Note: Although I try to keep GRS a politics-free zone, today’s topic is inherently political. I’ve stayed as neutral as possible in the article, but I know that there’ll be some political discussion in the comments. Please keep conversation civil, as always.
Because I was frustrated with my own ignorance about the U.S. federal budget and our tax system, I recently spent twelve hours researching a variety of tax topics. From my research came two articles: last week’s short guide to the federal budget and today’s post, which answers some of my personal questions about taxes.
Last week, we tried to take a few small steps toward understanding the federal budget. We looked at where the U.S. government spends its money. But where does it actually find the cash to spend?
Of the $2.333 Trillion dollars in U.S. government receipts:
- $1050 Billion (45.0%) comes from Individual Income Taxes
- $939 Billion (40.2%) comes from Social Insurance/Retirement Receipts
- $221 Billion (9.5%) comes from Corporate Income Taxes
- $76 Billion (3.3%) comes from Excise Taxes
- $20 Billion (0.9%) comes from Estate and Gift Taxes
- $28 Billion (1.2%) comes from Federal Reserve Deposits
- $16 Billion (0.7%) comes from other miscellaneous sources
As you can see, nearly half of government receipts come from individual income taxes. Naturally, taxes are a hot-button issue. They have been since this nation was founded. (To be fair, though, the driving force then was “taxation without representation”. Modern complaints are against taxes in principle, I think.)
During my research, several questions about taxes occurred to me. In today’s article, I’ll do my best to share the answers I found.
Is it true that X% of Americans pay no federal income tax?
In a recent discussion about taxes at The Simple Dollar, Kevin wrote:
Roughly half of all Americans don’t pay any income tax at all. I’m sure those folks feel the current tax levels are just fine and dandy, no complaints. Those of us who DO pay taxes, however, are buckling under the weight.
Kevin’s comment left me wondering: Are there really that many Americans who don’t pay income tax? And are those of us who do pay income tax really “buckling under the weight”?
I was unable to locate government data on people who don’t pay taxes. Instead, I found a March 2006 article from the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C., which calculated that 43.4 million tax returns resulted in zero (or negative) tax liability. Another 15 million households file no tax return at all. Based on these numbers, the article concludes:
Roughly 121 million Americans — or 41 percent of the U.S. population — will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006. This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.
So, according to this study, 41% of the U.S. population lives outside the federal income tax system, and 32% of U.S. tax returns resulted in zero or negative liability in 2006.
This 32% number is relatively high. Previous peaks were at 28% in 1950 and 26% in 1978. Lows were 16% in 1968 and 18% in 1984. In general, the percentage of tax returns with no tax liability is between 20% and 25%.
The Tax Foundation sees these numbers as a call to “broaden the tax base”, but admit that nonpayers tend to be younger and earn lower incomes. (Here’s a past GRS article about people who live on low incomes in order to avoid paying taxes.)
If there are a large number of non-payers, does that mean the rest of us are “buckling under the burden”? Let’s look at more numbers.
How do current income tax rates compare with those from the past?
In the United States, the federal individual income tax went into effect in 1913. The top marginal rate was 7% — and that’s if you earned over half a million dollars. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, that’s equivalent to an income of nearly $11,000,000 today!)
The Tax Foundation has published a handy viewer that allows users to explore U.S. federal individual income tax rates from 1913 to 2009. (They offer PDF and Excel versions of the data, too.)
Using their data, I created a graph that shows the history of U.S. marginal tax rates. This graph shows the lowest marginal rate in red and the highest marginal rate in blue. At any one time there are many other rates in between. (The tax tables are simple right now, believe it or not.)

Based on this information, it would be easy to conclude that tax rates are low in the United States right now relative to past history. While I believe this is probably true, it’s impossible to know this for sure without copious data regarding average incomes and effective tax rates. Still, the answer to the next question provides a bit of a response.
What tax rate does the average person pay?
Because the United States has a system of progressive taxation, it’s difficult to know exactly how much each person pays for income tax. We all know our marginal tax rates — the rate at which the last dollar of our income is taxed — but our effective tax rates (or average tax rates) fluctuate from year to year.
I don’t know a source for comprehensive data on this question. The IRS does provide some statistics (and may, in fact, provide all the data one needs), and other parties have taken the time to collate some of it. For example, the Tax Foundation has produced several pages of summary tables. From this info, I built the following chart:

This chart shows the average federal income tax rates over time for a variety of income levels. The red line shows the average tax rate from 1980 to 2007 for the top 1% of the population based on Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). The black lines shows the top 10% of earners based on AGI. The blue line shows the overall average federal income tax rate for all U.S. citizens.
In 1980, Americans paid 15.31% of their AGI in income taxes. In 1990, that number was 12.95%. In 2000, it was 15.26%. In 2007 — the last year for which there is data — that number was 12.68%. Based on this, I’d say that the average American has an effective federal income tax rate of 13-15%. (And top earners pay about 22%.)
Note that these numbers don’t exactly match the statistics for effective tax rates that are available from the Congressional Budget Office. (Which show, for example, an effective individual income tax rate of 11.7% in 1980, 10.1% in 1990, 11.8% in 2000, and 9.1% in 2006.) I’m almost certain it’s a matter of methodology, but I don’t have the time to dig in and discover the details. That last link, by the way, contains loads of great data, some of which is analyzed in this piece at The New York Times.
So are Americans “buckling under the burden” of taxes? I’m not convinced. Taxes seem to be moderately low right now based on our past history. But maybe we pay more than the rest of the world? Let’s find out.
How does the U.S. tax burden compare with that of other countries?
Though I was unable to locate comprehensive statistics for every country in the wold, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) does collect data on its 30 member nations.
In fact, you can view 18 years of OECD tax data all on one page. These numbers represent each country’s tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (gross domestic product). These figures include all taxes: federal, state, and local. (Note that you can export the data from this page in a variety of formats! Fun for statsgeeks and taxgeeks alike.) Here’s a graph of the data from 2006, the most recent year for which complete stats are available:

In 2006, tax revenue in the United States was 28.0% of the gross domestic product. Put another way, the average American paid 28% of her income to taxes (state, federal, and local). Of the 30 OECD member countries, only four had lower taxes (Japan, Korea, Turkey, and Mexico). The highest tax burdens were in Denmark and Sweden, where tax revenue was 49.1% of the GDP. The lowest tax burden (by far!) was in Mexico, where tax revenue was only 20.6% of GDP.
These numbers indicate that relative to other countries, the United States has a low tax burden.
How much is this all costing me?
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines. And the interstate highway to grandmother’s house. How much does this all cost you?
Well, Jess Bachman (the Death and Taxes poster guy) has done the calculations for you:
The average U.S. taxpayer has an income of $43,650. For every billion dollars of government spending, this taxpayer is on the hook for five bucks. These numbers scale up or down depending on your income. If you earn $100,000 a year, for example, you pay $15 of taxes for every billion dollars the government spends. Ouch.
Conclusion
Based on my research, U.S. taxes actually seem relatively low, both historically and in relation to other countries. I am not arguing that we should have higher taxes. Nor am I arguing we should have lower taxes. I’m just relaying the facts.
In fact, I don’t really have a purpose behind my research other than education. With all of the recent national discussion about taxes, I felt woefully under-informed on the subject. When listening to people argue about taxes, it’s difficult to know whom to believe. I wanted to do my own research and then share the results with you.
For more exciting information about taxes, check out the following:
- Internal Revenue Service: Tax statistics
- U.S. Treasury: A history of the U.S. tax system
- FedStats provides easy access to tons of statistics collated by the U.S. government.
- Tax Foundation: State and local tax burdens (by year) and State and local tax burdens (by state)
- Congressional Budget Office: Data on the distribution of federal taxes and household income (with thanks to Dan, a commenter at The Simple Dollar, who shared this info with me)
After all that, how would I balance the budget if I were dictator of the United States? Easy. I’d cut all programs across the board by 10% while increasing taxes on everyone by 10%. Yeah, that sucks, and every citizen of the U.S. would be unhappy. But you know what? If I were dictator, I wouldn’t care. I’d be sitting in a cozy room reading comic books while eating chocolate chip cookies with milk.
Update #1: As with last week’s post, I’ll post updates here at the end of the article as readers offer clarifications or important points. For example, although I focused exclusively on federal income tax for individuals in this article, several readers noted that this is not our only federal tax in the United States. Linear Girl provides a succinct summary: “The second largest source of funds for the federal government is payroll tax, aka Social Security and Medicare. All employed people who aren’t paying any income tax do pay payroll tax of 7.65% on all earned income (their employers also pay and additional 7.65%; if you are your own employer you pay both sides). “ So, if you want to include the complete federal tax burden in the above conversation, you need to add 7.65% to all figures — 15.30% if you’re self-employed.
Update #2: For those requesting a second part to this article about how this money is spent…that was actually the first part, last Monday’s short guide to understanding the federal budget.
Graphs courtesy of me. Images courtesy of Jess Bachman, creator of the Death and Taxes poster. Bachman is generously offering a deal for GRS readers. Order two or more posters and get 50% off when you use the code ’slowly’ at checkout. “It’s basically buy-one, get-one-free,” Bachman says. Thanks, Jess!
This article is about Economics, Taxes Monday, 31st August 2009 (by J.D. Roth)


RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter





August 31st, 2009 at 5:12 am
I think that an important lesson of the international comparative taxation graph is the role of Mexico’s dysfunctional taxation system as a push factor in emigration from Mexico. Mexico has some of the richest individuals in the world and is home to a number of very wealthy multinational corporations, yet tax revenues are abysmally low (20%). The U.S. effectively subsidizes rich Mexicans and Mexican corporations by providing a social “safety net” in the form of emigration and remittances. Unfortunately, most studies have shown that this places a significant tax burden on American taxpayers, largely at the state and local level, as they must provide social services to immigrants and their children. In the end, the average American taxpayer ends up subsidizing very wealthy Mexicans who aren’t paying their share.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:23 am
Thanks J.D. Nice job with the research.
My biggest frustration with the tax system is the complexity. I would love to see a simpler system with more transparency, but alas, transparency is not the desired outcome of the political class. Our legislators love to use the tax system to reward an industry (donors) or a class of citizens (voters) and I don’t see them ever giving up this ability.
Maybe we should all forward GRS columns on living within our means to our representatives.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:31 am
As you included this figure in your receipts categories, you should also include it in your rates calculations.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:37 am
Also, Bush pushed through a 0% tax rate on certain dividends and long-term capital gains, two assets typically held in trust funds.
I’m a tax accountant and a CPA. I had two families come in last year with the same amount of income, roughly $120K, with the same mortgage and the same number of children. One of the families paid $30K in income and payroll taxes on that $120K. The other paid $0, as all their income was from a trust fund.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:38 am
Well done! I think the takeaway here is pretty simple: people need to stop complaining about their taxes already.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:52 am
It’s not just federal taxes. Here in NYS the state income tax is high, my town real estate taxes are among the highest (mine were as high as my federal taxes before deductions)…even the sales tax is 8.25% That doesn’t include all the new fees/taxes impossed on many services and registrations here in the state. And as others have said, SSI, SSDI, and others, as well as investment taxes, etc. My tax burden overall is very high.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:53 am
Well done indeed! I’d love to see some further research on how that money is spent… but that might be a bit more frustrating for the readers.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:57 am
Well done. I enjoyed reading this article.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:58 am
Taxes are a great thing to complain about. Every working person pays taxes, so it has the potential to resonate with all voters. Of course, the devil is in the details.
I for one like the idea of raising taxes and decreasing spending at the same time. Right now, we have one party that frames itself as providing the programs that people want, and the other party frames itself as the one that will reduce your tax burden.
They are both liars, because neither one of them wants to do what is necessary to be responsible for future generations. We have a huge debt and still maintain a huge deficit. There is no way to deal with that other than by cutting spending AND raising taxes.
Realism, unfortunately, does not win elections.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:09 am
Good post, very informative.
I was glad to see you point out that those who don’t pay federal income taxes usually have lower incomes. My family has low federal income tax payments, because we don’t make very much money…I’ll gladly trade my lower income for a higher one and happily pay the taxes associated with that income.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:15 am
I think the idea of the Fair Tax is a good one.
“The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system. ”
Explanation is from the Fair tax website.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:17 am
For many Americans, the issue is still “taxation without representation,” not against taxes in principle. I live in Washington D.C. and we do not have any say at all in the federal tax system. Indeed, our license plates say “Taxation without Representation.” We D.C. residents do not have full voting rights in the House, nor any voice at all in the Senate.
If Wyoming, Alaska, or Rhode Island were in the same situation and denied federal legislative representation, I simply can not imagine the uproar.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:30 am
This is very informative. Numbers don’t lie, and I appreciate looking at data rather than listening or hearing various opinions on what taxes should or should not be about.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:31 am
Gwendally:
I suspect there will be two kinds of responses to your anecdote: people who think, “Wow, I should figure out how to pay no taxes too!” and people who think, “Wow, that’s wrong and should change.”
August 31st, 2009 at 6:36 am
I think when people complain about taxes in general, it is the total taxes they are trying to figure out. How a person would go about doing that, I have no idea.
If a person has property tax, sales tax in their state/city, state income tax, federal income tax, etc., various gov’t fees, it might be why so many are complaining.
Denmark has very high taxes according to your chart. I believe it. We were just there. Everything there is quite expensive! People seem to live okay, though, and one lady told my husband how everything is “free”…though she pays 40% in taxes and her hubby 60%. Schooling, health, insurance, etc. (I’m going to assume schooling through college.)
August 31st, 2009 at 6:41 am
“Roughly half of all Americans don’t pay any income tax at all. I’m sure those folks feel the current tax levels are just fine and dandy, no complaints. Those of us who DO pay taxes, however, are buckling under the weight.”
This is a hot topic of discussion at our house and included in that sort of statistic (whether it be “roughly half” or 41%) are the percentage of taxpayers whose income is derived from government jobs funded by TAXES!
And because people tend to vote in their own self interest, our fear is that when the tipping point reaches 51% (if it hasn’t already) then the nonpayers and people who derive their income from OPM (other people’s money aka tax dollars) will ALWAYS vote themselve a “pay raise” by raising taxes on the people who actually provide the tax dollars to begin with.
I used to be a government employee (education) and it took me a long time to wrap my head around the fact that even though I was a “good little tax paying citizen” paying taxes on money I “earned”, I had not CREATED the money I was earning. I was not a florist, a drug store owner, a photographer, an independent accountant, a mechanic, etc. I was paying taxes, alright, but I was using OPM to do so.
So our concern, JD, is not so much the rate of taxes that we pay (although we are concerned–because our federal rate is around 38% PLUS all the OTHER state and local taxes–car tags, telephone tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, etc) but what will happen when those that rely on taxpayer funded dollars realize that they can continue to vote themselves more and more and more money.
That leaves the people who are actually CREATING the dollars to have to work harder and harder for less and less.
I think it would also be interesting for people who post comments to state whether their incomes are derived from tax dollars or not, or even trust funds, given Gwendally’s post.
So I’ll start. We are a split houseold. DH is not paid with government dollars, I was,and am still, partially through my state’s retirement fund.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:44 am
In 2006, tax revenue in the United States was 28.0% of the gross domestic product. Put another way, the average American paid 28% of her income to taxes (state, federal, and local). Of the 30 OECD member countries, only four had lower taxes (Japan, Korea, Turkey, and Mexico). The highest tax burdens were in Denmark and Sweden, where tax revenue was 49.1% of the GDP. The lowest tax burden (by far!) was in Mexico, where tax revenue was only 20.6% of GDP.
I don’t think the first two statements are equivalent. I think that GDP is not a measure of the “average” countryman’s income, but rather a measure of how much that country makes and sells. Three of the four contries with lower taxes vs. GDP are large exporters of products and I suspect they have a high GDP compared to their required tax income. Denmark and Sweden are on the other end of the Laffer curve (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve).
BTW, you have form instead of from on the 2nd line of the breakdown of the $2.333 trillion the government receives in taxes.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:48 am
1. Taxes need to be simplified because we spend way too much on tax preparation, filing, and enforcement. Very few people disagree with that, unless they somehow derive their income from the preparation, filing, and/or enforcement. Simplify things and make it fairer!
2. Taxes need to be fair. Almost everyone has an opinion on what “fair” means. I’d say that “fair” means everyone pays some federal income tax - if they have income - regardless of source. Trying to get people to behave a certain way by giving tax breaks is social engineering and shouldn’t be part of the tax system. It leads to perceptions of unfairness because taxes (to pay for constitutionally-mandated federal functions) should not be used for social experimentation or engineering. So, ensure everyone pays some federal taxes, and ensure federal taxes only go toward constitutionally-mandated functions. Now, fairness is closer to realization.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:51 am
This is great. Thank you very much for crafting an exceptional educational piece. I’ll share it both with my Fox News relatives and Daily Show friends.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:53 am
The second largest source of funds for the federal government is payroll tax, aka Social Security and Medicare. All employed people who aren’t paying any income tax do pay payroll tax of 7.65% on all earned income (their employers also pay and additional 7.65%; if you are your own employer you pay both sides). I think it’s important to keep this in mind during discussions because the rhetoric often gets quite heated about people who don’t pay “anything.” Since our government does not keep these funds in trust for retirement benefits but instead spends them in our regular budget, these people are definitely contributing to federal operations.
I think it’s interesting and illuminating to see how little comes in from corporate (9.5%) and estate (0.9%) taxes. Based on stories in places like the Wall Street Journal highlighting these taxes, it sometimes seems as though these must comprise a much larger part of the budget since they get so much coverage. Nice article J.D.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:55 am
I’m still scratching my head over how some people avoid paying taxes altogether. HOW!? I’m very close to the $12,000/yr mark, and every year, I pay at least $1000 in federal taxes, sometimes more. Is it because I’m partially self-employed? Even my part-time retail job, which brings in around $9000/yr (well under the $12,000 mark) takes taxes out of every paycheck. I never get a refund at tax time, I always owe (I filed my w-4 as single/0). What in the world am I doing wrong? 0_o
August 31st, 2009 at 6:56 am
oldernwiser :
Regardless of where the money came from, you still earned it, didn’t you? You provided a service worthy of payment, or else you wouldn’t have been paid. The florist and mechanic are paying taxes with OPM too. Someone else had to earn that money to pay for those roses. Either way the money is going to be spent, and the money you take home at the end of the day used to belong to someone else.
And yes, OUR taxes are paying my salary.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:57 am
What I’d be interested in would be a comparison between taxes and other stuff.
For instance, for these 30 countries, how does the tax rate compare to quality of life?
Or, how does the tax rate compare to the rich/poor gap? (difference between highest wage and lowest wage, percentage of very rich/very poor people, etc).
If I had to go with instinct, I’d say high taxes would result in a higher average quality of life, with less poverty and less very rich people. In other words, that it redistributes wealth more.
Which is the point to some extent.
August 31st, 2009 at 6:58 am
oldernwiser, I don’t exactly understand your post. As an educator who is paid through taxes, you can’t exactly vote yourself higher pay over and over again. You might be able to vote for people who promise to raise taxes, but (1) I haven’t heard a politician promise to raise taxes in years; and (2) just because taxes are raised does not mean your particular interest group will get a pay raise and almost every educator I know is acutely aware of that. I just don’t see this conspiracy of “let’s vote for higher taxes so I’ll get a raise” out there. I’m sure there’s a contingent of government employees who think this, but this statement just doesn’t seem to reflect our country’s current attitude toward taxes or government.
Maybe I am missing what you were getting at?
August 31st, 2009 at 7:01 am
It’s impossible to simply taxes, because the biggest problem is in deciding what constitutes income. The secondary issue is in deciding what rate applies. Let’s assume people in my examples are in the marginal 15% bracket, by far the most common:
Example 1: is it income if you sell standing timber on your woodlot? What about if you CUT the standing timber and sell it? (Cutting it is subject to self-employment income, selling a capital asset is subject to capital gains taxes, so the rate is either 15%+15.3% if you do the work, or 0% if you owned it to begin with and just sold it.)
Example 2: Same thing if you manage an apartment complex: that’s subject to an extra 15.3 tax if you are getting a wage for it, so 30.3% (before state income taxes) OR you can have it be rental income if you own the property, so 15% without that payroll tax.
Example 3: You receive a chunk of money from your parent when they die: if it’s from their savings account, 0% tax. If it’s from their IRA, 15% tax.
Example 4: You sell widgets and gross $100K. But you have payroll costs of $30K and cost of good sold of $20K and you had to use vehicles and equipment and made leasehold improvements - those all get depreciated. You also had office supplies and pay dues to Widget Associations and that all totaled another $10K. Your taxable income is $40K.
Most of the work I do as a tax preparer involves tabulating what is actually taxable income, and very little involves deciding what tax rate applies.
I’ll say this again, though: you simply CANNOT talk about marginal tax rates without discussing the nearly invisible 15.3% tax people pay on the very first dollar of their labor earnings. This is a flat tax on the first $100K people make (after that it drops down to 2.9% for people earning six figures.) The fact that you left it out of your post nearly entirely is part of the heinous blindness that people have about their true tax rates and I think you should go back and revise this to talk about it.
Do NOT fall into the lazy thinking that it’s the employer’s problem to pay the 7.65% they pay in to the employee’s account in return for the employee’s labor. It absolutely IS money the employer is paying for the employee’s labor, the employee just doesn’t ever see or recognize it. This is a hidden tax at the most hidden.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:05 am
@Brenda: if you earn $12,000 you have exemptions and deductions worth approx. $9K, leaving you with $3K in taxable income in the 10% bracket, that’s $300. But you also pay 15.3% in social security and medicare taxes, and that’s $1700, leaving you with a tax burden of $2000, some of which you may have had withheld or paid via quarterlies. Because withholding (the law of the land) is so smooth, self-employed people are the only ones who ever really notice their tax burdens, because they’re the ones writing big checks. Employees are paying exactly the same taxes, they just don’t see them.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:05 am
@Gwendally (#25)
You’re right — I should have explicitly included payroll taxes in the post. (It’s implicit in the country-by-country comparison, which includes all taxes.) I’ve added an update to note this. And I want to highlight an excerpt from your comment. This is a good point:
You simply CANNOT talk about marginal tax rates without discussing the nearly invisible 15.3% tax people pay on the very first dollar of their labor earnings. This is a flat tax on the first $100K people make (after that it drops down to 2.9% for people earning six figures.)
August 31st, 2009 at 7:08 am
@WritersCoin #3:
“…people need to stop complaining about their taxes already.”
I respectfully disagree. I believe taxes are too complex, and, the spending of taxes on items that aren’t constitutionally-mandated is not fair because they amount to social engineering (which is NOT supposed to be the function of the federal income tax). I believe complaining will continue until at least these two items are mitigated.
Some additional statistics from the IRS in 2005:
Bottom 50% paid 3% of federal income taxes.
Top 5% paid 60% of federal income taxes.
Top 1% paid 39% of federal income taxes.
Some additional statistics from the Treasury Department in 2006:
Bottom 50% paid 3% of federal income taxes.
Top 5% paid 53% of federal income taxes.
Top 1% paid 33% of federal income taxes.
Note that the top 1% is part of the Top 5%, not in addition to the Top 5%.
My personal opinion is that the Top 5% already pay a high enough percentage, so the trend from 2005 to 2006 is a trend in the right direction. I think the bottom 50% needs to pay more federal taxes to increase the system’s fairness.
If the bottom 50% is going to derive ever-increasing benefits from the federal government, they need to be paying more than 3% of the cost of running our country. Otherwise, they vote to continuously increase their benefits without any fear of having to pay federal taxes (which creates the problems mentioned by other posters in this comment string).
August 31st, 2009 at 7:10 am
# 5 - Writer’s Coin
Are you kidding me?
August 31st, 2009 at 7:11 am
Also, I want to confirm something that Gwendally says in #26: When you are self-employed, you become acutely aware of payroll taxes. Again, I’m not arguing that taxes are too low or too high. But when I make my quarterly payments, it’s a very painful thing. I experience a visceral ache when I write these huge checks to the IRS. The first year I did it I complained to Kris that it really felt like the last month or two of work had been for naught — I had no money in my account because it all went to taxes. Now I’ve learned how to budget for this, but it still is painful.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:11 am
@Brenda - Keep in mind that if you have self-employment income, you pay that tax on your 1040 tax return, but it is NOT considered income tax. Also, they way people (families, really) don’t pay tax is through exemptions and child tax credits. If you’re single with no dependents, you get one personal exemption and the standard deduction. If you had a child, you’d get a second personal exemption and if you owed any taxes after that they’d likely be covered by the Child Tax Credit, and further, if your income was low enough, you’d be eligible for the Earned Income Credit. That’s how some families can earn far more than you but still pay no income taxes (but they’d still be paying those payroll taxes to the feds).
Finally, you can pay more in each paycheck to reduce or eliminate having to pay when you file by changing your w-4. You keep it at single with 0 exemptions and also have them withhold more on the line where it asks if you’d like additional funds withheld. This is where you can pay your self-employment tax (your social security and medicare tax on your self-employment income) through your employer’s payroll deductions.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:13 am
J.D., thanks for the great research and neutral presentation of information. These posts have really demonstrated the power of the internet, in my opinion.
As other commenters have indicated, I do think you should revise this post so that it is clearer when you are referring to “federal income tax” as opposed to “taxes” as a broad category. The reason I–and apparently many others–don’t like this “roughly half of all Americans don’t pay any taxes” is because that is simply not true. They don’t pay federal income taxes. And, I’d still be interested in how many people *do* pay the income tax, in terms of “loaning” it to the government through withholding, and then have it returned through refunds. That’s not exactly the same as paying “no tax.” Not to mention all of the other federal, state, and local taxes this “roughly half” pay. (And just to be clear, my household is definitely not in that “roughly half” constituency.)
Also, while you claim that the reason this group doesn’t pay federal income tax is because of low(er) income, I think it’s probably worth adding some information about income disparity, which has increased over the past decade. I find it odd when people bash that “roughly half” as if it is a group of people who have chosen to make low incomes so as not to pay taxes. As Ms. Clear’s post indicates, many of these people would like to make higher incomes and pay the corresponding taxes. I’m surprised that more people don’t look at this figure and realize that it spells potential trouble for our economy; more and more people falling below the poverty line is not a good harbinger, regardless of one’s political leanings.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:18 am
I feel like the percentages of the US population not paying taxes are being skewed. Not purposefully mind you, but of the 32 percent of zero balance tax returns how many of those were under 22 and reflected students working part time? Of the 41 percent of the population living outside the tax structure is this allowing for dependents that are included in population counts? Or is it counting them as being outside the system? Individuals under the age of 18 make up 23% of the population. A large amount of those kids aren’t old enough to legally work at all. If they’re being counted among those outside the tax system then that 41 percent number is REALLY off. They may be allowing for this, but it doesn’t seem like it.
Second, from the comments, don’t we want individuals to be able to pull money from trusts without paying income tax? Otherwise the money would be taxed once when it was earned and then again when it was removed from the trust.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:18 am
I think we focus perhaps too much on how much we’re paying in taxes instead of on what we get in exchange for those taxes. I would happily pay 49% in taxes for the standard of living in Denmark or Sweden. Great medical care, college students paid to be students rather than paying to do so (in Denmark at least), terrific social security, low crime, well-maintained roads - where do I sign up?
August 31st, 2009 at 7:20 am
@JD and Gwendally #27:
“You simply CANNOT talk about marginal tax rates without discussing the nearly invisible 15.3% tax people pay on the very first dollar of their labor earnings. This is a flat tax…”
JD, please remember that the “payroll taxes” result in federal benefits (medicare and social security payments) that pay a MUCH higher percentage of return to the bottom 50% of taxpayers (see my post #28 above).
What this means is that the top 1% of taxpayers may pay 3, 4, or 5 times the payroll taxes due to income up to $106,900 this year, but they will later receive less than twice the social security payment benefit. So, payroll taxes are not a “flat tax” except on the tax side. On the benefit side they’re skewed toward the bottom 50% of taxpayers. Not linearly fair, not flat.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:21 am
Paul in cAshburn: how have you come to decide that the top 5% already pay enough? They pay slightly less than they used to, and they pay less than in most other developed countries. So, is this just a gut feeling of yours, or are you looking at data that indicates tehy pay “enough”? I’m not being snarky; I’m serious.
I’d also like to see your statistics that the bottom 50% are getting “more and more” from the federal government. What are you referring to?
August 31st, 2009 at 7:22 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html
This article describes how the richest 1% share of the tax burden has grown, but not as fast as their incomes have.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:23 am
@Michael West (#33)
Although I didn’t indicate this in the post, I agree with you. I’m highly skeptical of these numbers because they don’t come from any official source; there’s only one entity producing them, and they don’t share their methodology. (The simply say that they “use IRS data”.) As a result, I distrust this data. I would love to see a more detailed breakdown.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:23 am
for Avistew,
I know from first-hand experience (married to a Dane) that although taxes in Denmark may seem high compared to taxes in the U.S., you have to look at what the Danes get for their money: free education at all levels (including med schools, PhDs, along with monthly stipends), free medical care (including long-term nursing home care if needed), and guaranteed retirement benefits. All one has to budget for in Denmark are clothes, food, gas, mortgage, and vacations. If you are laid-off from a job, you are guaranteed 90% of your former income while unemployed. Not to mention maternity leave benefits (six months full pay). Seems like they come out ahead in the long-run compared to the U.S. The society feels much more stable economically.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:25 am
While this is probably way to much work to ask of you JD, I’d be curious what percentage of the 41% who pay no Federal income tax are teenagers. I never payed federal taxes as a teenager, but I spent every cent I earned. Having no need to pay for necessities and being too foolish to think about saving, I, like I’m sure most teenagers, gave about 8% of my income in sales taxes to state and local governments. Even for an adult making a salary low enough to be exempt, they would have a lower savings rate proportional to their cost of living, and would pay a decent amount of sales taxes that way. Those things keep state and local governments running, which I would argue is the reason for the tax exemption.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:26 am
I read an interesting treatise once that showed that democracy only survives and thrives in places where people have to pay income taxes. In asset-rich nations (oil, for example) the people are content to just let the government do everything for them, and despotism inevitably arrives.
It’s only when people get outraged at their pockets being picked that they get involved at the grass root level. I think this is why so many self-employed people are represented so widely at the town and state level of politics. They’re just AWARE of what’s happening.
@MM: I have no idea what the right way is to tax labor versus sale of stored assets. The income to create the stored assets was taxed once, and we don’t want to penalize people for storing assets. It’s not an easy question to answer in a knee-jerk way.
My main beef is that people aren’t TALKING about it. With labor being taxed so excessively much larger than sale of capital assets, we really ought to talk about what is in the best interests of the nation to incentivize.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:33 am
I just wanted to pitch in about people who don’t pay income tax.
1 - seriously, I’ve been there and I prefer paying taxes to earning that little. Let’s not forget that if you earn more and pay income taxes, you’re still left with more money in the end than the ones who earn less and don’t pay taxes, due to how the tax system works)
2 - if they “voted themselves a higher wage”, they’d earn more and need to start paying taxes anyways
3 - they still pay stuff like sales tax like everybody else, so it’s not like they’re all freeloaders.
I find it normal to let people keep a minimum to survive and feed themselves, etc. That 40% of the US people don’t pay income tax just means to me that 40% of the US people are too poor to pay taxes, and that’s not a very nice figure.
I wonder if countries with high taxes have more or less people who don’t pay income taxes. (Not that it would necessarily always be relevant. France for instance has a 20% sales tax that is on absolutely everything, including groceries and such. Even people who don’t pay income tax pay at least these 20% on absolutely everything they buy)
August 31st, 2009 at 7:38 am
I’ve heard a few people mention unemployment: that tax is ALSO a hidden tax on labor and is approximately 2% of payroll (it varies a lot with a complex calculation, though, so it’s hard to guess.)
A lot of people think that it’s just a cost of doing business, and it is, but it’s the cost the employer is willing to pay to obtain an employee’s labor. They factor that in when they determine how much they’ll pay in wages: the total cost to the employer of obtaining the employee’s labor IS what the employee is earning for their labor, they just don’t get to keep it. Besides the 7.65% that the employer pays into the employee’s social security account on the employee’s behalf for the employee’s labor, the employer also pays in for often very expensive health insurance packages. But that’s a story for another day.
I just wish employees were more aware that the costs employers have to employ them is money the employers are willing to pay them for their labor. That little mindset switch could make all the difference in a lot of places.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:39 am
As always with statistics they can be spinned any way you like. The idea that “40% of Americans” or 121 million people don’t pay any tax sounds pretty bad but how many of those are little kids or teenagers with low incomes?
According to the census - 24.3% of all Americans are under 18 which is about 73 million people. This leaves only 48 million people (or 16%) of the population outside the tax system (and presumably could be inside the system) which doesn’t sound quite so bad.
Of those 48 million people who are 18 or over, some are in school, low income seniors, unemployed, sick, in jail etc. So this number could probably be reduced a bit more.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
August 31st, 2009 at 7:40 am
Good article & I really respect your attempt to present facts rather than just slant things so that they seem to agree with what you believe (though I think both sides do this).
One small quibble - you say, “the average U.S. taxpayer has an income of $43,650″, but I think you mean the average U.S. household (apparently it was a little over $50k in 2006-2007, but has probably come down quite a bit from there). However, major kudos for pointing out the difference between marginal taxation versus how most people think about it.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:41 am
The richest Americans do pay a higher percentage on the AGI, but what about the tax strategies that relieve their AGI, thus reducing their taxes.
Specifically, corporate income taxes, and taxes on L.L.C.’s are lower. Every rich person in this country “owns” their own corporation, even if all it does is invest for them. Then, when they need a corporate jet, the “company” buys one for their “CEO”.
The book “Rich Dad Poor Dad” shows you exactly how to do that, by putting your original taxed assets (income) into a tax sheltered growth environment (a real estate or investment company) where it can grow, and spend it’s profits on you, keeping no cash on hand to get taxed.
Guys like Bill Gates are worth $50 billion or whatever, but that’s because he has $49.9 billion in microsoft shares, which won’t get taxed until he sells the shares.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:44 am
Kevin’s comment is breathtakingly dishonest. It implies that “roughly half” of Americans really ought to be paying income taxes, but aren’t, and are smugly dumping their burden on the rest of us. It apparently doesn’t occur to him that some Americans do not have income. (Darn those selfish kindergartners, dumping their responsibilities on us hard-working taxpayers! Make the little rugrats pay!) It also doesn’t occur to him that, as has been pointed out repeatedly above, people who don’t pay income tax pay other taxes - like sales tax.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:54 am
J.D., unless I’m missing something, which is entirely possible, there is a major flaw in the section before your conclusion:
Social Security and Medicare are not discretionary spending and therefore (probably) not counted in the poster calculation, since the poster only talks about discretionary spending. SS and Medicare are gigantic entitlements, which means that the average taxpayer pays a lot more than just $5/$billion for all that federal spending. $5/$billion sounds about right for discretionary spending, but most federal spending (and growth in federal spending) is in entitlements.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:54 am
#ethel #36:
My personal opinion is that taxes should be more linear, which would result in a minimum percentage of federal tax imposed on all who have income. (What’s income? Sorry, that’s a separate debate, this post will be long enough already…). Yes, I believe a higher percentage of federal tax should be imposed on higher incomes, but I think when the bottom 50% are paying 3%, and the top 5% are paying 53%, it’s not linear enough. (i.e., It’s skewed too much in favor of the bottom 50% of federal taxpayers.) I believe this gross non-linearity causes guilt and anger and results in class warfare - but we can reduce these corrosive effects if everyone felt they paid their fair share of taxes.
Right now, the top 5% are mad as heck and do whatever they can to avoid taxes. This is divisive because ideally everyone should feel their taxes are going toward the common good and they should be proud to pay them. (Yes, this is a little idealistic of me, but that’s my personal opinion.)
Instead, the bottom 50% might be falling for the insidious idea that they can collect more in federal benefits than they’ll ever pay in taxes - which is divisive because they’re put in the position of taking more than they give - which is not a source of community pride and shared sacrifice.
As to increasing benefits… I don’t have statistics, just my personal observations. Whenever a new congressional boondoggle is announced, it seems the beneficiaries are the bottom 50% of federal taxpayers. Two possible examples:
Cash for Clunkers. How many people in the bottom 50% traded a clunker, and how many in the top 5%? I’m guessing it’s skewed toward the bottom 50% of federal taxpayers because the top 5% probably already traded in their clunker because they could afford to do so and it was the right thing to do for the environment - not because Congress offered a new federal benefit.
Medicare and prescription drug benefit. Most people in the top 5% don’t see doctors who take Medicare because Medicare reimbursement rates are so low that the better doctors don’t accept it. This skews benefits toward the bottom 50% of federal taxpayers (and reduces the quality of their medical care, an unintended side effect).
Our country should be filled with people proud of paying their fair share to maintain our finest ideals. Congress today is not maintaining our finest ideals, and in fact is fomenting dissension and class warfare by continuing to tinker with a system that’s too complex and not demonstrably fair to all. I cannot solve this, but I can strive to understand the problem so I can try to move things toward simplicity and fairness.
We need to think of ourselves as Americans again, not as members of small “pride” groups. We are stronger because of our diversity when blended, not when divided against each other as special interest groups (top 5% vs. bottom 50%, as an example close at hand).
August 31st, 2009 at 7:55 am
This is a very interesting analysis.
Before you get too comfortable with the idea that our taxes are low in relation to our history, I think a more thorough examination of ALL taxes would have to be included:
1. You failed to include payroll taxes. As a self-employed person, these hammer me.
2. State income taxes and state property taxes in most states are at an all-time high.
3. Likewise, sales tax is at an all-time high in most localities.
My total effective federal income tax rate is right around 20%. But when you add in payroll tax (more than 7 percent of my husband’s income and more than 15 percent of mine), property tax (about 8 percent of my HH income), sales tax and user taxes (like car registration, toll roads, etc.), my household pays out more than 40 percent of our income in tax.
That’s right. Forty percent of our income goes to taxes. You call that a reasonable tax burden? Especially when people of our age will never get a dime out of Social Security for the thousands we pay in each year?
And yes, I am annoyed that 40 percent of TAX FILERS (not “people,” which includes children and the retired, but tax filers) don’t pay any income tax at all. Many of those also receive transfer payments in the form of the earned income tax credit, which can be many thousands of dollars each year. Therefore, they end up with NO tax burden, since they are essentially being refunded what they paid for SSI, and then some.
I believe every earner in our country should contribute taxes in direct relation to their income. Low-income people actually consume more government services on average, so for them to pay nothing (or get money back from actual taxpayers like me) is ridiculous.
We must stop penalizing success.
These days, the problem isn’t “taxation without representation.” It has become “representation without taxation.” Those who pay should have the say. Everyone should have skin in the game.
August 31st, 2009 at 7:55 am
@Paul in #35: Yes, you are correct, the social security safety net helps the people in the bottom tiers of income disproportionately. You are correct.
But it still perverts the concept of graduated income tax rates if we say the people in the lowest income brackets have to pay the highest percentage of their disposable income to cover the safety net.
This is getting even more important to discuss as we add a brand new social safety net into the mix. Are we going to add another hidden tax to the laboring class? My guess is, yes, because social security’s hidden tax is so well-hidden that nearly no one notices it. What politician can resist that?
August 31st, 2009 at 7:59 am
One problem I have is that I think it’s poorly conceived social engineering, or at least politicking at its worst, that the mechanisms used to lower tax burdens encourage people to adopt certain lifestyles.
This happens across the board but what I’m specifically speaking to are the large number of lower income people I know, who typically make less than 25k a year, who purposefully have 3 or 4 kids just to get the tax relief. I know that sounds asinine but that’s how these people think.
It gets even worse when you realize those kids get government healthcare, schooling, food stamps etc. all provided on the taxpayers’ dime.
That’s the real tragedy of our tax system, the ill effects of the social engineering it creates which compound existing problems.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:03 am
My god, it’s absolutely horrifying to me that we could have been so foolish as to have top marginal tax rates in the 90% range in the 40s, 50s and 60s, and STILL have a top bracket in the 70% range in the 70s.
When you have rates that high, there’s no question that you create substantial disincentives to work and to invest. Worse, you scare investment capital away from our economy. Let’s hope we don’t forget the lessons of history and go back to those rates, ever.
Dan
Casual Kitchen
August 31st, 2009 at 8:07 am
@ethel..
You’re correct. Perhaps substituting the words “increasing benefits” for “raising taxes” will make my point more clear. Politicians don’t generally tend to talk about “raising taxes” (nor do people tend to vote for those who do) but they DO talk about the benefits they can provide or seek to provide if they are elected.
Ergo, if I’m a state funded teacher/retiree (or any other type of taxpayer funded employee) I would most likely be highly interested in voting for someone who is dedicated to seeing that my benefits increase or are not reduced. (I’m betting dollars to donuts that these politicians are NOT talking about reducing spending to allow me to keep my benefits.) I’m not saying ALL taxpayer funded employees have this attitude, btw.
I’m sorry, but I tend to believe that there IS the “what’s in it for me” attitude out there. I also can’t claim that I never thought this way when Politician X ran on a platform of increasing state benefits or Teacher Union President Y encouraged folks to vote for Politician X because he would do so.
@Adam
This is the argument that I had for years with my husband and I’m sorry that I didn’t make myself more clear with my reference to OPM…
Yes, I worked and got paid a fair wage BUT I got paid that wage with money that I did not CREATE. I got paid with OPM…taxpayer dollars…that comes from people who create and provide products, jobs, and services that people want to buy.
Finally he posited his argument this way, “Since the government can’t create money out of thin air (not SUPPOSED to, anyway) and if nobody created anything that created a profit on which taxes were paid, how would YOU be paid?” It was sort of a lightbulb moment for me.
“…the money you take home at the end of the day used to belong to someone else.” True. The difference is whether someone VOLUNTARILY parted with their money or whether it was taken under threat of going to jail.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:09 am
Another aspect to taxation is income mobility. People’s incomes change over time, and they move in and out of the federal income tax system. I’m disabled with a low enough income to not be currently paying federal income taxes, but in the past have been in higher federal income tax brackets, even getting hit by the AMT. (And, as others have already pointed out, there’s also Social Security tax, Medicare tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and so on, some of which are paid even by those at the lowest income levels.)
August 31st, 2009 at 8:09 am
This is a very interesting article to me. Thanks JD! And thanks about the link to state and local tax burden too, VA and MD is so close but the tax burden is so different.
About the idea of people who don’t pay income tax pay other taxes - like sales tax: I for the idea that having more money means spending more, thus paying more tax.
I would like to mention that people who “don’t pay income tax” generally are people who don’t generate or have a lot of money - at least enough to reach the tax bracket. As a result of “don’t generate or have a lot of money”, I can’t say that they (who don’t pay income tax) will contribute a lot in the total tax budget - even though they pay sales tax.
Yes, everyone can scream out loud that “Hey, I have to pay tax too, it’s 6% of my income (*)” - but how does that amount of tax compare to what people do really pay income tax and the sales tax at the same time, and they even pay more as they have more money to spend?
(*)In Maryland, our sales tax is 6% at the grocery store. I supposed that we talk about someone who doesn’t pay income tax but the grocery tax only.
I think Kevin was generous when he didn’t count the sales tax in.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:10 am
JD, I’m honored that you used my quote in your article, but I was discouraged that you seemed to stray from the main point embedded in my comment. Specifically, I said:
“Those of us who DO pay taxes, however, are buckling under the weight.”
Then you concluded:
“The average American has an effective federal income tax rate of 13-15%. [...] So are Americans ‘buckling under the burden’ of taxes? I’m not convinced. Taxes seem to be moderately low right now based on our past history.”
I think you just pulled a statistical “fast one” on us. My point was that fewer and fewer Americans are shouldering the income tax burden - an assertion that your own research confirmed:
“This 32% number is relatively high. Previous peaks were at 28% in 1950 and 26% in 1978″
Even though the AVERAGE income tax liability is low, it’s heavily weighed down by “zeros” more than ever before. That is, if almost half the population is paying nothing, but the “average” is still reasonable, what does that mean for the half that DO pay income taxes? It means that their burden is actually quite high, historically speaking.
I would’ve really appreciated an analysis that considered the math from that perspective.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:13 am
“Naturally, taxes are a hot-button issue. They have been since this nation was founded. (To be fair, though, the driving force then was “taxation without representation”. Modern complaints are against taxes in principle, I think.)”
It’s a common mistake to think that conservatives (or libertarians, like myself) are against taxes in general. While most of us do believe that the Fed. Gov’t could very well survive with MUCH less in tax revenue, it’s not taxes themselves that we don’t like. It’s the fact that the tax system is effectively applied as a punitive measure against those who oftentimes work harder, longer, smarter, etc., for a living, thereby making more money.
And if you really want to dive deep into our objections to the graduated income tax, you need look no further than the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 where it’s clear that a disproportional direct tax is NOT allowed.
Furthermore, if you want to get technical, since the income tax is a tax on the earnings of labor, a direct tax on labor is effectively in violation of the 13th Amendment, since it amounts to “involuntary servitude” for how every many days/hours it takes to pay off one’s tax burden each year.
And yes, I’m fully aware that most of these arguments have been deemed “frivolous” by the Supreme Court. But they seem rational to me.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:14 am
Welcome to the “tax wars”, by the time we’re finished with you, you too will be a raving loon!
Tactically, you can’t figure out how much “tax” you pay. We need to recognize that ONLY real people pay tax. So, the taxes that companies pay is really a hidden tax on the people who buy their products. BUT you can’t see it. Further, if there are capital goods used by a company, the taxes on that capital good are buried in the product’s price. Also, recognize that “costs”, “user fees”, or any unavoidable expense imposed by or as a result of the gooferment’s actions, laws, regulations, or diktats is a TAX! Try and figure out all of those. Good luck. One quick example, drugs. The FDA has rules, pharmacies have regulations, doctors have laws. Argh! It’s IMPOSSIBLE to figure out exactly what you pay in tax. And, then we can talk about monetary inflation as a gooferment tax. When you sum it all up, it might be greater than your annual income!
Strategically, taxes are NOT “the cost of living in civilized society”; they are THEFT. How does what dead old white guys did 233 years ago obligate me? It’s a principle of contract law that there has to be offer and acceptance to have a contract. Where is the offer? Where is my acceptance? What obligates me to pay? The definition of citizen states there is an exchange for the state’s “protection”, yet the courts have repeatedly held that there is no specific enforceable duty of the government to protect me. So why again do I have to pay for “services” that I don’t want, can’t use, and are horribly overpriced? In the case of Federal Abortion funding, it’s also morally offensive to me; yet, I still must pay.
Welcome to the tax wars. This is theft by deception. IMHO!
August 31st, 2009 at 8:23 am
“I think it’s interesting and illuminating to see how little comes in from corporate (9.5%) and estate (0.9%) taxes. Based on stories in places like the Wall Street Journal highlighting these taxes, it sometimes seems as though these must comprise a much larger part of the budget since they get so much coverage.”
Regarding the estate tax, the reason it gets disproportionate coverage is because it’s an egregious example of governmental double-dipping. Case in point: My father died at 50, prior to W’s raising of the estate tax limit. He worked his butt off building his business from the ground up from the age of 22 to provide for our family.
He hired several local employees and provided a valuable service to the community. Being self-employed and having to pay payroll taxes for his employees, he paid a much larger percentage of taxes than your average working Joe who punches in at 9, out at 5.
He had scrimped, saved, and planned wisely so that our family would be taken care of after he died - and had paid every cent Uncle Sam demanded of him while he was alive. Despite all this, the government came around with it’s hand out again to take another pound of flesh due to estate taxes. We’re not talking a vast multi-million dollar fortune here. Enough to put the kids through college and allow my mom to live in relative comfort for the remainder of her life (she was only 50 at the time, and both her parents died over the age of 90 - she still has a long time to go), but at a modest standard of living.
And therein lies the rub - why does the government have the right to demand estate taxes on this money? Was the payroll taxes he paid for his employees, the income and SS/Medicare taxes he paid for himself, the sales tax he paid on his stock, the property taxes he paid for his business, etc. etc. not enough? Now the gov’t has the gall to tax his hard-won earnings one last time simply because he died? How is that in any way “fair”?
Edit: to head off the inevitable “well, your mom won’t have to pay taxes again” comment - she still pays taxes on the income generated by the investments (which is not insignificant), property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:24 am
@mythago (#47):
“It apparently doesn’t occur to him that some Americans do not have income. (Darn those selfish kindergartners, dumping their responsibilities on us hard-working taxpayers! Make the little rugrats pay!)”
Did you even read the article?
“43.4 million tax returns resulted in zero (or negative) tax liability. Another 15 million households file no tax return at all.”
So enlighten me. Do your kindergartners fall under the category of individuals filing tax returns (smart kids!) that result in no tax liability, or are they congregating in households comprised entirely of kindergartners and not filing at all?
August 31st, 2009 at 8:27 am
@Nathan Rice: You are correct, income taxes WERE illegal. Then amended the constitution to make them legal. I refer you to the 16th amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/
August 31st, 2009 at 8:35 am
@Lesley (#50) and @Kevin (#57)
Given more time and a better knowledge of the resources available, I would absolutely try to find more comprehensive numbers. But as I wrote to Kevin via e-mail, it’s very difficult to find clear, comprehensive information. I was frustrated during this process that sometimes the best data for a subject came from purportedly “non-partisan” organizations that appeared to have axes to grind (on both sides of the political fence). I have trouble trusting their research. The IRS does have a lot of info, and I tried to parse what I could, but one huge problem I have is not knowing where or how to search for what I need.
Anyhow, if I had spent a week writing this instead of 12 hours (which includes last week’s budget post), I may have been able to find more comprehensive data. And maybe that’s a project for the future!
August 31st, 2009 at 8:37 am
Kevin @61, I’m referring to this inflammatory quote of yours: “Roughly half of all Americans don’t pay any income tax at all. I’m sure those folks feel the current tax levels are just fine and dandy, no complaints.”
Now, that is not a comment about income distribution, tax brackets or marginal rates. It’s a rhetorical flourish that suggests half of all Americans — not merely income-earning Americans, or tax-return-filing Americans, but all Americans, period — are laughing at us dumb-donkey, working taxpayers who are carrying their end of the tax load. (Perhaps you meant something different by the ‘fine and dandy’ complaint, but I can’t fathom what. Happy to be enlightened.)
Snowballer @52, I don’t know how many these ‘lots’ of people you personally know are, but how much of the general population can they really be? You’re talking about a group of people who are low-income, but who pay taxes such that their tax gain from intentionally having a third or fourth child is so great that it offsets any other costs resulting from having said children. I can’t imagine that being a statistically significant part of the tax base.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:39 am
@ oldernwiser
I still can’t really agree that you (and I) aren’t creating something valuable that people would pay for. Parents want their children to be educated, if not, and it was strictly involuntary there wouldn’t be any private schools. If the government didn’t want to control education, some private source would, and you’d still be getting paid for the same reason.
I work for the DoD. That encompasses many things that people may or may not want to pay for even if the government didn’t force them to. Maybe people don’t want to pay for a standing military, but they sure do seem to enjoy the benefits of the technologies people like myself develop for military purposes.
So in both cases we are creating. Creating knowledge (you), and creating technological advances (me).
August 31st, 2009 at 8:39 am
Great, very informative article. I think the majority of opposition to US taxation really boils down to the waste involved. I wouldn’t mind paying into a system if I felt like the people responsible for the money were spending it wisely. However, as a contractor dealing with various government entities, I can assure you the majority of that outlay is pure waste. It’s spent on temporary projects that never see light and exist just to justify various political agendas. Given what I’ve seen, I simply don’t trust the federal government to handle money well.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:40 am
J.D., I still think you need to edit the line about payroll tax. It really IS the employee paying the entire 15.3%, in the sense that the employer is paying for the employee’s labor into the employee’s account for work the employee did for the employer. It’s a tax, pure and simple, on the employee’s labor.
Respectfully, I think you are doing everyone a disservice to help keep that other 7.65% hidden.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:04 am
The complains about people who don’t pay income tax reminds me of an anecdote from working in a museum. A woman drew a tantrum because she couldn’t get the handicapped rate for the museum, since she didn’t have a handicap and was too young for the senior rate.
She finally said in a complaining voice “well, full price for me, since I’m not old or handicapped” and looked shocked when I told her “Well, you’re lucky”.
I mean, seriously, who complains that they’re young and healthy? And for a two buck difference?
I feel the same here. “Oh no! I’m not poor enough to be exempt from income tax!”
Well I’m glad I’m not anymore and I don’t envy the people who are.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:15 am
@Daniel
Funny you should say that. I see (defense) contractors blatantly ripping off the Government every day. Talk about waste, it is theft. (nothing personal). The military-industrial complex is a disaster.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:18 am
Let’s be rational. I’m not an unreasonable person. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that kindergarteners are freeloading leeches and should be made to pay their fair share.
The bottom line for me is that there seems to be a long-term, very gradual shift in society, toward widespread “victim” and “entitlement” mentalities. It seems to me that more and more people expect “someone else” (doesn’t really matter who) to take care of them.
It bothers me in two ways. First, the waste. It drives me crazy to see how much pork is flung around like confetti, on projects and programs with dubious or no merit at all. I’m talking about things like funding for all the mortgage modifications, Cash for Clunkers, bridges to nowhere, senseless wars, overpriced science fair projects with NASA, wildly overpriced fighter jets (when the trend is obviously toward unmanned drones and “smart” missiles). When I think of how many MRI machines or rounds of chemo those TRILLIONS of dollars could’ve bought, it just really infuriates me.
The other way it bothers me is that it seems very unfair to me that the ones paying for all these social programs are the least likely to need them. The people who pay the most in income taxes are the ones least likely to ever need to call the police, or occupy an expensive cell in a prison, or take up a judge and juries time, or apply for food stamps month after month, or take advantage of subsidized housing. Now, I’m certainly not arguing that these programs should be cut, and I fully recognize that society is much better off having these things available. I don’t even mind helping out people who sincerely appreciate the help, and are doing the best they can to improve their situation and become independent again. But it frustrates me to see people going through life with a mentality of entitlement, where they feel that they DESERVE an indefinite stream of welfare checks, food stamps, and cheap housing. I would very much like to see those types of people made to contribute something back to the society that has given them so much. Something like a “work for welfare” program, or a requirement to prove a threshold of volunteer hours or something.
Of course, there are plenty of reasonable exemptions (”What if they’re old/disabled/a single parent/etc.”), and again, I’m not a cold, heartless bureaucrat. I just feel that if people are going to have an attitude that they DESERVE all these handouts, then maybe they, you know …. should.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:23 am
This is on an adjusted gross income of $162,944, which is certainly more than a lot of people made last year, but also nowhere near enough that we don’t notice that missing $47,374, which turns out to be about 29% of my adjusted gross income. That still doesn’t even include things like sales tax, gasoline tax, car registration fees, and all the other little things we pay taxes on.
The average amount of taxes paid doesn’t mean much to me. The fact that we could have bought a brand new BMW 5-series with my taxes last year, or put down a 20% payment on a $235,000 home does sting a bit though, especially when I don’t own a home or a BMW now, as neither seems affordable.
Are we “buckling under the weight”? No, we’re doing OK. At the same time, I really don’t think we got our $47,000 worth out of the government last year, even including roads and police and firefighters and all the other public services that we helped fund. Our road system and civil protection are certainly worth something, I just doubt that they’re worth $125/day.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:27 am
@Kevin: I think there’s another way to look at the frustrating view that the people paying the most taxes are getting the fewest services. You can also look at it and see that the people who are enjoying the most fruits of liberty should pay the most for the maintenance of such. If you aren’t someone being served meals in jail, you are at least someone who lives in a less dangerous society because of the jails. (Arguably, but let’s not at the moment.) The infrastructure in place allows you to enjoy the fruits of commerce. The security endowed by the army secures your assets.
And don’t forget that the safety net supports us all: any one of us could be hit by a bus and become disabled, or blinded, or die and leave orphaned children. We are all incapacitated by infancy and old age. The truth is that nearly every child ever born on the face of the earth through time immemorial was an unplanned pregnancy to people who weren’t secure in their professions. Supporting those people makes it possible for those families - those children - to grow to become productive educated workers that make the society you live in more pleasant.
Those who most enjoy the blessings of our country should pay more than those who are enjoying fewer blessings.
At least, it’s a reasonable way to look at this.
Part of the problem with any conversation about taxes is that are simultaneously quite different ways of looking at things that are ALL TRUE. It takes a very wise person indeed to hold all the differing points of view in mind at the same time and come up with the best course of action.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:29 am
@Gwendally: the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, so one could argue that it doesn’t count as “legal”.
@Brenda: Dave from sniggle.net/experiment has a nice “how-to” page. The examples he gives are for individuals with incomes of $20k.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:34 am
You know statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is important, but what they conceal is crucial.
Although the tax system in place seems relatively low to other countries, I would love to see a statistic on the benefit that is received. For example, although I am sick of paying taxes, I would not mind paying more for free healthcare (because I would not have to buy medical insurance). In Sweden for example, even car insurance is not necessary because it comes out of the gov budget. I think that for our return on investment we do not receive nearly enough benefits.
Also, progressive tax idea is not my best option as well. I would love to trade in income tax on a higher sales tax or simply a flat tax. I just don’t see why I need to pay more taxes than someone simply because of my salary. We both drive on the same roads, breathe the same air and use the same government services.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:36 am
I can provide you a real life example of a family that not only pays no taxes, but also ends up paying no payroll taxes. The family consists of a married couple with 4 children.
Their gross income is 40k. Part of that income is nontaxable combat pay (National Guard), which is 18k. They have about 3k withheld for Social Security/Medicare taxes (this is held on the gross). When they file their tax return, they get $4100 earned income credit, plus $4000 additional child tax credits. So they get refunded $8100 - meaning that not only do they not pay any income or payroll taxes, they get another $5100 on top of that!
This type of situation has not been at all uncommon for the past few years, given the number of people serving in combat zones. And even for those who don’t, I have many clients who get back much more than they have paid in for both income and payroll taxes due to low income/number of children. I do not begrudge them for the most part, with one notable exception that happened a few years ago. I had a client who got angry with me because she had earned enough money to not get the maximum EIC, and flatly stated that she would just not work as much that year since it “cost me money!”. I could not convince her that she was better off with more earnings in her hand than waiting for the end of the year to get a lesser amount in a tax refund. I was actually grateful that she was mad enough at me to not come back the next year for tax prep.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:37 am
I really liked comments #70-72. You three did a fine job of encapsulating different views on taxes and their benefits (real or imagined). This has been an interesting, thoughtful conversation. Thank you.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:37 am
@Tyler: did you include the 7.65% of medicare and social security your employer paid into your account on your behalf in return for your labor? I suspect you missed that $8K.
I can tell you that I had a rough time getting up to go to work during my busy season last year. I was applying for financial aid for my oldest child (who was accepted at extremely expensive private colleges) and I knew that every dollar I made was going to be taxed at (28% Fed marginal rate +15.3% SE tax +5.3% MA tax =) 48.6%, but, worse than that, every thousand dollars I earned phased out my child tax credit by $50 (that makes my marginal rate 53.6%) and I also realized that it increased my Expected Family Contribution pretty much dollar for dollar at our over $100K AGI level. That means that I actually LOST money by going to work. Oh, that was a hard and bitter tax season to work.
You know what I did? I work less. I simply choose free time more, since working pays so little. Just as my tax clients are choosing to stay poor to keep subsidized health insurance here in MA, overall I just see us producing less. Work just doesn’t pay enough to be worth the bother, after you’ve reached a certain level where you have enough.
Am I bowing and breaking under the 53.6% marginal tax rate? Oh, absolutely not. But I’m producing less, and I’m hiring fewer staff hours in my business, because, well, I don’t need the money that bad to work at that marginal rate.
Consider the implications in a country where our Gross Domestic Product is our only way out of our deficits.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:38 am
Kevin @70, I know you weren’t talking about kindergartners. You were, as the rest of your post makes clear, talking about low-income people. I do agree with you that ‘victim’ and ‘entitlement’ mentality are bad; where I disagree is that it’s characteristic of low-income people - indeed, I believe it is far more characteristic of people with high incomes.
Look at all the entitlements they want: subsidized housing (also known as ‘mortgage-interest deductions’), an abolition on taxes they got through inheritance rather than hard work, the government subsidizing their voluntary charitable contributions, and write-offs for buying high-end “green” cars. It’s particularly vile when they believe they “deserve” these handouts because they are Nice People Who Pay Taxes.
I also strongly disagree that the people paying the least get the most. Do you think that the police respond as promptly to 911 calls in wealthy neighborhoods as in poor ones? That school districts with high property taxes have schools that are worse than those in districts with low property taxes?
You’re attempting to inject Calvinist morality into a discussion of relative tax burdens.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:49 am
Last week, Ross Williams argued that the wealthy get disproportionate benefit from the tax system. This week, Kevin has argued that those with lower incomes get the most benefit. I’d like to propose that the truth is in the middle — literally.
I believe that the middle-class get the most benefit from our tax system. They draw the most from its structure and from the services our taxes provide, yet their payments into the system are modest when compared to high-income earners.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:51 am
Thanks for your research and time.
Learned some facts.
-Bhargav
August 31st, 2009 at 9:55 am
Great article. One thing to keep in mind is that a LOT of people are employed as a result of the US having a convoluted tax code. Think of how many jobs would be lost if the tax-code were simplified (lobbyists, attorneys, accountants, HR-Block part-timers, etc)
I have always liked the idea of not putting a cap on SS taxes that are withdrawn from one’s paycheck. When I worked in corp america, it always amazed me that I stopped having a SS deduction taken out once my income exceeded a certain level.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:56 am
@Adam
I really do understand where you’re coming from…again, the exact same argument I had with my DH. (”What I do has value!”) For years we had this discussion.
I’m not trying to demean the work you do, as he was not trying to demean mine. I loved my job and I was good at it, as I’m sure you are. I had to learn to separate my emotional attachment to my job from understanding, really understanding, how I was getting paid.
The fact of the matter remains…there are no government wages unless they are extracted from non government sources by the government, under penalty of law.
And, for the record, I don’t believe in NO taxation because I do want be kept safe and I would like a fair trial, should I need one, among other things.
As for this statement…
“If the government didn’t want to control education, some private source would, and you’d still be getting paid for the same reason.”
If I worked at a private school (or you, a private business developing what you do now) our wages would be provided either by people wanting to invest in your business or from the profits your technological advances in the open marketplace or, for me, because parents felt like my school was the place for their children and voluntarily wanted to spend their money to send them there.
We would both be getting paid “for the same reason” (and here I’m assuming you mean that we do something creative and of value that people want and/or enjoy as a result of our work) but in both cases our pay has not been extracted by the government from a non governmental source, under the penalty of law.
Now let’s see if I can get back to the intent of JD’s original post…understanding the [hot button] issue of taxes (emphasis mine)…and my original post and reaction to Kevin’s comment about “roughly half” of Americans don’t pay federal income tax.
Our federal tax system is hugely complicated and causes many people fear, concern, and anxiety, and by JD’s own statistic, approximately 59% of us are affected this way.
If I work hard and earn 100.00 and 38.00 (actually, more)is taken away and given to somebody else it becomes a problem for me.
It is a problem for me because I fear that 38.00 wont’ be enough and soon there will be enough voters (more than “roughly half”) who are benefitting from my 38.00 who will want more and will be able to vote to take 12.00 or 25.00 more. Or let me re-phrase that…will vote for candidates who promise benefits that will cause the 38.00 to go to 50.00 or 63.00 from my 100.00 So I’m left with 50.00 or 39.00 for my work while the rest has been redistributed.
I really want to redistribute my own money in a way I see fit, thank you very much.
Very respectfully,
onw
P.S. Adam, I love catching shows on tv where they elaborate on things we take for granted in our daily lives that were the result of the type of work you do and do appreciate it very much.
@WritersCoin
I, too, respectfully disagree. Where would this country be if somebody hadn’t whined about a measly 3% tax on tea?????
August 31st, 2009 at 10:03 am
An update to your update #1 : You said that payroll taxes apply to all income, when in fact that isn’t the case. From wikipedia:
“For 2009, the employee’s share is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $106,800 of compensation (resulting in a maximum tax of $6,621.60)…The employee’s share of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages with no limit.”
-Ken
August 31st, 2009 at 10:08 am
@Gwendally,
Re your post #77…you said what I forgot to say in my last post.
Why in the heck do I want to get up and work at my after retirement career if I’m only going to be left with 39.00 of the 100.00 I earned?
August 31st, 2009 at 10:13 am
@Gwendally, you make some very interesting points.
First you say: “You can also look at it and see that the people who are enjoying the most fruits of liberty should pay the most for the maintenance of such.” This statement seems to assume, however, that the fruits of our labor are randomly granted. That some folks just get more, and some are unlucky and left out.
I simply don’t believe that. I work a lot of hours. Why should I subsidize people who are unwilling to work any hours, or only want to do the bare minimum to scrape by?
Also, I’m disturbed by your example of working less because of marginal tax rates. See, that is the main reason our progressive system is flawed and immoral. The government should NEVER discourage people from working hard and getting ahead. How disgusting that we are penalized for our labor - rather than truly enjoying its fruits.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:19 am
This comment is mostly directed at Kevin:
Not everyone who has a low federal income tax liability is receiving government services. Our income is around $45K. The AGI is quite a bit lower, because we pay a lot for health insurance and to contribute to a retirement account.
My family doesn’t receive food stamps. My family doesn’t receive subsidized health insurance. My family doesn’t receive welfare or housing assistance.
I’m a big fan of my local library and I use roads to drive on, so the government does help me that way. But not every family paying little in federal income tax is getting taxpayer handouts. That’s a fallacy, IMO.
My AGI will probably be lower next year, because we are going to a different health insurance arrangement and it will be much more out of pocket. Do I consider myself lucky to be avoiding more tax? No, I consider it a challenge to live on this income.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:21 am
@ Lesley, a lot of the fruits of your labor are POSSIBLE because of the infrastructure in which you live. The interstate commerce system, the functioning port system, the rule of law, even the markets (loosely) regulated by the SEC. Molly Ivins said of George Bush, that he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Believe me, you benefit from having a neighborhood filled with educated people, having streets emptied of criminals (who need not steal because they can access the safety net.)
It’s not perfect - no system is - but you DO benefit.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:22 am
Not all of the people filing zero returns necessarily are teens and college students. With the coming of the Baby Boomers to retirement age there is a growing number of people who are now living on their pensions, IRA’s, Social Security, etc. that could also be living in such a way that they don’t have to pay or pay minimal income taxes.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:25 am
J.D., I am bummed out that I can’t view all your cool charts when I log in from work. Something about the hosting is getting blocked.
Mr. Sam and I pay a lot in taxes but we also benefit from a lot of tax breaks (related to our real estate investments) and while I don’t mind paying taxes I get annoyed at how the money is used. I just see so much waste in my local taxing districts (i.e. City, County, Schools, Health Care) and it drives me up the wall.
Regarding tax rates in Denmark, whoo-hoo, that is where my family is from, the rates are high but the benefits in my mind are even higher. In Denmark, health care is paid for by the “State” so is higher education, day-care for kiddos, generous maternity and paternity leave and end of life care is also covered.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:27 am
@Oldernwiser: I think the only reason you’d be willing to work at a marginal rate that horrid is if you loved your work and would do it for a hobby.
I like my job well enough, but once my needs are met, I find it difficult to choose to keep earning money when I could be spending time with my children or in my garden or with a good book. I think this is true for just about everybody, which is why it’s a problem when we set the safety nets too high. I’m seeing this in MA right now: people are content to earn $15K if they can get subsidized housing and health care. They’ve fulfilled Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, why work harder?
It’s hard to argue with. Sometimes it’s even hard to see a problem with, like in my case or yours: we have enough, why not leave a job for someone who doesn’t have one? I think it comes down to wondering whether we are actually destroying wealth if we don’t work. If you retiring gives a person without a job a chance to make money, then I can’t say as it’s a bad thing.
But I’m a self-employed business person who creates a good. If I don’t work, well, goods are not created. (And, not to put too fine a point on it, I also employ fewer people.)
August 31st, 2009 at 10:31 am
@Gwendally - I’m so confused.
You said: “You benefit from having a neighborhood filled with educated people, having streets emptied of criminals (who need not steal because they can access the safety net.)”
But EVERYONE in society enjoys these benefits. Why should high earners pay a large percentage of their incomes for these benefits, while those of lower incomes pay little, nothing, or even get a rebate?!
That makes no sense, especially since low-income folks also tend to over-consume government services. Meanwhile, I use only roads, cops, firemen, national defense - the bare minimum.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:36 am
@Lesley: you have more to lose, so protecting it is of more benefit to you.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:37 am
I feel bad for people who make over $250,000. To pay 50% of your income to the government is disheartening. Hence, the new administration will be a boon for Nevada, Washington, Florida and 4 other states with no state income taxes.
Higher taxes simply encourage tax evasion and people not to work as hard.
Don’t know what’s wrong with a FLAT tax. 20% of $1million is $200,000 in taxes. 20% of $50,000 is $10,000 in taxes. Is that not equality?
Socialism is fine in a troubled economy like we have today, but Socialism will be a big handicap during the recovery phase.
For the record, I feel teachers should be paid 5X what they make now. They are the foundation of our children’s future!
August 31st, 2009 at 10:38 am
Mainly, it was rote data entry, people would come in with their W-2 and SS ID card and I would punch this data in, ask a few questions then get them to sign a form.
Basically, I was paid $7.50 to run a version of turbo tax and charge people upwards of $60 for 10 minutes of work. My quickest time was one minute 20 seconds to complete a 1040.
The firm made most of its money in short term “refund anticipation loans” to those who would spend up to $300 to receive their EIC check the same day.
The EIC is a negative income tax, a refundable credit, where the recipient would get back more, much much more, than they put in.
Mainly the credit is for poor people with kids, and averages around $2,500 for a family earning less than $20,000 with 3 dependant children.
Thus, 10% of the income for these extremely needy people would come from this one government program.
Which broke my heart because they were paying an interest rate of more than 500% to get now what they could not wait 4 weeks for.
And who knows what they spent this money on, I just issued the checks.
You can tell the clientele based on when in the tax season they walk through the door.
The earliest people to arrive start lining up a day or so before the tax season start date, so eager to get their check. These are people anticipating a big refund.
The middle of tax season is pretty slow, since the people who need the money have already long gotten it. Mostly it would be the retired, or students, those who are required to file and who do not want to do it themselves.
The end of tax season was my favorite part. These were the people who owed money and put it off for as long as possible. These are the people who have more than just a w-2 and a SS id card and some kids.
These are people who pay alimony, who have capital gains, who have their own businesses, who have investment properties with depreciation, farm income, all the interesting things came out on paper.
Two people I will never forget,
One guy recently got a divorce, cashed out his retirement savings, sold his house, his boat, liquidated his entire life to prevent his wife from doing the same thing. The divorce cost him his job and his kids. He had a huge income (on paper) since his retirement savings counted as income, same thing with his boat sale and house sale (which were not owned jointly with the wife).
His tax bill was upwards of 140K, since he had no house, wife or kids to reduce his AGI. He was all alone with his money (and his tax bill), a ruined husk of a man who made all the wrong choices in a very short period of time.
(Never, ever cash out your retirement savings in this way, it will screw you).
The second guy had recently won 200K in Keno (I worked in Las Vegas). Combined with his income, he owed over $30,000 in taxes.
I was a little shy in breaking the news, usually there is a little rush telling people how much I am “making them” by doing their taxes (even though it is their own money, most people don’t think of it that way).
He said something that I will never forget.
“I am at the stage of my life where it is better to pay money, and have money, than to have nothing and get back something.”
He wrote a check for the full amount.
Now I have a job that pays me pretty well for what I do. I have been on both sides of the coin.
I used to work minimum wages jobs and always receive back $100 - $200 bucks, which at the time was all the money in the world since I was only making around $12K a year, so this would be around one months rent.
Last year, I had to write a check to the IRS for $54 dollars. This was in addition to the $5,000 or so they “took” from me.
And you know what, I am much happier now, because I don’t depend on that $100 - $200 to make rent.
Your whole life, year by year, is there on your 1040. And working at that tax chop shop let me see how 100’s of peoples lives were spent and what mattered most to them, their children, their spouse, their house, their job.
While these macro tax events, how the government spends YOUR money, are not very personal, the micro tax events matter a great deal.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Thank you for writing this article. I found it very informative and useful. I can tell you put a pile of work into it.
I will concur with those who wish for a simpler tax structure. From many years of engineering work, I’ve learned that the more complex you make something, the more prone it is to break down or behave in ways you didn’t expect. With the tax code being so long and cumbersome, it creates an incentive to “game” the system through exploitation of loopholes and “creative accounting”. This can lead to the type of fun we’ve seen with Enron, KPMG, GlobalCrossing/Worldcom, AIG and any other of other businesses who were being creative with their accounting to lessen tax rates. Where this ultimately leads, of course, is the inability to value things properly — and then people get skittish.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:52 am
Instead of concentrating on taxes, we should concentrate on the size and scope of government. If government has become too big and wastes money, it should be cut down and made more efficient. If the budget was only $100 billion, there would be no reason for high taxes.
High taxes are the RESULT of lots of government spending. If we can cut down the amount our government spends, we should be able to drastically lower our taxes.
While I do advocate a fairtax, or a flat consumption tax, it would be easier to cut government first. That is why I advocate and will continue to advocate cutting the size of government in half (or more) as soon as possible.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am
I think we could easily persuade the half of Americans who do pay taxes to stage a tax revolt in one simple step.
Eliminate federal withholding. Instead, require each person to physically write a check for their taxes each quarter - like self-employed people do.
By the end of Q3, there would be mutiny.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:06 am
@ Lesley - methinks you have not spent time in the ghetto. Sorry, that sounds snarky, but as one who used to be a poor grad student living in one, the poverty begets the problems begets the poverty. You could see it every day. Schools funded at a lower rate because of lower property values lead to lack of educational resources, which leads to lower incomes, which leads to crime, which leads to lower property values. I have a hard time with any mindset that thinks poor people have it coming. No kid wants to get free lunch at school. No parent wants food stamps to be the only way to feed their family. No one is resting on their laurels on a minimal government hand out, dreaming about how they have the life. And no one who doesn’t grow up in this environment ever expects to need these services, like disability or food stamps, until tragedy strikes. I would argue if you currently don’t use services like that, you really have to think of them as insurance policies: While my chances of having my apartment wrecked are slim, I still pay renter’s insurance, on the off chance that it is. While I’m sure you never dream that you will become disabled, or lose your income and become impoverished, were such a fate to befall you there is a government program there to help you and your family through the tough time. Besides, libraries, police, fire and roads are some of the most expensive parts of our budget, even more so if you throw national defense in there, as evidenced by JD’s budget post.
But for me, why should I pay higher taxes even though I use equal resources? Because I remember poverty and ramen. Because we live in a society, and part of being a good member is recognizing you are in a better position and able to help those less fortunate than you. If someone’s wallet was stolen, and they needed bus fare to get home, and they asked me for said fair, certainly it would be an embarrassing thing for them to do, and certainly if I had the means I would help them. I think of taxes like that. Yes, people pay less than me or not at all due to their low income, but their low income stems from problems that arise with low income, like poor education and crime in their area. Thus, it is my duty as a member of society to be helpful if I can, because if a quality of life is improved, all our lives are improved a little. The stolen wallet is the impoverished upbringing and my taxes are the bus fare.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:11 am
I have to chuckle at some of the comments of the more wealthy readers, like the claims that they pay more in taxes but get less from government. So you make more than $100K and you do it all yourself huh? The government plays no role? Well how many people in Cuba can make that claim? Not many - their government does not permit them to make a lot of money, while ours does. That’s right, if you are making a lot of money, it is because you have the government you have, and by definition, you are getting more from your government than fellow citizens making less than you do. If I’m living in poverty, hell, I can do that anywhere - here, Cuba, the government doesn’t matter. Please feel free to broaden your notion of the benefits you derive from your government, and embrace those extra taxes. Oh yeah, to the fella who thought the court system was for the poor - I’m an attorney, and know from first hand experience - we have a big ole civil court system soaking up lots of resources - and while our tort system does see some poor plaintiff’s, you’d be hard pressed to find a poor person anywhere else. Much of the court activity involves business folks suing each other over contracts etc.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:15 am
@Jessica,
You’re absolutely right that charity is a key factor in a civilized society. But you’re wrong in equating taxes and charity. They’re not the same. Forced charity is no charity at all.
You neglect to mention that taxes are TAKEN by FORCE, with the threat of financial ruin and prison. That’s not charity, and it’s not noble. It’s not hard to be charitable with other people’s money.
Did you know that the IRS won’t reject you money if you decide to send more than you need to send? If you enjoy the satisifaction of paying your taxes so much, you’re more than welcome to send extra $ to them.
Me? I’d rather trust my VOLUNTARY charity to places like the Red Cross and my local homeless shelters and food pantries. They do a much better job of getting food, supplies, and shelter to those who need it, while weeding out those who don’t. Government? Not so much.
So by all means, remember the time you lived in poverty. Just remember to be charitable with your own money, not someone else’s.