Wealthiest Americans pay 43% of all income taxes

[yvr girl]

OK, maybe a fact not sure. (Came from Novak sub on Crossfire.) The real question is what is their collective share of the income earned by Americans? Anyone know?

[smiley_glad_hands]

1. Like 90%. Just guessing. eom

[AIJ Alom]

5. you are probably close to the truth.

[leftofthedial]

14. It's about 90% of the wealth

not sure about "income"


plus "income taxes" do not include payroll tax--withholding for social security, etc.

[yvr girl]

25. My guess would have been in that range

I don't know why people just don't stomp all over statements like this. So many viewers don't consider the context. Wow, this small percentage of the population pays almost half of all income taxes. This can only be seen in context if we know their share of the income pool.

Don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge the wealthy their money. Bill Gates (whatever your stand on Microsoft) is an American success story. He made a product that many people find extremely useful. He had excellent timing. He also does a lot of good with his money. Let him enjoy his billions. But he does owe more to society. The rich who understand this 'cosmic debt' become great philanthropists like Gates or the Heinz family.

[AIJ Alom]

2. excellent point !!!! Someone should do that number crunching !!!

[clydefrand]

3. The sub on Crossfire is G. Gordon Liddy

Remember Watergate? That's the one!

[AIJ Alom]

7. also the guy who during the Elian deal said that you should shoot any

person in body armor in the head. What a loser. I can't believe CNN had this guy on ! Let me correct that. I'm not surprised CNN had this guy on.

[Vincardog]

8. you know they get 90% of the corporate profits they go to the top 1%

[madmax]

18. Convicted felon

I wonder if he can vote?

[yvr girl]

33. I caught his name, just didn't feel like typing it.

I do remember Watergate, but not in great detail. I was 7 and lived in a different country - so I deserve some slack. I must admit, I recognized his name, but I didn't immediately connect him to Watergate.

[DelawareValleyDem]

35. Ah yes, Liddy

The 'law and order' type convicted of nine felonies for which he served a total of five years.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

4. Here... let me get my tissue...

Oh wait, too busy sending out resumes.

[cheezus]

6. wealthiest americans get the majority of benefit from tax dollars

why shouldn't they pay for the majority of it?

[shaolinmonkey]

9. As they should. How much money do people need?

Boo fucking hoo. Write the goddam checks ya greedy bastards.

[ClintonTyree]

12. But, but.....................

they're creating all of the JOBS................in India.

[shaolinmonkey]

15. Indeed. That's the answer to tax and spend liberal...

cheap labor conservative, or slave labor conservative.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

10. It would also be interesting

to correlate these numbers to property ownership - e.g. the wealthiest 1% owns xx% of the property in the U.S.

[teach1st]

11. Not sure if this helps

http://baltimorechronicle.com/090204SheldonHLaskin.shtml

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:
“Taxes Are What We Pay for Civilized Society”
by Sheldon H. Laskin, 9/2/04


First, while the richest 1% of Americans-those with reported adjusted gross income (AGI) of more than $313,000 in 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts)-paid more than 37% of individual income tax that year, this is only part of the picture. When other federal taxes are included, their overall federal tax burden was about 25% of total taxes, about 21% of their reported income. And yet, the richest 1% received one-third of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts. And, while $313,000 is certainly a very nice income, people at this level hardly constitute the super-rich in America. The tax burden falls exponentially the higher up the income ladder one looks

Also, measuring the tax burden by reported income is misleading. The reported income of the very wealthy is a fraction of their total income. Unlike the typical wage earner, the very wealthy are able to take much of their income in forms that never show up on a tax return at all.

One of the major reasons the tax burden is so heavily skewed against the middle class and in favor of the very wealthy is the Social Security tax. This tax is especially burdensome to middle-income taxpayers, while amounting to petty cash for the very wealthy. Unlike the income tax, the Social Security tax applies to the first dollar of income, and the tax is capped (as of 2000) at $76,200 of income. The Social Security tax burden for someone earning $76,200 in 2000 was 12.4% (the sum of the employer and employee share). For someone earning $313,000, this tax burden was only 3%. At $1,000,000, the burden was only nine-tenths of 1%.

[ursacorwin]

19. the key word is "income" taxes.

many of the most wealthy don't earn a paycheck, but live off of trust funds, stocks, and other financial vehicles which have many more tax loops. my super rich friends often joke how they haven't paid any taxes at all in years...it's cheaper to drag their heels and pay some fines and hire clever accountants to move the $ around to fool uncle sam.

also, the poor pay many, many more taxes than income taxes. our tax burden for essentials like food, shelter, gas, anything we have to buy is much greater than someone who can blow 2,000$ on a single lunch. how many people here have complained about having to choose between food and medicine, or have been forced into extra jobs just to get by? those matters never concern the trust fund set.

further, the wealthy have lots of options we don't have to avoid taxation entirely, while still reaping the benefits of what we all are supposed to pay for. while they move their money off shore or into less taxed situations, we have no choice but to "pay" for their tax cuts in the form of reduced social services that we need. not to mention all the things we don't need and still pay for, like this stupid war.

our grandkids will be paying for bush's tax cuts, and probably not have things like SS or healthcare (if you can call it that) like we do today.

all so the superrich can stay that way and get even more.

[el_gato]

21. Bingo

[Owlet]

13. 20% for top 1%

Taxpayers earnining over $1,000,000 per year.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

[el_gato]

16. Taxes on Earning vs. Taxes on Investment Income

Look taxes paid on wages and other earnings average 23.4 percent.
Taxes paid on investment income averages on 9.6 percent.

Investment income is where the rich people like Dick Cheney make their money, while working class stiffs like us have to earn our money.

Don't be fooled by NoFacts slick talking.

More:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/earnpr.pdf

[el_gato]

28. Tax rates on investment income is lower than what you pay in wages

For example the 12.7 percent you pay into SS and Medicare does not apply to investment income.

Also, for example, realized long-term capital gains and eligible dividends are taxed at the maximum rate of 15%, while wage income is taxed at the max rate of 35%.

There are many more ways the idle rich do not pay taxes that we do.

[annerevere]

17. Can't cite the source but

The rich pay no more in total taxes than the middle class. Why--payroll taxes hit the middle class much harder as a percentage of their income.

[papau]

20. Add all taxes and we are a flat tax nation-If 43% of tax-then 43% of Incom

:-)

Actually those just below really rich pay a slightly higher than the rich total rate, and those just below those folks pay a bit lower total rate.

That is the system we call "progressive!"

But the GOP carves out Federal FIT only and say the rich pay at a higher rate!

And our media goes along with the partial truth lie!

:-(

[klook]

22. More income, more taxes. What are they whining about?

According to this article - http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/cda/article_print/0,1983,VCS_223_3115569_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html - even with a flat tax, the rich would pay higher taxes than the rest of us. Well, duh. And why the hell shouldn't they? If somebody earns 100 times my annual income, should he get off with paying only 30 times as much in taxes? Or half as much?

Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1170874.stm for background on why some wealthy Americans oppose the class warfare of Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

[OneTwentyoNine]

23. Like Molly Ivan's said in a speech awhile back....

She said she made about one million last year and after taxes took home over $600,000.00. She asked if anyone in the audience felt sorry for her because of her tax rate. Narry a peep from the audience.

David

[bloom]

24. Seems l heard Bill Gates makes as much as 40% of Americans

Obviously the bottom 40%.

He could part with a much larger share of his income than the bottom 40% could.

It's all in how you want to spin the numbers.

[Demit]

26. info I looked up in 2/03 and emailed to a friend:

I looked up some stuff after our conversation the other night. You might be interested in what I found. When proponents of the dividend relief plan say "60% of people receiving dividends have incomes of $75,000 or less"--yes, that's true. But what they neglect to say is that 21% of people receiving dividends have incomes over $1 million. From the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center website, how the cuts will be distributed:

For income of $30-$40,000, average tax cut would be $29;
For income of $40-$50,000, average tax cut would be $51;
For income of $50-$75,000, average tax cut would be $82;
For income of $75-$100,000, average tax cut would be $151;
For income of $100-$200,000, average tax cut would be $458;
For income of $1 million and over, average tax cut would be $27,701.



Also, the Congressional Budget Office's most recent report, "Effective Tax Rates" (Oct 2001), based on data they compile from the IRS, shows the following distribution of income/taxes among the five quintiles of income:

The lowest 20% (avg income $11,400): Share of pre-tax income 4.0%; Share of after-tax income 4.8%.
The second 20% (avg income $28,600): Share of pre-tax income 9.0%; Share of after-tax income 10.1%.
The third 20% (avg income $45,500): Share of pre-tax income 13.9%; Share of after-tax income 14.9%.
The fourth 20% (avg income $65,600): Share of pre-tax income 20.2%; Share of after-tax income 20.8%.
The top 20% (avg income $167,500): Share of pre-tax income 53.2%; Share of after-tax income 49.7%.



Yes, Federal income taxes are progressive. But they are not the only taxes we pay. Once you add in Social Security taxes, excise taxes (Federal), and sales, excise and property taxes (state and local)--ALL highly regressive taxes--the charge that the rich are being soaked is pretty unconvincing.

This president is up to something, but it's not about making things more "fair".

[radwriter0555]

27. NO they don't. it's not possible, considering how few of them there are.

Check the IRS and treasury websites. he's merely belching information by rush limbaugh.

[Selwynn]

29. Dammit I just had this stat the other day: top 20% = 82.xx% of wealth

Now I can't freakin find the source again...

[el_gato]

30. Basically there are two taxing systems in place

One for the working class, and I mean the working class in a very literal sense.

And another for the super wealthy who earn their income from financial vehicles.

[sandnsea]

31. 50%

The highest group earns 50% of US income. The top 1% has 1/3 of US wealth. It's just outrageous that they should complain about paying their fair share of taxes.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf

[yvr girl]

32. To be fair, I don't hear complaints from the super wealthy

It seems to me that people like Gates, Buffet etc do not have a problem paying there share of income taxes. Let's face it, going from $100 million to $50 million net income is not going to adversely effect anyone's quality of life.

I think it is the wealthy of want to be super wealthy who have issues.

[sandnsea]

34. Who funds the lobbyists?

Wealth is power, they want power. That's all the Republican party is really about, Bush is proof of that. They don't care what he does, as long as they keep their power. Tax cuts are bait for the greedy, no matter their income level. Just a political ploy. No they don't care about the money, the way they're willing to spend federal dollars on stupid defense programs proves that. They do care about concentrating power and have concocted a whole political strategy to make sure they keep it.

[GR]

36. One Problem...Social Security Is A Big Portion Of Revenue...

and they get a big break on that, because there is a cap at around $90K.

Besides that, their investment income is taxed at a lower rate and they make most of the moeny and owm most everything.

So quit whining...

[lastknowngood]

37. Real numbers yes they pay 43% but they own 85% of the wealth

in this country. Which leaves 57% of the taxes to be paid by those who own only 15% of the wealth. Figure out that tax ratio and you'll go nuts.

[Lindacooks]

38. And how much money is LEFT OVER after this

incredible burden is paid??

How much money do these people have as disposable income? THAT'S the question to ask. Taxes paid are irrelevant. The money you have left after bills (including taxes) are paid is what counts.

[punpirate]

39. Well, Novak's sub is a little behind the times....

... since about 51% of federal income taxes are paid by individuals.

Overall, ordinary wage earners in the bottom 70% pay the bulk of all taxes (income and payroll), since most of the income of the wealthy is exempt from payroll. In that sense, using income taxes as the standard is misleading.

The other question which needs to be asked is what is the definition of "wealthy?" The top 400 families? The top one percent? Top five percent? Top ten percent?

In Wealth and Democracy, Kevin Phillips has some interesting statistics which might put the claim into perspective. His figures are for 1997, and the percentage of income for this block has risen since then. The top 1% of the households had, in 1997, 16.6% of all income. Those households making $200,000 or more in 1997 (about 1.3% of the 1997 population) had 19.9% of the income (including capital gains). To put that into dollar terms, the average cash income of the top 1% of households was $644,000 after taxes in 1997. It's gone up, since then. Today, the average income of the top 1% is $1,082,000 according to:

http://www.alternet.org/story/16515

If we consider that that share of income has risen in the same way it had in prior years, about 1.3% of the households have close to 25% of the total income.

In that same book, Phillips says that total tax load (payroll and income combined) averages not quite 18% for households around the median income ($43,000), and for the first time in the late `90s, total tax load for the top 1% dipped to a slightly lower percentage than those with the median income.

From that, extrapolated to 2004, and taking into account some of the hefty tax cuts for the top 1% of households, the total of all federal taxes generated is about $1.7 trillion (figuring in actual deficits). This year, less than 10% of that is paid by corporations, about 4% paid by other means--tariffs and the like--so, individuals pay about 87% of total tax load, or about $1.5 trillion.

So, if the wealthy pay about 17.8% of their income in taxes, and the top 1% of all wage earners (by income distribution, approx. 29,000 people/households) have an average adjusted gross of $1,082,000, then their share of the total tax load is actually $5.6 billion, or 0.37% of the total tax load paid by individuals.

Even if we assume that the population distribution is linear across the income spread (it's not), it would mean that the population of the top 1% of income filers would be about 1,000,000, and their taxes paid, about $190 billion, or about 12% of the total individual taxes paid.

Novak's replacement, if we define wealthy as the top 1% in the income distribution, is off by two orders of magnitude.

The real issue here is that almost 36% of the total tax burden is in the form of payroll taxes, which are disproportionately paid by the bottom 70% of wage earners.

Whenever this sort of outright lie or fiscal sleight-of-hand appears, a good source for rebuttal information is:

http://www.ctj.org


Cheers.