Top 1%: Lower Tax Rate Than Their Secretaries

MB MLB 728x90 Jpg

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Top 1%: Lower Tax Rate Than Their Secretaries

By Robert Borosage
February 18, 2010 - 8:15am ET

Yes, there is a class war, Warren Buffett once said, and my class is winning. The IRS study of taxes paid in 2007 makes his point. The top 1% of taxpayers averaged about $138 million in income, and paid taxes at a rate of 16.6%.

As Buffett says, their secretaries pay a higher rate. No wonder Republicans and conservaDems like the much regretted Evan Bayh are fighting to lower the estate tax rate as part of a "jobs" bill. These folks will have a lot to put in the estate that's never been taxed as income.

Ah, for the extremist liberal days of Ronald Reagan when capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income.

For a report on the IRS study, here's the WSJ David Wessel on the IRS Study:

The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation?s household income in 2007, according to their tax returns, three times the slice they got in the 1990s, according to the Internal Revenue Service. They paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in that year.

In its annual update of the taxes paid by the 400 best-off taxpayers, who aren?t identified, the IRS also said that only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket. The 400 best-off taxpayers paid an average tax rate of 16.6%, lower than in any year since the IRS began making the reports in 1992.

To make the top 400, a taxpayer had to have income of more than $138.8 million. As a group, the top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income, and paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.

About 81.3% of the income of the top 400 households came in the form of capital gains, dividends or interest, the IRS data show. Only 6.5% came in the form of salaries and wages.

Over the past 16 tax years 3,472 different taxpayers showed up in the top 400 at least once. Of these taxpayers, a little more than 27% appear more than once. In any given year, about 40% percent of the top-400 returns were filed by taxpayers who weren?t in that exclusive club in any of the 15 years .

In all, the IRS received nearly 143 million individual tax returns for 2007, the year that ended with the onset of the worst recession in decades.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,400
120
63
Bowling Green Ky
Geee whiz Chad--what has happened to your memory--don't you remember results of last 3 times you brought this topic up--be back in a minute with the links :rolleyes:
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,540
528
113
49
TX
rich get richer...:00hour So Buffett pays himself 100K salary and 150 million in capital gains at 15%:shrug: cap gains is after tax money anyway, it should be taxed at 0% as it is, its double taxation:shrug:
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
rich get richer...:00hour So Buffett pays himself 100K salary and 150 million in capital gains at 15%:shrug: cap gains is after tax money anyway, it should be taxed at 0% as it is, its double taxation:shrug:

How is the gym going? Are you going to give us an update? You not talking only makes us assume that you have went back on your cupcake and spam diet.
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,540
528
113
49
TX
estate tax should be zero also:00hour why should the government get 55% of your money after you die? At least the exemption should go up each year, no wonder rich people setup trusts to avoid taxes:toast:
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The assertion is, when all is said and done, that the Upper 1% of the people in this country paid on average 16.6%. Without wading through all of those links, charts, graphs, numbers, etc., that you are so tired of posting for us, Wayne - is that number correct, or incorrect? It came from the Wall Street Journal, looks like.

No argument that certain people make a large part of their income in different ways than others, in manners that are taxed differently. The point of the article is that the Upper 1% pay an average of 16.6% of their income in taxes (in 2007). Correct or incorrect?
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

Hard Times

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 17, 2005
809
0
0
Trampled

Trampled

I don't like opening a link by DTB .... When I was a little kid I saw lots of looney tunes.
I expected that he had a special one for you .... T.U
Someday DTB will hurt himself rushing to get a link posted that has absolutely no meaning , always posting a government pie chart , the worst and most dishonest bookkeepers in the world, our fucking government !!
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I don't argue the base income tax rates for the wealthy is quite high - too high in most respects, my question is when everything is taken off that higher income earners can take advantage of, things aren't quite so bad.

16% is a pretty good payout, considering how the setup has helped people make so much money in this country. No doubt they're making the money. But, if this number is not accurate, that's a different story.
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
I don't argue the base income tax rates for the wealthy is quite high - too high in most respects, my question is when everything is taken off that higher income earners can take advantage of, things aren't quite so bad.

16% is a pretty good payout, considering how the setup has helped people make so much money in this country. No doubt they're making the money. But, if this number is not accurate, that's a different story.

I agree the base rates are much too high.... as a small business owner (paying double FICA and Medicare, along with state taxes), I can say the total on the upper reaches of income can be as high as (35+12.4+3+7) = 57-58% of income. Somehow that doesn't seem fair to pay that high of a percentage - granted, it is only income above a certain level, but still....not fair.

The whole system gets mucked up by real estate depreciation and capital gains - it is a solid argument that capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all - as it has been taxed once already.....

I saw an economist come out and say, if we had a true flat tax, with no expemptions/deductions - it would result in a 11% tax for everyone - with no separate FICA/Medicare tax (state taxes would still apply)...

That seems the fairest. It is discrimantory to charge a higher rate on people/businesses just because they work more hours/or are more successful.

I'd love to see a flat 11% that:

- applies to all
- no deductiions allowed (no personal exemptions, to interest deductiions, etc)

That would be the fairest, most non descrminatory system possible......

Although it would put a lot of tax accountants out of business I guess......

I've never understood why people get more deductions for having additional children. That is a lifestyle choice - not much different than choosing how many cars to own. if one has the money for a big family , great, more power to them. But it doesn't make sense to transfer income (via the tax credit) to people with large familiies. It is a choice - some people make it, and some don't. And some people choose to do other things with their $$$$ than have kids - and it is not up to us to make value judgements on which is the correct choice.

Unfortunatly, our current tax code desciminates and does exactly that.

A flat 11% on everyone... yes, that would be fair and appropriate.......
 

hedgehog

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 30, 2003
32,540
528
113
49
TX
11% tax for all and no capital gains tax or inheritance tax:00hour no deductions:)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I would agree wholeheartedly with that idea, Mags, although as I've said before I don't understand all the ramifications of it. The thing I DON'T understand in looking at those who complain that the highest earners are taxed the most: how come the highest earners never want that to be enacted? How come EVERYONE doesn't want that enacted? All I hear about is how much the upper class is taxed, and I post this which highlights after all breaks and deductions that the highest earners pay 16.6% ( or something close to that ) and yet the flat tax is scoffed at.

My point has always been, while paying more base tax rate, the upper class can (and do) take advantage of benefits and ways to cut their outlay, so it's not so usurious. They complain about how much they are taxed, and then we see what really happens after everything is considered. And no mention of how much more money they make every year.

No doubt people's situations change from time to time, but the high tax rate does not seem to prohibit people from making more and more money. If it did, and that was all there was to it, people would probably do something different?
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
0
I would agree wholeheartedly with that idea, Mags, although as I've said before I don't understand all the ramifications of it. The thing I DON'T understand in looking at those who complain that the highest earners are taxed the most: how come the highest earners never want that to be enacted? How come EVERYONE doesn't want that enacted? All I hear about is how much the upper class is taxed, and I post this which highlights after all breaks and deductions that the highest earners pay 16.6% ( or something close to that ) and yet the flat tax is scoffed at.

My point has always been, while paying more base tax rate, the upper class can (and do) take advantage of benefits and ways to cut their outlay, so it's not so usurious. They complain about how much they are taxed, and then we see what really happens after everything is considered. And no mention of how much more money they make every year.

No doubt people's situations change from time to time, but the high tax rate does not seem to prohibit people from making more and more money. If it did, and that was all there was to it, people would probably do something different?

Chad - I think you are talking about the "Super high" earners - who make their money in ways that as regular mortals can't - primarily investments and real estate - where there are a tremendous amount of loopholes.

Those that make money in the "usual" way - and do well, really get pounded by taxes. Maybe that is our fault - we need to find better ways to utilize our tax system in ways that benefit us.

Sadly, that shouldn't be the way the tax code works. I feel it should be equitable to all. And clearly it is not. The super Rick should not be paying 16.7% - while many of us pay much more than that.

The biggest downsides to a flat tax? It would cripple the real estate market - both residential and commercial - as the advantages to investing in real estate (depreciation) would disappear. And it would be a major issue for folks if we got rid of the mortgage interest and property tax deductions.
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg
Top