The Truth About Taxes
Published on - August 31st, 2009 (Modified on - January 15th, 2012) (by J.D. Roth) 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!
GRS is committed to helping our readers save and achieve your financial goals.Savings interest rates may be low, but that’s all the more reason to shop for the best rate.Find the highest savings interest rate from Ally Bank, Capital One 360, Everbank, and more.
This article is about Economics, Taxes
Disclaimer: This content is not provided or commissioned by American Express. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of American Express, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by American Express. This site may be compensated through American Express Affiliate Program.
Discover is a paid advertiser of this site. Reasonable efforts are made to maintain accurate information. See the Discover online credit card application for full terms and conditions on offers and rewards.
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES




@Dan K
I’ve removed some of your comments and references to them. We’ve had a thoughtful civil discussion here, and I’d like to continue that. If you want to make your points without resorting to sophomoric comments, you’re welcome to do so. But I’m not going to let the conversation degenerate into the sort of thing you find on YouTube or Digg.
loading....
Chris Brown…You have it too good. Maybe you should try visiting a socialist or communist country.
What kind of government have you made for us sir?
“A Republic, if you can keep it” – Benjamin Franklin
loading....
I apologize for making sophomoric comments.
I would like an answer to why your data on taxes only reflects taxes since 1913 and is regarded as “our nations historical tax rate”. It seems to me that you excluded over 150 years of our nation before 1913.
But I will receive no answer…for there is no answer that which will provide you comfort knowing that your article is true journalism.
I do believe that your evidence and research is clouded by your ideology and other outside sources. My advice would be to try to take your emotions and ideology out of the research which you do and you may find strikingly different outcomes.
loading....
Note: Though I’ve done my best to be accurate, I’ve sure there are errors in this post. As they’re caught, I’ll make corrections.
I bet you meant to say:
I’m sure there are errors
LOL
Your proofreader,
Julie
loading....
Dan K wrote: I would like an answer to why your data on taxes only reflects taxes since 1913 and is regarded as “our nations historical tax rate”. It seems to me that you excluded over 150 years of our nation before 1913.
My data on taxes only reflects taxes since 1913 because those are the numbers that are readily available. If I had more time, I’d happily look further back. I think it would be interesting. In fact, I’ve made a note to do so in the future.
However, I should point out that although I don’t refer to any pre-income tax data in the post or charts, I do include a link to a short history of the U.S. tax system where people can read about this, if they’d like.
But I will receive no answer…for there is no answer that which will provide you comfort knowing that your article is true journalism.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Why would I not answer? Why would you assume I won’t answer?
I do believe that your evidence and research is clouded by your ideology and other outside sources. My advice would be to try to take your emotions and ideology out of the research which you do and you may find strikingly different outcomes.
Interesting. And what ideology would that be? I approached this project with an open mind. I tried to report only facts. Some of the answers surprised me. I’m not sure how I could have different outcomes with a different belief system. Are you saying that if I was, for example, a liberal that I might find the U.S. had lower tax rates compared to other countries? Higher tax rates? To me, the facts are facts. Wishing they were different will not change them.
Dan, you seem like a smart guy, but your comments reveal that you speak (or write) without thinking. You make judgments about others that you ought not make. Why would I not reply to you? Why are the other commenters idiots? This is the sort of rhetoric I expect on radio and TV talk shows, not on Get Rich Slowly. While on this blog, please keep to polite discussion and respect the fact that others have different opinions than you do. We’ve had 150+ other comments without this sort of thing. Let’s keep it that way.
loading....
@Julie
Argh! The real problem is that’s an error from last week. This was originally one long post that I split in two. When I did, I cut-and-pasted the disclaimer. Somebody corrected me last week, but I forgot to correct it here. So lame of me.
loading....
@Dan
When I read this article, I was so unable to decipher any opinion on taxes that I just figured JD didn’t have one. I’d say for journalistic neutrality, he hit the mark spot on.
loading....
Fair share is defined by a percentage of income? To me, “fair share” should be determined as a “fair share” of the total tax collected. And for it to be fair, it should be equal, no?
A car costs the same amount whether you make $30K or $500K … why should taxes be any different?
Wow, that’s one I’ve never heard before. Care to explain how “equal in, equal out” can construed as socialism in favor of the rich?
loading....
The “Sixteenth Amendment” argument is bunk. It’s one peddled by people selling Magic No Taxes kits. There is no secret government conspiracy to hide the truth about the income tax. It is not an “illegal” tax, period.
Nathan @148: in addition to getting tax credit for his charitable contributions, Mr. Rich Guy is also benefitting from his tax dollars immensely. There is an infrastructure that allows him to be somewhat secure that his ‘frivolous toys’ are safe to use, and that he can seek recourse if they are not. There is an orderly mechanism for protecting his property and for handing down his inheritance to his heirs. There are rules about the stock market to make sure that he can invest on some kind of level playing field. There are roads that allow him to transport materials to build those houses. And so on.
I’m not anti-Mr. Rich, but I am totally baffled at all the vitriol directed at the allegedly lazy, tax-dollar-and-service-using lower-income folk, while we assume that our wealthy betters are simply giving us money because they’re nice.
loading....
“What is legally mine is determined by the right of property and the law of contract”
By what contract do you use the street in front of your neighbors house? By what contract do you breath the air? By what contract do you disturb your neighbor’s sleep? The fact is that government is a social contract. If you don’t like ours, leave. Otherwise stop whining about having to pay for it. And stop confusing equal with fair.
loading....
mythago,
I only received the idea that those who make more should be able to keep a larger share of their incomes. I didn’t see an attack on those who earn less as “lazy, tax-dollar-and-service-using lower-income folk.”
I happen to agree with 100% of Nathan’s ideology and see it as the intention the founding fathers had for this country in regards to fiscal policy.
JD, I love this website. Please do not hurt me for the next comment.
I dismiss criteria that compares our taxes to other nations as the true comparison should be whether our tax dollars are being spent on departments that are mandated under the US Constitution. I couldn’t care less what Denmark spends on taxes and what they receive in return.
loading....
Steven @161, you didn’t? I’m looking at Kevin’s comment at @70, for example, lesley’s comments, and Dan’s at @145.
I’m extremely reluctant to remake the Framers in my own image, particularly on something as complicated at tax policy, and PARTICULARLY when it just so happens to coincide with “and I get to keep my money, woo!”
I’m not sure I understand your first sentence, which seems to suggest that the more money one has, the less one should pay in taxes.
loading....
@ #125: (re: “renter’s tax”) Renters do pay property taxes, inadvertently. They pay the owner for the right to live there, and the owner pays the property taxes. If no one had property taxes, rent would be cheaper (and/or the owner would make more of a profit)
loading....
@Nathan
>>Everyone uses the roads.
>>I build it into the cost of the service I provide. The same way a gas tax would be absorbed by food suppliers and built into the cost of food.
You skipped the point I made about how this raises the prices of goods so poor people are less able to pay. Then people would need even greater charitable aid since the road tax would be so regressive.
>>Let the people decide how they want to pay for schools. That’s what freedom is. I’m not opposed to state-funded public education. My beef is with the “one size fits all” crap that comes from DC.
You didn’t address the disparity that will occur between poor neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods and their attempts to equip their police/firemen and to offer a good education. I may not agree with “one size fits all”, but I do disagree with school systems that can’t provide good teachers, sufficient supplies (textbooks, libraries, computer labs) so their poor students come out less prepared than children of wealthy communities.
>>I do not believe that. You fully underestimate the compassion of your fellow man. You’ve got far too little faith in people. I’ve never met a person who, if given the opportunity, would not help a person in need.
I didn’t underestimate anyone’s compassion. I said that if the government quit offering services then charity would have a hard time providing for all those additional people who need help. If would be far from systematic and people *will* fall through the even greater cracks that will exist in this patch work system. Your guesses for how much more efficient the charity will be no longer holds when the expanded charity will need to hire real staffers, not just volunteers. And you didn’t address the problem that charitable donations will fall when they’re most needed.
In short, you’ve ignored all my important points and hand waved them away with talk of freedom, compassion, and more money for you.
>>For every 1 discovery or advancement government funds provide, I can give you 10 that the private sector, driven by profit and greed, has given us. You write as if, without the billions in Federal funds over the last 50 years, we’d be 30 years behind everyone else. It’s simply not true.
We need the government funding to do basic science research and to do research into problems which have no profit in them. And we would be further behind. Public research is available for everyone to innovate on. Private research is locked up in patents for years.
>>For a good example, look at Katrina ravaged New Orleans. When Government B.S. didn’t work
Under Bush and heckuva job Brownie guidance. Government rarely works well when you’re trying to kill it.
You haven’t really done a good job refuting the idea that poverty will become concentrated and opportunities reduced due to more unequal circumstances.
loading....
@ Steven (161), not only can I not even begin to imagine JD hurting anyone (this is intended as a compliment, JD), but I think what you’re missing in your comment on comparing our taxes to other nations is that the point of taxes is to give the people services. The comparison with other nations shows what SERVICES their people are willing to give income to via taxes.
We choose the services. Unfortunately we live in a huge and diverse country, and always some people want some services and some want others. This is why we have representatives and vote. I personally would prefer to never give another dollar to defense spending, but I accept (reluctantly) that I do not have that choice, but every time I VOTE, I use what power I have in making that choice known.
loading....
@ #164: on food prices, there is a gas tax. And the price of gas is already absorbed into food prices so your argument is bunk.
loading....
A federal income tax was imposed prior to 1913. In 1861, during the Civil War, a personal income tax of 3% (flat tax) was imposed on incomes above $800. This tax was later modified to include a graduated tax. This income tax remained in place until being repealed in 1872.
loading....
@Steven (#161)
Grrrrr….
No worries. I can understand your perspective. And I’m never going to hurt anyone for voicing a reasonable opinion. The only time I really get cranky is when people are jerks to each other. But a good, heady debate? With opinions that might not match my own? Bring it on!
Actually, I’m not sure how I feel about the country-to-country comparison. On its own, I don’t like it, and think it doesn’t say much. Combined with the other data, though, it becomes part of a bigger picture.
Also, I’m one of those who doesn’t like how everyone invokes the Founding Fathers, as if they agreed on everything. They didn’t. They had rancorous debates, just as our politicians do today. The U.S. wasn’t built on unity — it was built on division. They fought duels with each other! And they built their disagreements into our Constitution, which is something I actually dearly love.
But these discussions we’re having today? They’re not new. They’ve been raging for 250+ years. This is something that most people on all sides of the political fence fail to realize: That there was disagreement among the Founding Fathers, and that the country has rarely been unified on anything.
loading....
@ Tyler (#71)
Few of us get a dollar-for-dollar return on the taxes that we pay. It’s even worse for very high income earners, many of whom may pay millions in income taxes. The money paid in taxes ultimately become “public” funds used for the “public” good. They are not user fees.
I guess the only time that I got a net gain (in dollars) versus my taxes paid was during my time on the public payroll while in the Army.
loading....
“1. freedom
2. entitlement”
Actually its not, its selfishness versus community. You can apply the same reasoning on libraries to roads. Let those who want them pay for them through donations. The same with police and fire protection. The same with food safety. The reality is that selfish people will let others pay for them and they will come out ahead.
Now you can say – if they don’t pay they can’t use them. But who enforces that?
The reality is that most of what people own is an accident of the country they were born in. Everyone benefits from that – the rich more than anyone. “Randians”, much like the Marguis de Sade, defend their own “freedom” to act for their own benefit, often at the expense of others.
loading....
JD, no worries, I 100% agree with your philosophy for personal finances!!! You are the man and a great example of individual success, you personify American excellence and individuality. I am thrilled for you that you have found a way to make a living doing something you like.
I should clarify my post: I don’t mind the comparison of our taxes with other countries. However, the criteria for whether taxation (or creation of another program or department) is justified is our own Constitution and not other countries.
loading....
@ Ross 170 –
I take extreme exception and umbrage to the idea that wanting to keep more of your own money equates to “selfishness,” and wanting to take others’ money for the collective is “community.” By your standards, communism is a positive virtue, while capitalism is evil.
I am not selfish for wanting to keep the fruits of my labors. If I were to work 80 hours a week, and my neighbor only worked 20 hours a week, why would it be selfish for me to keep the extra 60 hours of income – rather than give it to my lazy neighbor?
If I were selfish, I would not donate a full 10 percent (and more) of my taxes to charity each year. And no, my income is not that high. Making those donations is not easy – it is quite difficult for myself and my family. We sacrifice so that we may give to help others. Many other mid-range and high-end earners do the same.
Your accusation is hateful. Rich people are not greedy or evil. And most people with high incomes did not “luck” into them. They work hard and made positive choices.
On the flip side, would you call all poor people noble and pure? None are poor because of laziness or bad choices? I do not assume this is the case for all poor people … but then again, I don’t assume all flat-taxers are selfish, as you do.
By your reasoning, everyone should pay for a subsistence living standard, and then throw all the rest of their money into a big pot for bureaucrats to divvy up. Do you really want to do that?? Is that what has made America a strong and healthy economy for 250 years?
loading....
One point that seems to be missing here (granted I didn’t read EVERY post) is the impact of money printing (inflation) and subsequent price increases when they are combined with taxes. Average REAL (inflation adjusted) wages are significantly lower than the ’70s, and even the ’80s. If your average tax rate is even roughly the same on an already reduced REAL income, those paying taxes can justifiably complain about a punishing burden of taxes and a reduced standard of living.
BTW, redistribution of wealth is just government mandated THEFT. Encourage a more charitable and giving society. There will always be those less fortunate and poor. May they be a source of blessing to those with more who now have an opportunity to give.
loading....
@Ross (160):
I can only assume you’re trolling at this point. Please state a real argument, and not strawmen that prove nothing other than your own absurdity. The only one that is even close to valid is the last, and for that there’s usually a disturbing-the-peace law.
@Ross (170):
Randian thought is quite self-consistent. For instance, the answer to your query, is “mu”, because the question is wrong. The reason, is because by Randian thought, no one would “pay for someone else” to start with. It’s inconsistent with the premises.
loading....
Just to be clear – almost none of the money paid in Social Security taxes goes to the people who pay it. The benefit goes entirely to others. If they live long enough they may benefit from Social Security.
Nd it ought to be obvious that a tax paid exclusively on the first 100,000 of wage – without any deductions or exemptions – is not being paid disproportionately by the “ultra-rich”. And that accounts for almost half of federal spending.
This analysis of federal taxes ignores employee compensation that goes untaxed like health insurance, stock options, and 401K contributions. No one pays the 15% on those. And very few poor people receive any of those.
It is a fairly typical analysis of taxes. It ignores the taxes paid heavily by the poor and middle class, while exaggerating the percentage of total income being paid in taxes by the wealthy.
loading....
@barnetto
Of course it raises the price of goods. And of course, the people who are less able to pay will have a harder time affording the increased cost. I don’t dispute that.
Regardless of the good intentions (to help the poor), that doesn’t mean it’s right to steal from people (even if they can afford to be robbed) to do so. Just about every single bad domestic/fiscal policy the US has adopted in the last 75 years has been to help the poor. And it rarely succeeds in accomplishing its goal, FWIW.
That’s because if a state funds its own education, there won’t be a “neighborhood by neighborhood” disparity. The funds could be evenly distributed among districts … all without a dime of federal money (or influence).
Sorry, but that’s always going to be the case. Parents of children in wealthy districts will send their kids to private schools, or if they send them to public schools, they’ll donate to the sports programs, and band, and science labs, etc. There’s always going to be a difference between what the rich get and what the poor get, no matter how level you try to make the field. As long as the rich have more money than the rest of us, they will spend it making their lives better than ours. Fact. Of. Life.
All those people? Again, you’re painting a picture of society that just doesn’t represent real life. If (and that’s a big if) some of the <1% of Americans who *actually* live in poverty ever went without help and that fact got out into public knowledge, thousands upon thousands of people would pitch in to help.
And of course, Government efficiency is the standard to which we should all aspire, right? Fact is, no matter how big the charity gets, it’s very unlikely that it will do a worse job than Government.
Very large organizations like Walmart seem to operate very efficiently, despite their size.
If this happens when Government is in charge, you sure don’t seem to have a problem with that, do you? We just print more money, or borrow it, or worse … take more from the rich (which will likely extend the “bad times”).
You neglect to see that, with no income taxes (or substantially lower rates), hard times would be less frequent and less hard. Imagine the prosperity that would follow introducing nearly $1 Trillion into the economy every year that wasn’t there before.
That’s unfair. First of all, I don’t personally qualify as “rich” … not even close. And even if I was, I’m not talking about somehow robbing from the community pot … I’m talking about keeping what I earned in the first place. That fact tends to slip the mind of liberals … I earned every penny I made. It belongs to ME … not you. Why should anyone think they have a right to something they didn’t earn?
Secondly, what’s so bad about freedom?
Thirdly, your cynicism toward people’s compassion is disheartening. It’s as if you’re saying “give people the right to spend their own money they way they want to, and they’ll screw it up.”
I just don’t believe they will.
Please name one. And for every one you name, not only can I name 10 that the private sector was able to discover (faster and cheaper), but I can also give you 10 “discoveries” and “advancements” that were completely worthless to the common good.
Regardless, this doesn’t need to be funded by the Federal Government anyway. States already fund universities … why not fund the research grants too?
1. I was actually talking about the billions in funding that Louisiana and New Orleans have received that has yet to make a dent in the condition of the area. Both, by the way, were democrats.
2. Surely you jest. If Bush was trying to reduce the size of Government, then I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you. (BTW, criticizing Bush to someone who was not a fan of his doesn’t work).
Unequal circumstances — that’s life. It’s equal opportunity that I’m trying to promote. There is no limitation that charity can’t dissolve that is holding people back from prosperity.
This quote from Benjamin Franklin sums it up well:
loading....
JD: please remove Dan K and disallow him to post further vitriolic, unreasoned arguments.
I enjoy the site, and reading BOTH sides/all nuances of the arguments, but his comments are inflammatory and unhelpful.
This is a controversial subject, but most of us here are adults who are willing to trade dialogue rather than insults. Thanks.
loading....
“take extreme exception and umbrage to the idea that wanting to keep more of your own money equates to “selfishness,””
What is your definition of selfishness then?
“I am not selfish for wanting to keep the fruits of my labors”
If that is all you want to keep, great. But, in fact, you also want a share of the labors of several thousand years of civilization and 200+ years of American civilization in particular. And you consider that your entitlement.
“I don’t assume all flat-taxers are selfish, as you do.”
Actually that is too kind a description. I think there are two possibilities – they don’t understand the implications of what they are advocating or they are sociopaths.
Most fit the first category, but there is a large group that really fits the sociopath category. They are prepared to have people in a car accident die by the side of the road if they can’t pay for an ambulance.
““The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville”
He was wrong. Politicians realized that over 200 years ago and we are still here.
Justin – You mean those things YOU need are obviously your entitlement, requiring no contract. As you point out, we have laws against disturbing the peace. We also have laws that require you to pay for public services.
loading....
Lesley @172, what if your 20-hour neighbor is a venture capitalist or a stock trader whose 20 hours of work generate ten times your income? Mr. Twenty may well be creating more wealth, and paying more taxes, than you do. Is he still stealing from you merely because you work more hours than he?
Of course it’s not the case that the rich are evil and the poor are virtuous, but the reverse is not true either, and I don’t understand the vehement arguments here that it is. The stoop-sitter who lives off food stamps is using way less of my tax dollars that the defense contractor who persuades the government to hire him, not the lowest bidder, to fund a pork-barrel project.
loading....
@Ross,
I actually have no problem calling people who want to keep their own money “selfish”. They are acting in their own self-interest, potentially above the interests of others.
That selfishness has been the driving factor in our rise to the top in economic prosperity. Bottom line, our drive to make money for ourselves ends up indirectly benefiting everyone. My employer gets good work in exchange for a decent wage (depending on how in-demand my skills are). My landlord gets my rent check, and his bank gets paid back for the loan he has on the house, plus interest. The bigger my house, the more people my “selfishness” benefits.
I could go on with every penny that I make, then spend (or invest). But you get the point, I hope. It need not be stolen from me to benefit society.
Unfortunately, they’re all dead. But then again, you’re not asking us to pay them back … you’re trying to indicate that we owe society a little kickback, since it must “take a village” to run an economy. Two problems with that …
1. I’m already kicking back nearly my entire paycheck on bills and other spending/investing/giving. By spending my money, period, I am giving back to society. That’s how it works.
2. Don’t give me the “roads, water, and police” B.S. As has been abundantly demonstrated in my posts above, none of those require a dime of federal income tax revenue to operate, and they certainly don’t need a disproportionate amount from the rich.
I’ve heard a lot of things, but that’s about the weirdest one I’ve heard. Let’s do an analogy to make this easier to understand.
A high school math teacher gives the class a test. Some will ace it. Some will pass. Some will fail. In order to make sure that no one fails, the teacher uses a graduated scale to determine how many points each student must relinquish to “the community”, so that no one will fail. After all, we don’t want anyone failing and not graduating. HS Graduation is key to a decent job.
Those students who make a perfect score are deducted 10% of their points. Those who made a B get deducted 5%. Those who made a C get deducted 3%, and those who made a D get deducted nothing (or else they might fall into the failing category).
Is that fair? A student diligently studies for an exam, only to be told that, because they did well, they are going to be deducted more than the other students … while failing students, students who might not have even studied at all, are given their points to ensure a passing grade, something many students are perfectly happy with.
Are the students sociopaths for wanting to keep the points they earned? Are they sociopaths because they don’t mind it if a student fails when he didn’t study? Is he a sociopath if, instead of having his points taken and given to the failing student, he decides to volunteer to tutor those students who are legitimately struggling?
Am I a sociopath because when I hear “we’ll pay you $20/hour to work for us”, I’d actually like to make $20/hour?
It’s real easy to be generous with other people’s money, Ross. But it doesn’t make you any more generous than a person who wants to keep all that they earn. It makes you a thief. A popular thief, but a thief nonetheless.
loading....
@ Nathan.
You seem to be arguing that progressive taxes reward the poor at the expense of the rich. Well, under the current system, the poor are poor and rich are rich. Under a flat tax, the poor would still be poor and the rich would be richer.
The groups that would suffer under a flat tax (if it were revenue neutral) would be middle and upper middle income earners. If you cut taxes at the top, the burden has to shift downward.
I do agree that a higher corporate tax to replace income taxes would be preferable, but that’s not going to happen. Corporations have huge influences over the politicians that write tax laws. Plus, the rich would probably oppose increases in corporate taxes as well since they derive a great deal of income from investments in corporations. And, rich folks have a lot of influence over politicians, too.
I very much disagree with your suggestion that we rely more on consumption taxes and user fees. These forms of taxes are highly regressive…they tend to shift the tax burden downward.
The rich got a huge windfall with the tax cuts of the 1980s. The highest marginal rate was reduced from 70% to 28%. At the same time, deductions used by middle income earners were eliminated. The result…the rich got a lot richer, the middle class got squeezed and Robin Leach (Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous) got a job…”Champagne wishes”…
loading....
@Nathan – 180 – “The bigger my house, the more people my “selfishness” benefits.”
I find this comment curious. No one but you ‘benefits’ from having your house larger. The people who worked on your house, had they not worked on your house, would of produced other goods, sold to other people. The transaction contents are neutral.
However, your house produces no goods. It offers nothing to the economy beyond you spending money. That money is spent if it taxed, spent on dinner or on your house… it isn’t capital… it’s almost an extension of the broken window. Increased activity does not translate to an improvement in the economy. Yet, if the government ‘shrunk’ your house by taxing you and puts it to capital products, or infrastructure, not only do you end up with a higher multiplier in the economy, it’s actually going to produce long term benefits compared to your house. That’s without even going into goods that the market doesn’t produce efficiently, like education and public goods in general… items that you would have no influence on simply due to the nature of public goods.
If you are really worried about heating up the economy, via the “bigger house”, support inflation. Even if the arguments for against are reduced to push/pull effects of inflation, it’s certainly going to be better than building a bigger house. That’s where the aggregate increase in demand is going to happen.
In the end, the top percent earners don’t pay that much more tax relative to what they actually earn. They control the vast amount of wealth in your country – IIRC, over half is owned by the top 1%, and the income of the country is also wildly disportionate (top 10% for 50%, again IIRC). As a result, top percentiles in income and wealth are already getting a disportionate gain from taxes. The businesses they run are competitive with the world by having educated workers, roads for networking, military for security and so forth. It’s not hard to see the correlation between taxes and income inequality and it is not hard to see the general nature of such a high income inequality on social order, order that ties into all of the areas tax money is applied.
loading....
@Finn (182) re: Nathan’s comment (180)
“I find this comment curious. No one but you ‘benefits’ from having your house larger. The people who worked on your house, had they not worked on your house, would of produced other goods, sold to other people. The transaction contents are neutral.
However, your house produces no goods. It offers nothing to the economy beyond you spending money. That money is spent if it taxed, spent on dinner or on your house… it isn’t capital… it’s almost an extension of the broken window. Increased activity does not translate to an improvement in the economy.”
Finn, I find your comments curious. Why does “increased activity not translate to an improvement in the economy? Please help me understand if I’m missing the point of this.
Your statement makes it seem like Nathan spent his money on the house and the money went into a vault into the ground. Here’s my take on it:
The house doesn’t just stand there…it is filled with goods made by people. The larger the house, the more goods and services are needed (refrigerators, mattresses, drapes, rugs, etc) or, simply desired (say if one was a collector of art, not Picassos, but local artists, for example) if that is how one chooses to spend their money. If his large house has three garages, he probably has three vehicles or equipment that he plans to put in there.
The more goods that are needed, then more companies (large, small, mom/pop, individual) are there to meet that need.
The more companies there are, to appeal to the diverse group of buyers, the more people are employed to make those items.
The more people that are employed, the more they are putting their wages back into their community grocery stores, hardware stores, buying cars, buying STUFF, donating to charities, not on the public dole, etc.
How is this not an improvement in the economy?
On a personal level, and from the bottom up view of this discussion and ALSO as a producer of things people buy, not as a necessity but because they wish to, I’m running 23K less than last year at this time.
Which means that’s 23K I’m not turning back around into the economy. And that’s just ME.
Again, Finn, please feel free to correct me if I’ve misinterpreted your comment.
loading....
Ann Rand philosophies sound awfully similar to “trickle down” theory of fiscal policy. And we saw how well that worked. I guess the main thing I cannot agree with both Ann Rand and fair tax proponents, is that there is no agreed sense of community or societal obligation. Even the most basic societies provide for the weak, the young, and the old. Our society is a bit more complicated; we don’t have the homeless person move in with us but hopefully there are other safety nets.
Whether you believe it or not you do live in a society, and do benefit from living and working in a stable society. Even the most basic hunter gatherer knows you have to contribute to the society you live in to accrue the benefits. And that process is over a lifetime, where at some times one is a receiver of benefits and other times a contributer. If you default on that contract, try to “game” the system then there is severe repercussions up to being thrown out.
I don’t mind discussion what about effective tax rates, discussions how those tax dollars should be spent, or how to make the government be more efficient, and the process more transparent. But to have the belief that one should live in the US and not have to pay taxes, well isn’t that kind of like having your cake and eating it too? That attitude is far more corrosive to the shared sense of responsibility and well being that we as Americans should have than the “entitlement” that a recipient of food stamps feels.
loading....
@Oldernwiser #183: Finn is referring to the Broken Window Fallacy. Economic activity for the sake of economic activity isn’t necessarily good unless you consider what the money would have been spent on if it weren’t spent on consumption. Most of us can see the benefit of spending the money on investing in an asset that could generate income or a better way of life down the road, or perhaps paying down debt. Finn is suggesting the government would do a better job of investing his money than the home-owner would, and I don’t agree with THAT proposition, but he is correct that consumption just to generate velocity of the currency is poor economic policy.
(If you’re reading a criticism into Keynesian stimulus plans like “Cash For Clunkers”, well, good for you.)
Read more about the Broken Window Fallacy here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
loading....
@Gwendally185.
Thanks for the link..I’ve only had time to give it a quick read through but will delve into it more.
I will say I join you in disagreeing with Finn that the government would do a better job of investing his/your/my money.
Please help me with this, though:
“Most of us can see the benefit of spending the money on investing in an asset that could generate income or a better way of life down the road, or perhaps paying down debt.”
This is where I get confused re the “consumption to generate velocity of currency” being bad economic policy. If one is investing in an asset that could generate income or a better way of life down the road, what kind of asset is that?
Is it not investing in Microsoft or Apple or Cisco or Intel, which all generate income and have produced a better way of life, but couldn’t have done that if people didn’t want to consume their products, either for fun, business needs, or because they want to carry on conversations such as this?
Is it not investing in Berkshire Hathaway because of a proven track record of Warren Buffet picking succssful companies that produce good/services that people buy?
I understand about using the money that might have been spent on buying things to pay down debt as being a good choice. But if one has no debt, has invested money to provide future income, etc, and has money to spend then they will consume things, will they not?
I’ve really enjoyed your posts, btw.
onw
loading....
I just thought of an interesting idea for the roads. People are acting like roads simply wouldn’t be built not maintained unless by a government. But here’s the thing… Roads BENEFIT someone. In fact, they benefit multiple people, for various reasons. So, here’s a question I propose to all of you: Do you really think that new Walmart being built in that new suburb would NOT build a road to itself if the government could not or would not? And do you think that Walmart would get it done more expensively and slower than the government probably would have, or vice versa?
To spell out my generalized point: If it provides a BENEFIT, then SOMEONE is willing to pay for it. Businesses will build roads to themselves, because otherwise it would be extremely difficult for customers to get to them. Communities and neighborhoods would pay for police and fire protection, because it benefits them. (And this need not be done through taxes. Deed restriction contracts on the community, same way HOA fees are done now, is the first alternative that comes to mind. That way, it becomes a CHOICE and a contract WILLINGLY entered, and competition between communities and police forces would arise.)
Also, I see a little quibble about selfishness has happened, as it invariably does. Let me ask this: If I willingly enter a contract to provide a good, in exchange for $500, why is it selfish to want the $500 my contract says I am legally and rightfully entitled to? (And we already covered the adverbs just used, so please see comment #143.) The other party of my contract obviously thought they were receiving proper value, or they would not have entered the contract. Likewise for myself. We are the only two parties in the contract. There is no conflict of interest; we both wish for the contract to be fulfilled for the terms set out.
Furthermore, why is it any more selfish for me to want all of the money, than for my contractor to want all of the good I am providing? If a 20% tax on my monetary profits makes sense, why does a 20% tax on his received goods also not make sense? If he bought a 5 bedroom house from me, why does it not make sense that one bedroom of his house be given up for the “public good”, opened for anyone to stay there free of charge? One in every five boxes of cereal they buy being taken immediately after purchase and distributed to everyone?
This should demonstrate that you are actually revoking the right of property, and thus justifying outright thievery.
loading....
@Oldernwiser: when you “invest” in Microsoft, you are usually speculating, not investing. Except in the case of initial stock or bond offerings, you are not giving the company more money to buy a bigger warehouse so they can enter a new line of business, you are not providing capital to retool to build a better widget.
Instead, you are buying stocks from someone who was counting on a greater fool coming along to lift them off their hands when they wanted their money back. The reason they thought a greater fool would come along was that they thought the company would continue to make money. Your collusion to keep a company making money so their stock price rises isn’t actually sound economic policy, it’s merely propping up the poor economic model we’ve got. It wastes capital to keep failing businesses running: those resources and manpower could have been reallocated to make something that people actually DO want and need. Every expensive GM car we subsidize to make it so we’ll pay more than we’re actually willing to pay for it is a smart car’s development that ISN’T being subsidized (or worse, is being penalized for not being unrealistically cheap) that COULD have been rising up to win market share.
If you, instead, said you wanted to spend the money you’ve saved on chipping in to buy your daughter a semi-tractor-trailer that she can use to haul her goods to a wider market, well, THAT’S investing. One can also say that educating a kid would be investing, too, except the ungrateful brats don’t ever give you a return on that investment (!).
I see what you mean about considering your dividend-paying stocks to be an investment, in that they’re assets that will make it so your money pays you “rent”. It’s good personal financial planning. But it’s not good economic policy. Unlimited growth is not possible in a finite world.
loading....
Morning JD!
Again great post on this subject. Very informative and I learnt a lot. As several of my readers have asked me to respond longer to your post, I decided to answer their question:
“Do Higher Taxes Lead To Socialism in America?!”
Hope you enjoy the read! I’ve provided a link to your article as well
RB
loading....
@Gwendally (188):
That third paragraph is cracking me up!
loading....
Justin @187, Walmart doesn’t just need a road to its store. It needs its customers to be able to get to the store, too. Walmart isn’t building a road to your house; it isn’t building a road from its store to its suppliers; it isn’t building a road from its suppliers’ warehouses to the port where the goods come in.
As for everybody paying for what benefits them, you’re not counting on free riders.
HOAs are not exactly what I would hold up as a model of utopia, either.
loading....
@Nathan Rice (#176)
And of course, Government efficiency is the standard to which we should all aspire, right? Fact is, no matter how big the charity gets, it’s very unlikely that it will do a worse job than Government.
Very large organizations like Walmart seem to operate very efficiently, despite their size.
I love your last statement! It just goes to show what motive can do…
Government’s motive is to stay in office, so they take more and more from the few that can “afford” to lose money and give it to the MANY… (sorry ranting – deep breath…)
Walmart on the other hand has a profit motive to keep its costs down and make money for their shareholders.
Maybe government should sell shares? I guess they do with T-bills and bonds and such, but they have a guaranteed payoff. How many of us would buy stock in the current government if there wasn’t a guaranteed interest rate?
loading....
@Finn,
If you’re talking about an artificial injection of disposable income, and therefore only a temporary or time-shifted period of increased consumption, then you’re absolutely right. All that does is interrupt or displace everyday consumption.
But If I was a millionaire, and had to make the decision to either bury my millions in the back yard, or build a big house, it’s not hard to see that choosing to build a big house will benefit many, MANY people during the process. Then, after it’s done, I buy furniture to fill the house … I hire a lawn care team to keep the landscape looking nice, etc. Every dime I spend benefits the people with whom I spend it. And yes, the bigger the house, the more I spend, and the more people benefit.
Again, all that without a single penny needing to be stolen from me. Even in my selfishness, I’m benefiting people who make less than me. Then THEY spend the money they made from me, benefiting even more people, and so on.
Absolutely incorrect. If any part of this story represents the broken window, it’s government meddling. It’s completely artificial, unnecessary, and disruptive to the normal working of markets.
These theories (inject public capital and watch things get better) has failed nearly every time it has been tried. Take public schools, for instance. We keep increasing the per-head funding, and yet scores and behavior keep going down. Some of the worst school districts in the country have the highest per-head funding. Public works, funded by public dollars, are not an efficient means of revitalizing an economy. Letting people (all people) keep the money they earn, then letting them spend that money how they want to, is much more effective, in both theory (give a man a fish, teach a man to fish) and practice.
loading....
Thanks for a great post! It’s difficult to simplify something as complicated as taxes, but you’ve given a good sketch.
Now, figuring this out on the local level is even more important… my township, county, and state taxes are even more complex and have even more impact on day-to-day life.
I work for a tax-funded government organization, and if there’s one thing I wish, it was that more of my district took time to understand how we’re funded and where their tax dollars are going.
loading....
The obsession with tax rates and comparisons with other countries is something close to a waste of time.
We can look at the effective tax rates we’re paying, the marginal rates, etc, but none of it paints an accurate picture of what we’re truly paying.
For example, using the chart in the post, total federal income taxes paid are just over $1 Trillion. However, the total of government spending at all levels (fed, soc sec, state, local) is on the order of $6 Trillion. So where is the remaining $5 Trillion coming from???
Other taxes and hidden taxes, plus deficit spending. There are social security taxes that we all know about, but there’s also the 7.65% match the employer pays. There are real estate taxes,sales taxes, highway tolls, utility taxes, unemployment taxes and on and on.
Just because we don’t always see the taxes levied doesn’t mean we aren’t paying them. The real rate of taxation is in excess of 40%, and even a lot of low income earners who aren’t on the income tax roles are paying some number close to that, because even if a tax is buried in a utility bill or a purchase, we’re still paying it. It isn’t all about the federal income tax!
(See http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html for references–Actual tax % for 2009 is 45%)
loading....
@#140, Gwendally: “You are correct in one element: if that 7.65% were repealed you would not see any of it, because you wouldn’t understand that it was yours to ask for. You would have to be aware of it to bargain for it. … The fact that you only NOTICE $30K as your wage doesn’t matter one whit, except in how hoodwinked you are about how taxed your labor is.”
I’m aware of how the tax works. I am not “hoodwinked”.
The simple fact is that if my employer pays a tax then it is not paid by me. You’re trying to double count a tax and shift it from one entity to another. Why not just claim that all 15.3% is paid by the employer and that I pay 0%? Same logic.
loading....
@Todd – comment #60 – you may want to check with your CPA (or attorney) who prepared your father’s estate tax return. Assuming he was married to your mother at his death, everything should have passed to her tax free under the unlimited marital deduction. (She would pay the tax at her death if the estate is still taxable.) Unless there were some convoluted estate planning set up – in that case you may need to consult another attorney re: possible malpractice. (I’m guessing this isn’t the case however due to the fact he paid any estate tax at all.)
(I’m a CPA and have done several estate tax returns in my 10+ years.)
loading....
@Jim: here’s how the employer gets out of paying that 7.65% tax: they stop using your labor. The ONLY reason they pay that 7.65% tax is because they value your labor high enough to make it worth paying.
Your employer values your labor and is willing to pay $X for it.
How can you NOT consider that money you didn’t get a tax on your labor?
I agree that it isn’t the way most people think about these things, but that is EXACTLY why this shell game has been so successful.
Stare at this a while and it will dawn on you.
If your employer is willing to – and then DOES – pay $50K to obtain your services, any amount of that not received by you is a hidden tax on your labor.
I can say this over and over again in a lot of different ways. Sleep on it, or email me at dally@myself com and perhaps we could continue this elsewhere.
loading....
@Jim again:
Another way to discuss it: if you’ve ever been in a job where they had to lay you off, but are okay about you coming back as a subcontractor, the negotiations for the subcontractor pay are ALWAYS higher than for your salary pay. One of the reasons for this, and they’ll say this out loud, is “we won’t have to cover your payroll taxes anymore.”
They’re still willing to pay the same amount on a contract basis, they just pay it to YOU and then YOU pay the payroll taxes on it – except now that extra 7.65% is out in the open, no longer hidden, and you pay both sides out of checks you write.
How about some math: employer is willing to pay you $20/hr for your services, you get $18.57, they pay $1.43 into your social security account along with the $1.43 they withheld from your paycheck (so your net check was $17.14).
If you go as a subcontractor, you’d ask for $20/hr instead of the $18.57 you were used to charging, and you’d absolutely get it. (In fact, ask for MORE, because your services are worth MORE as a subcontractor because of a lot of other piddly little employee expenses the employer was paying, which they ALSO docked your wages for.)
But if you get $20/hr, be aware that you’re going to have to pay $3/hr in social security and medicare taxes, bringing your net pay back down to $17 again.)
Employees pay the EXACT SAME TAXES on their wages as self-employed people do, but only self-employed people ever notice it. (By the way, that’s ANOTHER way you can tell what I’m saying is true, because if self-employed people DID have to pay extra taxes over and above what employees pay you would be hearing their battle cry loud and clear. They don’t. They pay the same taxes – all 15.3% of their labor’s earnings. Same as you.)
loading....
Gwendally (199)–Good illustration on hidden taxes. The problem is that there are more of them, a lot more. Ever look closely at the taxes included in your utility bills, your hotel bills?
Ultimately, we pay all of the taxes, even if we don’t see them.
loading....