Who REALLY pays income taxes?

HarrySchell

New member
Next time Hillary and Obama tell you the "rich" are undertaxed, or that a budget can be balanced by further taxation of the "rich", keep this in mind.


New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%
Data also show incomes growing across all percentile groups
For more information, contact: Nate Bailey at (202) 464-5102.
Washington, DC, October 4, 2007 - New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows.
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2005 (updated October 2007)
Number of Returns AGI
($ millions)Income Taxes Paid
($ millions)Group's Share of Total AGI Group's Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point
All Taxpayers132,611,637$7,507,958$934,703100.00%100.00%-
Top 1%1,326,116$1,591,711$368,13221.20%39.38%above $364,657
Top 5%6,630,582$2,683,934$557,75935.75%59.67%above $145,283
Top 10%13,261,164$3,487,010$657,08546.44%70.30%above $103,912
Top 25%33,152,909$5,069,455$803,77267.52%85.99%above $62,068
Top 50%66,305,819$6,544,824$906,02887.17%96.93%above $30,881
Bottom 50%66,305,818963,13428,67512.83%3.07%below $30,881

Source: IRS
The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups. Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.
Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in 2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.
The IRS data includes all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 90.6 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 42 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here.
The nonpartisan, nonprofit Tax Foundation has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Best known for its annual calculation of Tax Freedom Day®, the Tax Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization.
- end -

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
 
Of course, the obvious problem is that though the dollars paid are real dollars, the income received is AGI. People pay a LOT of money for accountants to drop that number using legal tax loopholes. As your income rises, you are more likely to be able to take advantage of these opportunities (incorporation, real estate, etc)

However, just based on the numbers provided in the link (which was readable), the (taxes paid)/AGI for the top 1% comes out to a tax rate of just over 23%

Again, that's using AGI. Obviously, actual income is higher, which would mean that the effective tax rate for the highest 1% is LESS than 23%.

Guess the whole argument about that 35% tax rate on the rich is a bunch of crap, huh?

FURTHER, doing the math, take the top 50% and subtract the top 10% to get earners between $30k and $103k and you find that their effective tax rate is 8.14%

That's about right from my own returns over the years.
 
I don't pay any taxes... they borrow a few hundred from me every year but I get more than 10 times that as a return. I get EIC (I don't believe in it but I know they won't return it to the rightful owner). Paid in $400 and got $4,400 back...:o
I lose one "credit" next go 'round as Junior hit the big 18 in Jan... Why is he still here? Oh he can pay rent now... JUNIOR.... nope no answer!
Brent
 
However, just based on the numbers provided in the link (which was readable), the (taxes paid)/AGI for the top 1% comes out to a tax rate of just over 23%

Yea, the math works, but that statement is not entirely accurate.

Taxes paid into the IRS could be offset by allowable credits.
AGI is always reduced by itemized deductions and exemptions.

Just these two things alone would cause the taxes number to be higher and the denominator, taxable income, to be much lower. This would result in the actual effective tax rate being much higher than 23%.

Doing it your way gives a skewed rate, because it neglects to take into account the actual rates, its just a number.

Guess the whole argument about that 35% tax rate on the rich is a bunch of crap, huh?

No, its legit.

And just looking at the numbers, is it fair that the top 1% pay so much? Are they a bigger drain on society than the welfare recipients who pay no tax? Take than into account and I think it is obvious, the system sucks.

People pay a LOT of money for accountants to drop that number using legal tax loopholes.

Yes, I know :D
 
AGI is always reduced by itemized deductions and exemptions.

Can you please confirm this statement as the rest of your argument stems from it. AGI is what you get AFTER deductions and exemptions, you don't take deductuctions from AGI.

No, its legit.

And just looking at the numbers, is it fair that the top 1% pay so much? Are they a bigger drain on society than the welfare recipients who pay no tax? Take than into account and I think it is obvious, the system sucks.

Well, they certainly take more advantage of the highway system, have a bigger risk at stake to ensure their property is not taken by invading russians, etc. It's isn't a simple comparison by any means. Also, there are plenty of people that do not pay taxes but are not a drain (which I guess we could define as essentially negative tax payers)

What is often overlooked in the progressive tax system is that people oversimplify "35% tax rate" as applying to all income, which it doesn't, and also not taking into account that the highest 5% is easier to earn than the lowest 5% (the more money you have, the easier it is to earn more) as you move from a labor force to an investment force (altogether different ways to earn money and difficult to compare)
 
People pay a LOT of money for accountants to drop that number using legal tax loopholes.

Its not just a matter of paying an accountant and him juggling numbers around. You have to make a determined effort to invest in things that will allow deductions, depreciation, etc.

There is no such thing as a tax loophole. It is simply complying with tax law. People on a gun board should know better than to use such inaccurate language. Calling a legal investment a tax loophole is just a way for pro-taxation liberals to make it sound bad... much like the "gunshow loophole" is an attempt by antis to make gun shows look bad.
 
Everyone of us pays an "income tax" everytime we use dollars that buy less and less. Income taxes paid by the "wealthy few" and "greedy corporations" cost all of us, even us that receive an "earned income tax credit" refund every year. More corporations move operations offshore, small business owners hire less people, Wal-Mart rises the price of toilet paper and soap to cover whatever it pays out in corporate income taxes, and "cost of living" raises fail to keep pace with rising fuel, food, health care and housing costs.

So when the nice people from the government provides "entitlements", a "tax rebate", or any other benefit, realize the cost is always passed down. "We the people" are euchred every election cycle. The check from the U.S. Treasury is visible. The costs are kept obscure.
 
If the rich are paying more I believe they should agree with a flat percentage rate,want to bet they would not like a flat tax.;)
 
Its not just a matter of paying an accountant and him juggling numbers around. You have to make a determined effort to invest in things that will allow deductions, depreciation, etc.

There is no such thing as a tax loophole. It is simply complying with tax law. People on a gun board should know better than to use such inaccurate language. Calling a legal investment a tax loophole is just a way for pro-taxation liberals to make it sound bad... much like the "gunshow loophole" is an attempt by antis to make gun shows look bad.

I used the word correctly. I in no way implied it wasn't perfectly legal. Your reception and interpretation of my post is absolutely off base.
 
If the rich are paying more I believe they should agree with a flat percentage rate,want to bet they would not like a flat tax.

Well, Steve Forbes did have a flat tax as his platform when he ran for president. However, you're right... the tax laws that are currently in place allow lots of room to take advantage of wealth retention assuming you have the wealth to begin with. Just a fact of life, it's how they are written.

I'd support a flat tax if only for the positive impact it would have on time wasted DOING taxes that could be used working to create more wealth.
 
I suggest a flat 10%! Your boss sends a form, in duplicate to you and the IRS you send them yer tenth or they come get you... EVERYONE! no itemized deductions what so ever... No money wasted by anyone doing the paper work. Most of the IRS would be unemployed as no more refunds to audit etc.
No more International Monetary Fund No more money to foreign nations... Bet we get the national debt. beat up real quick...
Brent
 
Do you also agree that the phrase "gunshow loophole" is also correct?

How are you using it? If you are describing person to person sales, then it is incorrect. If you are describing FFL sales at situations that allow them to circumvent legislation requirements for background checks then yes it is correct.

But then it doesn't really matter, because I am using the term tax loophole to describe how people don't really pay 35% taxes. What other term would you prefer?
 
Except 10% is FAR too low. Remember that Social Security and Medicare are roughly 15% of your pay. I think that 30% would be much closer to the real number.

In all of this, the real point is missed:

It ain't your money. It's mine. What gives anyone the right to take my money and GIVE it to someone else?
 
If you are describing FFL sales at situations that allow them to circumvent legislation requirements for background checks then yes it is correct.

There is no situation that allows FFL holders to circumvent the law, including gun shows.


But then it doesn't really matter, because I am using the term tax loophole to describe how people don't really pay 35% taxes. What other term would you prefer?

I would call it tax law compliance.
 
here is a great example of how overtaxed some are

2005 tax year Vice President Cheny's gross income 8.9 million dollars; taxable income 1.9 million; income tax $ 529,000 (more or less.) So here is a tax return where the income tax is 6% of gross income. So if this is an example of how a family with multi-millions in income pays 6% of gross just how overtaxed is this family. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060414_cheney_taxes.pdf

This is a personal tax return not a business return. So all the business issues are not part of his return except for a small amount of his schedule C.


So do we thing Dick would opt to pay the flat tax on his 8.8 million income of say 10%. That would cost him another $ 300,000. Sure he'd like that.
 
FICA and SS are 2 different items... However I think if wasteful spending was eliminated it would be plenty... Why is a child in school able to garner the parents 600 per month in social security as well as FULL BLOWN medicaid with ZERO co pay or share cost etc...? That is one type of waste I am sure there are many more.
Brent
 
Back
Top