Chart shows low tax burden for rich

We hear a lot these days about how government spending has led to a deficit that could pose a major long-term threat if it goes unaddressed. It's true that government has of late grown under both Democratic and Republican presidents. But deficit hawks often sidestep a no-less important trend: In recent decades, tax rates--especially for the rich--have been on the decline by historical standards. Everyone likes getting a tax cut, but it's worth remembering that the shrinking of tax revenue has contributed to the deficit problem, just as spending has.

What to make of all those swirling lines? The chart shows how tax burdens for different income levels have fluctuated over the last century, adjusted for inflation. Blue areas represent a historically low tax burden for a specific income level, while red areas represent a historically high burden.

So in a nutshell, the chart shows that until around 1940, tax burdens were low for everyone, in historical terms. Then they rose sharply for everyone until about 1970. At that point, the rich and poor began to diverge.

Those making around $10,000 to around $50,000 per year enjoyed a comparatively low-tax period in the 70s, but by the early 80s they were taxed slightly higher than the historical average. In the 2000s, their tax rate came back down a bit.

news.yahoo.com...

Not only does it appear the middle class shares the highest burden...but it also seems to act as a bottleneck...keeping those at the top at the top.

Anyway, thought this would be worth sharing. I'm sure many of you already know how the wealth disparity in this country is growing...but for those who don't this is worth a look.

Another thing to note...you can literally see history in this chart.

From the beginnings of country...to FDR...to Reagan and after.

It's all right there. Kinda startling really.

Strangely, where there is the most red is when the middle class was at it's strongest....go figure eh?????

What I find interesting about this chart is that it shows that consistantly, since 1930 (with the exception of that little blurp in the middle), the middle class has always been targetted first with higher taxes.

Government should force the rich to pay the taxes for the poor from now on. They should also give a % of their income too. The president and vice president shouldn't get paid.

Almost 1/2 of US households pay 0 federal income tax.

Almost half pay no tax

Personally, I think that everyone should pay the same percentage. Flat tax. No more whining about the rich not paying their fair share.

The top 10% of income earners pay almost 70% of the federal tax. LINK

reply to post by Wildbob77

You know what they say about statistics and liberals, right?

Wouldn't it have been easier, and more clear, to present the actual burden by income level?
That wouldn't serve a "progressive" agenda, though, would it?

If you look at the actual numbers, the tax burden begins to get a little top-heavy at $67k and above (what a typical 2-earner family with school-age kids earns):

In Tax Year 2008, the top 1% of earners ($380k+) paid 38% of all federal income taxes; the top 5% ($150k+) paid about 59%; the top 10% ($114k+) paid right at 70%; and, the top 25% ($67k+, not much for a family of 4) paid more than 85% of all federal personal income taxes.

And the bottom 50% ($33k and under, like single college graduates and such); they paid less than 3% of all federal taxes, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
www.ntu.org...

Of course, you also know that last year, 35% of all income was government hand-outs, right?

Want to guess which income group got the highest share of those "entitlement" benefits that the top 25% were paying nearly 90% of?

So, at which point would you want to just take 100% of a person's income and give it to the bottom half (or more)?
Since when is there a limit on American citizens' ability to enjoy financial success?
At what point do you penalize someone just for having an exceptional year?

No wonder the people at the bottom of the ladder believe that hard work doesn't pay: "they're just gonna take it away from me in taxes."

What a failed policy. What a program for failure!

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by balon0

Government should force the rich to pay the taxes for the poor from now on.

Who do you think already does?

Last year, the top 25% of all earners ($113k+) paid 90% of the taxes the IRS took in.
35% of all income last year already was government handouts (that those top 25% paid 90% of).


deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by David9176

Not only does it appear the middle class shares the highest burden...but it also seems to act as a bottleneck...

Appears? Seems? Why not show what the graphs mean in real numbers?

Or, are appearances and perceptions what you intended to create, using only the chart, but not the underlying data?

jw

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Almost 1/2 of US households pay 0 federal income tax.

Almost half pay no tax

Personally, I think that everyone should pay the same percentage. Flat tax. No more whining about the rich not paying their fair share.

The top 10% of income earners pay almost 70% of the federal tax. LINK

And how do you think they'd go about getting that from someone who has no money at all, no job, let's say he/she is disabled, now let's assume because of the tax being flat that there'd be no SSI SSDI (there'd hardly be enough to keep such programs) or whatever, how praytell would they seek to get money from the disabled individual? How high would the flat tax be? Say 2,000 every year, so if you work at walmart, bk, or mickd's you'd bring two thousand less home a year so that would be let me see 10,000 - 2,000 = 8,000 poverty level is ten thousand and what 562 something in that range give or take. So they'd be even less able to support themself. Yeah, have you been dropped on your head as a child?

reply to post by ldyserenity


Most flat tax proposals are in the 17 - 22% range. For someone making $1M/year that is roughly $200K sent into Uncle Sam. A flat tax is by definition progressive. When liberals claim they want a progressive tax what they are really calling for is a punative tax. Our current tax policy is punative. It penalizes success and rewards a lack of achievement.

Don't trump out the old and disabled folks. That is a tired old argument and there is no reasonable person who does not think that the government needs to provide for folks who can not provide for themselves.

Originally posted by ldyserenity


Personally, I think that everyone should pay the same percentage. Flat tax. No more whining about the rich not paying their fair share.

And how do you think they'd go about getting that from someone who has no money at all, no job, let's say he/she is disabled, now let's assume because of the tax being flat that there'd be no SSI SSDI (there'd hardly be enough to keep such programs) or whatever, how praytell would they seek to get money from the disabled individual? How high would the flat tax be? Say 2,000 every year, so if you work at walmart, bk, or mickd's you'd bring two thousand less home a year so that would be let me see 10,000 - 2,000 = 8,000 poverty level is ten thousand and what 562 something in that range give or take. So they'd be even less able to support themself. Yeah, have you been dropped on your head as a child?

It would be funny except most license fees, use fees and sales taxes, are A FLAT TAX.
The guy that goes camping in a 30$ tent pays the same fee as the guy in the million dollar
motorhome ,thus he subsidizes the rich guy. If you tried to explain it to him he would call
you a communist and then volunteer for the army so he could die for the right of the rich
to exploit him.

reply to post by RRokkyy


If based on the number of folks who use the camp ground a year, they figure that it costs 30 cents per camper/car load, how is one subsidizing the other? Unless you can quantitatively demonstrate that it costs the park more to support the million dollar motor home, the way each party uses their space in the park is immaterial.

With your logic, say a gent comes in, pays his 30 cents and simply lays down on the ground and sleeps in his clothes. Is he subsidizing the gent who pitches a tent?

You could easily argue that the motor home is cheaper for the park to support since the folks who are staying in it are not using park facilities like rest rooms, showers, etc.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Most flat tax proposals are in the 17 - 22% range. For someone making $1M/year that is roughly $200K sent into Uncle Sam. A flat tax is by definition progressive. When liberals claim they want a progressive tax what they are really calling for is a punative tax. Our current tax policy is punative. It penalizes success and rewards a lack of achievement.

"A flat tax is by definition progressive."
That is double speak. A flat tax is a flat tax. It remains the
same percentage. A tax whose percentage increases with income is a progressive tax.
Logic tells us that if you put more money in the hands of more people they could use it to create
more NEW businesses instead of buying 200 million dollar yachts and mansions.

reply to post by RRokkyy


No, a progressive tax system is a tax system where the more you make the more you pay. In a 20% flat tax rate structure, the gent making $100K a year pays $20K and the gent who makes $1M/year pays $200K. That is a progressive tax.

If the gent who makes $100K pays $20K and the gent who makes $1M pays $500K, that is a punative tax. It is a tax structure that discourages achievement, encourages tax avoidance and is immoral.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Most flat tax proposals are in the 17 - 22% range. For someone making $1M/year that is roughly $200K sent into Uncle Sam. A flat tax is by definition progressive. When liberals claim they want a progressive tax what they are really calling for is a punative tax. Our current tax policy is punative. It penalizes success and rewards a lack of achievement.

Don't trump out the old and disabled folks. That is a tired old argument and there is no reasonable person who does not think that the government needs to provide for folks who can not provide for themselves.

ok 17 - 22 % of 0 is still 0? but 22% of ten thousand holy shessus that's $2,200, that's even more than the 2,000 I had put in my "hypothetical" so there that is a totally retarded amount! And no not everyone can make 1mil a year wth would serve your burgers if everyone did? Totally ludicrous.

Ok, so the rich aren't being taxed at a high enough rate.

Even if we taxed them 100 percent it wound not close the deficit, and it would decimate the economy at the same time. Higher taxes cannot fix our problems. Period. Maybe, and this a big maybe we can cut the deficit by 10 percent with tax increases. Remember higher taxes always damage the economy to some degree.

Spending has to be cut - dramatically. There is no way around it.

reply to post by proximo


To do one without the other wouldn't work. Unfortunately, taxes will have to go up and spending will have to go down, there is no other way around it. People don't like it, (especially the TEA Party who feel that they shouldn't have to pay any tax at all) but it has to be done.

It's just insane that people think that the deficit will fix itself with unfunded tax breaks for the wealthiest 2%

reply to post by ldyserenity

And how do you think they'd go about getting that from someone who has no money at all, no job,

Most flat-tax propositions exempt income equal to or slightly above what is called the "poverty line," an amount necessary to provide for the bare necessities but not much more. So, just as now, lower income earners would not pay tax on the first $25k to 30k or so of their income.

Above that, everyone would pay a flat ___ (fill in the blank) %. That's fair, and protects the truly working-poor.

let's say he/she is disabled, now let's assume because of the tax being flat that there'd be no SSI SSDI (there'd hardly be enough to keep such programs)

You confuse income tax for employment tax. SSI and SSDI and MEDICARE/MEDICAID are funded by a separate tax on a portion of earned income. Presently, the employment tax ends at income over $65k, thus favoring the high-earners over the lower wage earners. That should become a flat as well. Money would still flow into these programs either way, since it is independent of income tax. (When you start to recieve pay checks, you will be able to see the separate deductions)

how praytell would they seek to get money from the disabled individual?

Some people advocate only taxing earned income, not government hand-outs.

How high would the flat tax be?

It would be a flat percentage, ranges anywhere from 10% to 29% have been discussed.

Say 2,000 every year, so if you work at walmart, bk, or mickd's you'd bring two thousand less home a year so that would be let me see 10,000 - 2,000 = 8,000 poverty level is ten thousand

No one is advocating a specific tax amount, it is proposed as a percentage of income above a certain minimum. Most people at your examples would likely NOT pay income tax, but they would likely continue to pay a separate tax to fund government entitlement programs. Some have talked about an "opt-out" in which you would give up any future claims to these entitlements, but would not have to pay those taxes, you could invest them (or spend them) yourself.

jw

reply to post by RRokkyy

It would be funny except most license fees, use fees and sales taxes, are A FLAT TAX.
The guy that goes camping in a 30$ tent pays the same fee as the guy in the million dollar
motorhome ,thus he subsidizes the rich guy.

A fee is not a tax. Legally, it is considered a "license." It is a charge for the right to use something, like a seat at a ball game, or a camping space or nature trail.

There is no national sales tax. These are local taxes to fund local government services such as police, fire and streets.
This thread is about federal income taxes. Local taxes are varied and for different functions specific to certain populations: schools, development, arts and culture, parks and recreation, et c. Some of these are pro-rata (like bond-reduction), some are apportioned or specifically assessed (like personal property, motor vehicles and real estate).

jw

reply to post by RRokkyy

"A flat tax is by definition progressive."
That is double speak. A flat tax is a flat tax. It remains the
same percentage. A tax whose percentage increases with income is a progressive tax.
Logic tells us that if you put more money in the hands of more people they could use it to create
more NEW businesses instead of buying 200 million dollar yachts and mansions.

Actually, the problem is in the choice and use of terms, clarity of speech.

The EFFECT of a flat tax is progressive; i.e. the more you earn the more you pay, but all pay at the same rate,

A "progressive tax" is a description of a tax inwhich the rates of taxation increase as income progresses. It penalizes higher incomes, thus you often hear the lament, "If I work more, the taxes will kill me," or similar complaints. This reflects the fact that higher incomes (more hours, bonuses, overtime, promotions) are sometimes not seen as beneficial because they push an earner into a higher tax bracket. It is only slightly accurate, because only the extra income is taxed at the higher rate, but is in effect, true.

Logic does NOT dictate that redistribution of wealth creates more employment, it actually mitigates against work. Why work harder or at all if you will be given some of that taken from the high tax payers through entitlements, subsidies, rebates, et c? Why strive to earn more, if a larger percentage (some advocate up to 90%) is taken from you?

Economics and logic say that if you reward the creation of wealth (capital) by allowing people to retain and use it, they will
use it to create more wealth. Even if they spend it on a yacht, someone has to build it, sell it, maintain it, et c. If it is invested without penalty (e.g., capital gains tax), it will be invested to create more wealth.

jw