Middle Class--Not the Rich or the Poor--Pay Majority of Federal Taxes, Says CBO Data

[spursncowboys]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094


(CNSNews.com) - Middle-class Americans--not the rich or the poor--pay the majority of annual tax revenues taken in by the federal government, according to data released in a new Congressional Budget Office study. Households earning less than $34,300 per year, meanwhile, actually pay a negative average federal income tax rate.

Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.

Households in the top 1 percent for annual income (those earning more than $352,900) paid a healthy 28.1 percent of all federal taxes, but households in the lower income brackets paid relatively little. Those earning less than $34,300 paid only 5.2 percent of all federal taxes, and those earning less than $20,500 carried almost none of the federal tax burden (just 0.8 percent of the total) in 2007.

The average overall federal tax rate (including income, Social Security, Medicare, excise and other taxes) for all American households was 20.4 percent in 2007. But the average rate rose dramatically as household income rose. Households earning less than $34,300 paid an average overall federal tax rate of 10.6 percent, while households earning more than $74,700 paid an average overall federal tax rate of almost two and half times that much--25.1 percent.

When it comes to the federal income tax alone (as opposed to Social Security, Medicare, excise and other taxes) the lower income brackets actually paid a negative rate, thanks to programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit that paid people a “credit” for income taxes they never paid. The average federal income tax rate for households earning less than $34,300, according to the CBO, was -0.4 percent in 2007, and the average federal income tax rate for households earning less than $20,500 was -6.8 percent.

Over the past three decades, according to the CBO data, taxation has been getting more progressive, as the tax burden has lightened on lower income households while increasing on higher income households. During those three decades, Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush signed laws cutting the top marginal income tax rates, but Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton signed laws increasing the rates.

The CBO divided the 116.9 million American households of 2007 into five roughly equal parts (quintiles) graded by income. The income range for the lowest quintile was $0 to $20,500; the second quintile, $20,500 to $34,300; the third quintile, $34,300 to $50,000; the fourth quintile, $50,000 to $74,700; and the fifth quintile, $74,700 and above. The share of overall federal taxes paid by each of the first four quintiles decreased from 1979 to 2007, while the share of overall federal taxes paid by the highest-income [/equintile increased, meaning the overall tax burden was shifting away from that class of Americans making less than $74,700 per year in 2007 toward those earning more.

[MannyIsGod]

I guess this is a CBO data is good issue.

[Wild Cobra]

The left just doesn't get it, and I doubt this tidbit of truth will change anything.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess this is a CBO data is good issue.
CBO data is relatively good at current and past numbers. They just stink at forecasts.

[boutons_deux]

This is why the corps and capitalists target the wealth of the middle. It's the wealth they don't have, yet.

Using absolute tax receipt numbers, rather than percentage of revenue, is of course why this CBO report is total bullshit as conservative cut-taxes argument.

you conservatives "just don't get" that we non-conservatives saw through your bullshit long ago.

[DarrinS]

This is why the corps and capitalists target the wealth of the middle. It's the wealth they don't have, yet.

Using absolute tax receipt numbers, rather than percentage of revenue, is of course why this CBO report is total bullshit as conservative cut-taxes argument.

you conservatives "just don't get" that we non-conservatives saw through your bullshit long ago.


Loud noises

[LnGrrrR]

Is this a surprise? I'm assuming that poor and rich people are on the ends of the Bell Curve, so it makes sense that the majority of people end up paying the majority of taxes.

[DarrinS]

Is this a surprise? I'm assuming that poor and rich people are on the ends of the Bell Curve, so it makes sense that the majority of people end up paying the majority of taxes.

Makes sense

[fyatuk]

Is this a surprise? I'm assuming that poor and rich people are on the ends of the Bell Curve, so it makes sense that the majority of people end up paying the majority of taxes.

That is a bit of a "duh" thought, isn't it.

This report said that 59% of the people paid 67% of the taxes, 1% paid 28%, meaning the bottom 40% of people paid 5%.

[EVAY]

Very few would be surprised at these numbers. The point that libs will make (with some justification, seemingly), is that the 'rich' are not paying enough in taxes. So why not support a tax increase on the rich so that they can pay as much as the middle class? Or more?

[EVAY]

Most repubs. would argue that we shouldn't tax the 'rich' any more because they (the rich) are the ones that provide jobs to others, etc., etc.,...so, what remedy do you want here? More from the poor?

Really?

[EVAY]

Remember when W. campaigned on tax cuts for the richest 2% because they 'paid more' in taxes than anyone else? He won, and now the richest in this country pay much less than the middle class. How did that work out for the economy?

Everybody happy?

[fyatuk]

Remember when W. campaigned on tax cuts for the richest 2% because they 'paid more' in taxes than anyone else? He won, and now the richest in this country pay much less than the middle class. How did that work out for the economy?

Everybody happy?

Depends on how you want to look at it.

The top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 59% pay 1.15% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 40% pay 0.13% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The top earners are a little low. Idealy (IMO) the top 1% should pay somewhere between 30-35%.

[EVAY]

Depends on how you want to look at it.

The top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 59% pay 1.15% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 40% pay 0.13% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The top earners are a little low. Idealy (IMO) the top 1% should pay somewhere between 30-35%.

Sounds good to me. Why don't we do it?

[Drachen]

I understand that the whole "majority of people pay the majority of taxes" sounds right, but (and I don't know the numbers here), it is only right if there is a proportional distribution of wealth.

if the top 1% hold 60% of the wealth, then they should pay 60% of the taxes. etc.

I don't know how to accomplish this, but it also means that those at the bottom who hold say 10% of the wealth should pay 10% of the taxes (i.e. it should work both ways)

Would the flat tax fix this?

[Trainwreck2100]

maybe they should tax welfare

[word]

The issue isn't taxes. The US government pulls in enough money to run 50 countries.

The issue is the spending side of the equation.

[z0sa]

The issue isn't taxes. The US government pulls in enough money to run 50 countries.

The issue is the spending side of the equation.

Yep. The government far overspends (on the advice of economists no less), and no one can ethically defend more tax hikes while we wage two large-scale wars with no meaning and spends hundreds of billions, if not trillions on private bailouts. And the incredibly huge national debt ?... our leaders have far overextended our means, and against the best interests of the people they were supposedly representing.

[word]

Hell we have military bases in damn near every country on the globe. Listen, I'm about as hawk as it gets but goddamn man ...do we really need 14 aircraft carriers ? My philosophy is this. You have a kick ass nuclear deterrent. As long as we have that, I can sleep well at night. But they are now even fucking with that. Russia has a more modern nuclear force than the us. And they were bankrupt 20 years ago. We're using 1980's technology, Russia is building new long range missiles. And Obama wants to do away with THAT. It's insanity.

[Winehole23]

When the alternative is escalation, perhaps not.

[word]

You mean, like this ? From the CBC:


Reports in Russian news media have suggested Russia is developing a nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of four tonnes, and a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile.

The Topol-M has a range of 10,000 kilometres, and have been deployed in silos since 1998. They reportedly can manoeuvre in ways that are difficult to detect.

Since taking office, Putin has often vowed to restore Russia's military power.

From the Daily Mail (UK)


President Obama is set to announce plans for drastic reductions in America's nuclear arsenal.

Officials say thousands of weapons would be cut from their stockpile as part of a major rethink on U.S. nuclear strategy.

It is understood that the review would lead to America halting production of any new weapons with nuclear capability.

[Capt Bringdown]

Tax cuts for the rich, belt-tightening austerity measures for working people. Notice that the spending cuts always target social programs while military spending and other corporate welfare/bailouts, such as our for-profit healthcare system, are untouchable.

[boutons_deux]

yep, (the lower 90%) America is fucked, just like the top 10% want it and have conspired for 30+ years to rig it.

[word]

Notice that heads of states from other countries like oh..Canada..have come to the US recently for health care or that our military spending per GDP ranks 25th in the world at 4.3 GDP. We are numba 1 in spending on health care at 16% of GDP. US corporations pay the second highest, behind Japan, corporate taxes in the world. 22 US states have higher corporate tax rates than Japan. Conversely, Americans enjoy some of the lowest personal tax rates in the world. Citizens of France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Finland...pay anywhere from 45% to 55% in personal income tax. The US tax table taps out at 35% for those making over $371,000/yr. 'Working people', as you call them, in the US pay either zero or 25% tops under 85k. It depends on your definition of 'working people'. 50% pay no income tax at all in the US. Zip. Depends on various factors but the fact is, Americans..ALL Americans..enjoy some of the lowest taxes on the globe and it drives you left wang nutters MAD even though you benefit from it.

[Wild Cobra]

Is this a surprise? I'm assuming that poor and rich people are on the ends of the Bell Curve, so it makes sense that the majority of people end up paying the majority of taxes.
No surprise here, and why raising the taxes on the rich, who are already over taxed, don't do as much as libtards thing. Many of them relocate, making revenues less, not more.

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on how you want to look at it.

The top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 59% pay 1.15% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The next 40% pay 0.13% of the tax burden per percent of population.

The top earners are a little low. Idealy (IMO) the top 1% should pay somewhere between 30-35%.
Really?

Your numbers add up to 101.05% revenue. Where are those numbers from?

[Wild Cobra]

I understand that the whole "majority of people pay the majority of taxes" sounds right, but (and I don't know the numbers here), it is only right if there is a proportional distribution of wealth.

If you tax wealth rather than consumption or productivity, then nobody can gain assets over their life.


if the top 1% hold 60% of the wealth, then they should pay 60% of the taxes. etc.

No, they should pay an equal share of what the earn or buy.


I don't know how to accomplish this, but it also means that those at the bottom who hold say 10% of the wealth should pay 10% of the taxes (i.e. it should work both ways)

The fair Tax


Would the flat tax fix this?

Not by your consideration of assets. What would you do? tax 20% every year of someone's $400,000 house? That would be $80,000 a year, and some people make less than that that live in such houses.

[Winehole23]

You mean, like this ? From the CBC:



From the Daily Mail (UK)I thought underwater cavitating missiles rendered all that sort of stuff moot. Is that what you're talking about?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm supposed to be afraid of Putin because his nuclear bombs are newer and shiner?

There is a reason the US has focused on developed new tactical weaponry while sticking with the old nuclear shit: An old dull nuclear bomb still pretty much levels what its supposed to.

Besides, nuclear weapons are political tools more than military tools. If they are ever used then we're likely all already fucked and there are only losers.

[Wild Cobra]

I thought underwater cavitating missiles rendered all that sort of stuff moot. Is that what you're talking about?
Cool...

Did they get that technology down? Now, if they can just do it for submarines...

[Winehole23]

Cool...

Did they get that technology down? Now, if they can just do it for submarines...Whoa. I'm not at all sure about that WC, but the vague phrasing of the provided link did not inspire confidence.

[Wild Cobra]

Whoa. I'm not at all sure about that WC, but the vague phrasing of the provided link did not inspire confidence.
Hmm....

Do you not know the relevance of "underwater cavitating missiles?"

[Winehole23]

Maybe you could shed some light on it, profe. I just overheard something about it at a party.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you could shed some light on it, profe. I just overheard something about it at a party.
It's really outside the scope of this thread. When cavitation can properly be done at the nose of a missile, the drag of the water is not there. The drag is reduced by a factor of about 1000. In theory, you can do supersonic speeds underwater.

[Winehole23]

And the missile breaches so close to the shore of the target as to render launch detection practically moot.

[Wild Cobra]

And the missile breaches so close to the shore of the target as to render launch detection practically moot.
Exactly. You cannot detect a missile underwater with SONAR when it travels faster than SONAR.

Sorry that I missed it if that was your point. I try not to mix my geek side with my political side. The more prominent one came out without seeing the connection.

[Drachen]

If you tax wealth rather than consumption or productivity, then nobody can gain assets over their life.

No, they should pay an equal share of what the earn or buy.

The fair Tax

Not by your consideration of assets. What would you do? tax 20% every year of someone's $400,000 house? That would be $80,000 a year, and some people make less than that that live in such houses.

ok, I knew my thinking was bass ackwards on this. LOL
Fair Tax is the national sales tax, correct? I am ok with either this or the flat tax, though I see issues with either.

[Wild Cobra]

ok, I knew my thinking was bass ackwards on this. LOL
Fair Tax is the national sales tax, correct? I am ok with either this or the flat tax, though I see issues with either.
Sure, any change will have issues. Someone will end up paying more than before. Anyway, most states already have in place a sales tax. The system will be relatively cheap to implement, and almost eliminate the need for the IRS.

[Drachen]

I don't know, I think maybe a flat tax on income would be better. No deductions. A rich person is far more able to save a great deal of their income than a poor person. Therefore you may have a rich person who only pays taxes on 50% of what they make and every poor person pays taxes on 98% of what they make. How do you resolve that?

[fyatuk]

Really?

Your numbers add up to 101.05% revenue. Where are those numbers from?

Rounding issues. All numbers are from this article and algebra. They don't come out nice and neat.

[boutons_deux]

"meaning the overall tax burden was shifting away from that class of Americans making less than $74,700 per year in 2007 toward those earning more."

well frickin duh. With increased concentration of income and wealth in the top 10%, of course that quintile will be paying more. But I bet as a percentage of income, that quintile pays less than the middle quintiles. Warren Buffet's famous 17% typifying their tax rate.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know, I think maybe a flat tax on income would be better. No deductions. A rich person is far more able to save a great deal of their income than a poor person. Therefore you may have a rich person who only pays taxes on 50% of what they make and every poor person pays taxes on 98% of what they make. How do you resolve that?
Why does it matter? That money will be spent eventually. The invested money is available for others to borrow from. Besides, some people will spend more rather than save under the new system.

[Drachen]

Why does it matter? That money will be spent eventually. The invested money is available for others to borrow from. Besides, some people will spend more rather than save under the new system.

I think, and maybe I am wrong and not following this to its conclusion, but it seems that this would lead to further concentration of wealth at the top, no? If this happens, then greater amounts of money would be idled, meaning lower tax revenues, which would lead to increased taxes rates which would shift more money upwards . . . in perpetuity.

I think a flat tax would be better. Level playing field, no deductions, and no exemptions.

[Wild Cobra]

I think, and maybe I am wrong and not following this to its conclusion, but it seems that this would lead to further concentration of wealth at the top, no? If this happens, then greater amounts of money would be idled, meaning lower tax revenues, which would lead to increased taxes rates which would shift more money upwards . . . in perpetuity.

I think a flat tax would be better. Level playing field, no deductions, and no exemptions.
I would 100% agree to a flat tax with no exemptions at all, but businesses must be excluded. I don't see that ever getting past those who will cry how it hurts the poor.

Overall, I think a consumption tax is the way to go for a system that has a chance of being implemented.

[Drachen]

I would 100% agree to a flat tax with no exemptions at all, but businesses must be excluded. I don't see that ever getting past those who will cry how it hurts the poor.

Overall, I think a consumption tax is the way to go for a system that has a chance of being implemented.

Businesses being excluded? Are you suggesting no income tax on businesses or to keep the current system for businesses?

As to its chance of being implemented, I couldn't possibly see that happening since it disproportionately punishes the poor, whereas with a flat tax, the poor are treated equally.

I know it won't pass either, but at least it is fair.

[Wild Cobra]

Businesses being excluded? Are you suggesting no income tax on businesses or to keep the current system for businesses?

As to its chance of being implemented, I couldn't possibly see that happening since it disproportionately punishes the poor, whereas with a flat tax, the poor are treated equally.

I know it won't pass either, but at least it is fair.

Yes, I think businesses need exclusion from taxation to compete in the global market we have. That's why I prefer a consumption tax.

[Winehole23]

I would 100% agree to a flat tax with no exemptions at all, but businesses must be excluded.A semantic quibble: I would call that a straightforward exemption. Businesses must be exempt, according to you.

[EVAY]

Notice that heads of states from other countries like oh..Canada..have come to the US recently for health care or that our military spending per GDP ranks 25th in the world at 4.3 GDP. We are numba 1 in spending on health care at 16% of GDP. US corporations pay the second highest, behind Japan, corporate taxes in the world. 22 US states have higher corporate tax rates than Japan. Conversely, Americans enjoy some of the lowest personal tax rates in the world. Citizens of France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Finland...pay anywhere from 45% to 55% in personal income tax. The US tax table taps out at 35% for those making over $371,000/yr. 'Working people', as you call them, in the US pay either zero or 25% tops under 85k. It depends on your definition of 'working people'. 50% pay no income tax at all in the US. Zip. Depends on various factors but the fact is, Americans..ALL Americans..enjoy some of the lowest taxes on the globe and it drives you left wang nutters MAD even though you benefit from it.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here, Word.

Some folks would quote your statistic on health care spending as proof that we are paying too much in this country for health care. Your anecdotal evidence regarding some folks coming here for extraordinary care does not address that at all.

Your statistics on how low personal income taxes are in this country does NOT seem to me to support a position that says that "left wang (sic) nutters" are angry about that. I thought that 'left wang (sic) nutters' wanted HIGHER income tax rates.

Corporate tax rates and actual paid corporate taxes are very, very different. If not, more companies would be leaving the U.S. for more tax-friendly countries. Most U.S. companies pay nowhere near the stated tax rate for their income.

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly. You cannot detect a missile underwater with SONAR when it travels faster than SONAR.

Sorry that I missed it if that was your point. I try not to mix my geek side with my political side. The more prominent one came out without seeing the connection.


Are you fucking stupid? Of course you can. This is like saying you can't hear a plane that is super sonic when you obviously can.

[MannyIsGod]

And the missile breaches so close to the shore of the target as to render launch detection practically moot.

Eh we don't need the technology WC is talking about to do this. We just launch from close to the shore and they still have shit for time to detect and stop the missiles we've had for 40 years.

[Drachen]

Yes, I think businesses need exclusion from taxation to compete in the global market we have. That's why I prefer a consumption tax.

I disagree, because if we zero out our corporate taxes in order to make ourselves more competitive with those countries where lower wages are the norm, then what prevents that country from doing the same? This would then tip the scale back towards that country, and we would be in the same position as before, only with lower tax revenues.

My next problem with this is that if corporations are "people" and demand all the rights and priviledges thereof (corporate funding of candidates for example), then they must also be subject to the responsibilities of a citizen (taxes).

[Wild Cobra]

Are you fucking stupid? Of course you can. This is like saying you can't hear a plane that is super sonic when you obviously can.
Not when it's coming toward you.

SONAR is similar to RADAR, but at sound speed rather than light speed. To identify a target moving hundreds of miles per hour when it's designed for slow targets makes it very unreliable, and only visible from the side or rear. Not from the front. It would appear as a glitch rather than a target if even seen by the SONAR.

[MannyIsGod]

Not when it's coming toward you.

SONAR is similar to RADAR, but at sound speed rather than light speed. To identify a target moving hundreds of miles per hour when it;s designed for slow targets makes it very unreliable, and only visible from the side or rear. Not from the front.

SONAR is both active and passive. The vast majority of US sonar operations are not done with active transmission of sound waves but rather just listening for the sounds submarines and other ships and underwater objects make.

I understand what you're saying about it coming toward you, however and it is correct but networks like SOSUS would render that moot.

[Wild Cobra]

SONAR is both active and passive. The vast majority of US sonar operations are not done with active transmission of sound waves but rather just listening for the sounds submarines and other ships and underwater objects make.

I understand what you're saying about it coming toward you, however and it is correct but networks like SOSUS would render that moot.
How many nations use something like that?

I'm not saying it would be invisible, just a far more effective weapon. Then if cavitation could be implemented on something like an attack submarine... Wow...

[word]

SOSUS is no longer used. It was dismantled and declassified. What's left of it is used for scientific research. Tracking whales and shit like dat'...

[Winehole23]

Manny's detail was more legend than lore, at least, it is allegedly out of date.