1950. Add state and local taxes, and the share nearly doubles, to about 27 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center in Washington — still lower than at almost any other point in the last 40 years.

As the economy recovers and incomes rise, tax payments will increase somewhat. But they will not keep pace with projected spending, in the form of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And total taxes at current rates would still make up a smaller share of the economy than in virtually any other rich country — not just European nations but also Australia, Canada, Israel and New Zealand.
http://www.nytimes.c...ner=rss&emc=rss

[GT3BB]

But the truth is that most households probably pay a lower rate than Mr. Romney. It is impossible to know for sure, given that he has yet to release his tax return. What is clear, though, is that a large majority of American households — about two out of every three — pays less than 15 percent of income to the federal government, through either income taxes or payroll taxes.


Correction......About one out of every two pay ZERO income taxes to the federal government.

[franklin_turtle]

GT3BB, on 19 January 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

But the truth is that most households probably pay a lower rate than Mr. Romney. It is impossible to know for sure, given that he has yet to release his tax return. What is clear, though, is that a large majority of American households — about two out of every three — pays less than 15 percent of income to the federal government, through either income taxes or payroll taxes.


Correction......About one out of every two pay ZERO income taxes to the federal government.

Yes, the percent is 47% income tax.  
http://www.nytimes.c...4leonhardt.html

The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.

So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. It’s true that raising taxes on the rich alone can’t come close to solving the long-term budget problem. The deficit is simply too big. But if taxes are not increased for the wealthy, the country will be left with two options.

It will have to raise taxes even more than it otherwise would on everybody else. Or it will have to find deep cuts in Medicare, Social Security, military spending and the other large (generally popular) federal programs.

All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important.

[Spittin_Chicklets]

I think the greater concern here isn't that 47% of Americans aren't paying federal income tax, but rather that 47% of Americans are earning so little income as to qualify for said tax credits.

Incomes for low wage earners are getting lower and for middle class workers are remaining flat, meanwhile the cost of essential items, like food, gas, and healthcare (things not counted against inflation) continue to rise at an alarming rate.

As the old saying goes... you can't get blood out of a turnip. I'm really not sure how increasing the tax rate on people who don't make any money is going to solve anything.

[GT3BB]

Spittin_Chicklets, on 19 January 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

I think the greater concern here isn't that 47% of Americans aren't paying federal income tax, but rather that 47% of Americans are earning so little income as to qualify for said tax credits.

Incomes for low wage earners are getting lower and for middle class workers are remaining flat, meanwhile the cost of essential items, like food, gas, and healthcare (things not counted against inflation) continue to rise at an alarming rate.

As the old saying goes... you can't get blood out of a turnip. I'm really not sure how increasing the tax rate on people who don't make any money is going to solve anything.

You're backing the wrong horse if you seek to raise the income of the lower 47%...the only way Obama has been able to solve the problem is to add records more Americans to the poverty level and increase food stamps to highest every levels.

[Alobar]

Franklin_Turtle, on 19 January 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Many Americans see themselves as struggling under the weight of a heavy tax burden (partly for the understandable reason that wage growth has been so weak). Yet taxes in the United States are quite low today, compared with past years or those in other countries. Most important, American taxes are not sufficient to pay for the programs that many people want, like Medicare, Social Security, road construction and education subsidies.

27.3% of US GDP is sucked form the economy and moved to the public sector.

That IS a heavy tax burden regardless if other nations have an even heavier one.



And, witht the fungibility of money, it is obviously unfair to point out any specific program.  One must look at the budget as a whole.

[franklin_turtle]

Alobar, on 20 January 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

27.3% of US GDP is sucked form the economy and moved to the public sector.

That IS a heavy tax burden regardless if other nations have an even heavier one.



And, witht the fungibility of money, it is obviously unfair to point out any specific program.  One must look at the budget as a whole.

It is also historically low.  You probably pay less tax than your Father or Grandfather.  Yet folks moan about their taxes more now than before.  They perceive that they are being taxed to death.

[GT3BB]

Franklin_Turtle, on 20 January 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

It is also historically low.  You probably pay less tax than your Father or Grandfather.  Yet folks moan about their taxes more now than before.  They perceive that they are being taxed to death.

Not the highest(#17 Taxes/GDP), but not the lowest either.

http://www.nationmas...total-as-of-gdp

And if you exclude many of the central planning nations, the US spikes up close to the  top.

[franklin_turtle]

GT3BB, on 20 January 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Not the highest(#17 Taxes/GDP), but not the lowest either.

http://www.nationmas...total-as-of-gdp

And if you exclude many of the central planning nations, the US spikes up close to the  top.

No Japan at #18 is the lowest.

[GT3BB]

Franklin_Turtle, on 20 January 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

No Japan at #18 is the lowest.

Not surprising when you choose to spend less than 1% of your GDP on defense spending.

[Alobar]

Franklin_Turtle, on 20 January 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

It is also historically low.

Still much too high.

[GT3BB]

The average tax rate in the US was 11.06% in 2009.

The rate for the top 1% of wage earners was 24.01%, the rate for the bottom 50% was 1.85%, in other words, the top 1% wage earners were taxed at an average rate 13 times that of the bottom 50% of wage earners.  Claims that the top wage earners are not paying their fair share are false class envy claims..

Now, if you have a hankering for redistribution of wealth...say so, and we can go from there and we can stick it to the rich even more, because, well, like bank robber Willie Sutton said.."thats where the money is".

[Spittin_Chicklets]

GT3BB, on 20 January 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

The average tax rate in the US was 11.06% in 2009.

The rate for the top 1% of wage earners was 24.01%, the rate for the bottom 50% was 1.85%, in other words, the top 1% wage earners were taxed at an average rate 13 times that of the bottom 50% of wage earners.  Claims that the top wage earners are not paying their fair share are false class envy claims..

Now, if you have a hankering for redistribution of wealth...say so, and we can go from there and we can stick it to the rich even more, because, well, like bank robber Willie Sutton said.."thats where the money is".

So for the sake of argument, we'll say that your 2009 numbers are correct. What that means is that the effective tax rate for the top 1% DECREASED in 2010 to 23.27% while it INCREASED on the bottom 50% to 2.59%.

So basically taxes are being raised on the poor and lowered on the rich.

Additionally, the top 5% of Americans earn nearly 3 times as much and the bottom 50% in terms of AGI. This kind of concentration of wealth is seriously SKUing the numbers.

The top 50% of wage earners in this country earn 87.25% of the income, while the bottom 50% earn 12.75%. The top 1% earn more than the bottom 50%. That means that there are 3,000,000 people in this country who earn more than 150,000,000.

I don't have a problem with that, but expecting to make up these enormous budget deficits by increasing taxes on the poor is just plain silly. The fact of the matter is that there just isn't any money to tax.

[Alobar]

Spittin_Chicklets, on 20 January 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with that, but expecting to make up these enormous budget deficits by increasing taxes on the poor is just plain silly. The fact of the matter is that there just isn't any money to tax.

Plus... it's a really really bad idea if your goal is to increase commerce and economic activity.

[GT3BB]

Franklin_Turtle, on 19 January 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Yes, the percent is 47% income tax.  
http://www.nytimes.c...4leonhardt.html

The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation.

So a much greater share of income is now concentrated at the top of distribution, while each dollar there is taxed less than it once was. It’s true that raising taxes on the rich alone can’t come close to solving the long-term budget problem. The deficit is simply too big. But if taxes are not increased for the wealthy, the country will be left with two options.

It will have to raise taxes even more than it otherwise would on everybody else. Or it will have to find deep cuts in Medicare, Social Security, military spending and the other large (generally popular) federal programs.

All the attention being showered on “47 percent” is ultimately a distraction from that reality.

The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.

But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important.

The answer is that tax rates almost certainly have to rise more on the affluent than on other groups. Over the last 30 years, rates have fallen more for the wealthy, and especially the very wealthy, than for any other group. At the same time, their incomes have soared, and the incomes of most workers have grown only moderately faster than inflation


Not really, the income of the wealthy has not really soared...it's mostly shifted from other investments, meanwhile the middle/lower income if you consider all factors, has steadily risen.

The primary source of all this misleading income inequality is from the Piketty-Saez income inequality report which grossly overstates the top 1%(numerator), and dramatically understates the low/middle income(denominator), creating a very misleading gap among the rich and poor.

[GT3BB]

When is someone making minimum wage earning close to $60,000?

When they live in a country where there is the perception of income inequality perpetrated by the left!