AP: Rich pay WAY HIGHER % in taxes than middle class

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

---


dang, this president is arguing against plain and simple facts....unless he is arguing that the rich are way underreporting income

[republicanism]

In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Wow. That's shockingly low.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Wow. That's shockingly low.

that's after all deductions and it is 4 times the % rate the middle class pays.  So much for Obama's math

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the poor dears?

[opebo]

The point is they pay about 1/3 the rate they did back before the country was ruined (1980).

[greenforest32]

When you factor in ALL taxes (income, payroll, sales) people with a lower income pay a proportionally higher % of their total income in taxes than a rich person who makes more (especially when you consider they make such a large amount of their money in capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate) but even then, if the rich contribute a proportionately higher share then working/middle class people, so what?

The OP doesn't seem to have a problem with the extremely regressive tax system (no income tax and a high sales tax) in his state of Texas where the poor contribute a proportionately higher share:

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/tx_whopays_factsheet.pdf

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

When you factor in ALL taxes (income, payroll, sales) people with a lower income pay a proportionally higher % of their total income in taxes than a rich person who makes more (especially when you consider they make such a large amount of their money in capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate) but even then, if the rich contribute a proportionately higher share then working/middle class people, so what?

The OP doesn't seem to have a problem with the extremely regressive tax system (no income tax and a high sales tax) in his state of Texas where the poor contribute a proportionately higher share:

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/tx_whopays_factsheet.pdf

OK, let’s go to the chalk board.  It’s chalk board time.  Chalk board time for greenforest32…

Texan making over million year:  3% state taxes + 24.4% Federal Taxes = 27.4%

Texan making 20-30k year       :   12.2% state taxes + 5.7% Federal Taxes = 17.9%

Now, where I come from 27.4% > 17.9%...So, I don’t know what car wash you work that hired you with those kind of math skills, but it wasn’t owned by me.  In fact, I don’t even own a car wash.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Wow. That's shockingly low.

that's after all deductions and it is 4 times the % rate the middle class pays.  So much for Obama's math

While Obama has vastly overstated the case for the Buffett tax, I'm surprised that given how much you have complained about having to also pay the employer portion of them since you are self-employed, that you are neglecting the FICA taxes that aren't included in income taxes. Looks like Obama is not the only one needing to take some remedial math classes.  In fact, include both the employee and the employer share of FICA (and include the employer share as added income which it truly is, just taken away via a hidden tax), and the Texan making 20-30k year pays 30.8% of his income in taxes, not 17.9%, which is greater than what the millionaire pays, even when you factor in FICA on the small portion of his income subject to it.

[greenforest32]

When you factor in ALL taxes (income, payroll, sales) people with a lower income pay a proportionally higher % of their total income in taxes than a rich person who makes more (especially when you consider they make such a large amount of their money in capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate) but even then, if the rich contribute a proportionately higher share then working/middle class people, so what?

The OP doesn't seem to have a problem with the extremely regressive tax system (no income tax and a high sales tax) in his state of Texas where the poor contribute a proportionately higher share:

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/tx_whopays_factsheet.pdf

OK, let’s go to the chalk board.  It’s chalk board time.  Chalk board time for greenforest32…

Texan making over million year:  3% state taxes + 24.4% Federal Taxes = 27.4%

Texan making 20-30k year       :   12.2% state taxes + 5.7% Federal Taxes = 17.9%

Now, where I come from 27.4% > 17.9%...So, I don’t know what car wash you work that hired you with those kind of math skills, but it wasn’t owned by me.  In fact, I don’t even own a car wash.

I'm trying to find the numbers you cite and compare them but your article is really unclear when it says federal taxes if it includes income, payroll, and others. So this is the first comparison:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is income, payroll, and other taxes for all three groups (high, middle, and lower) or income/payroll/other for the first and just income for the second two (middle and lower)?

And why do you pull the 24.4% number from the second comparison that only includes income taxes?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

How tragic

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

OK, let’s go to the chalk board.  It’s chalk board time.  Chalk board time for greenforest32…

Texan making over million year:  3% state taxes + 24.4% Federal Taxes = 27.4%

Texan making 20-30k year       :   12.2% state taxes + 5.7% Federal Taxes = 17.9%

Now, where I come from 27.4% > 17.9%...So, I don’t know what car wash you work that hired you with those kind of math skills, but it wasn’t owned by me.  In fact, I don’t even own a car wash.

I'm trying to find the numbers you cite and compare them but your article is really unclear when it says federal taxes if it includes income, payroll, and others. So this is the first comparison:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is income, payroll, and other taxes for all three groups (high, middle, and lower) or income/payroll/other for the first and just income for the second two (middle and lower)?

No wonder you flunked math, you can’t even read the math problems on the test.


---

And why do you pull the 24.4% number from the second comparison that only includes income taxes?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were already losing 27.4 to 17.9 using the 24.4 number, I didn’t want to rub it in by making it 32.1 to 17.9….basically, I took the lowest numbers for the rich and gave you the highest numbers for the poor…because, I’m a generous guy….and still kicked your ass.


And, how many times I gotta tell you to leave that hat at home?!

[greenforest32]

OK, let’s go to the chalk board.  It’s chalk board time.  Chalk board time for greenforest32…

Texan making over million year:  3% state taxes + 24.4% Federal Taxes = 27.4%

Texan making 20-30k year       :   12.2% state taxes + 5.7% Federal Taxes = 17.9%

Now, where I come from 27.4% > 17.9%...So, I don’t know what car wash you work that hired you with those kind of math skills, but it wasn’t owned by me.  In fact, I don’t even own a car wash.

I'm trying to find the numbers you cite and compare them but your article is really unclear when it says federal taxes if it includes income, payroll, and others. So this is the first comparison:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is income, payroll, and other taxes for all three groups (high, middle, and lower) or income/payroll/other for the first and just income for the second two (middle and lower)?

No wonder you flunked math, you can’t even read the math problems on the test.

I asked a simple question: does the first comparison include income and payroll taxes for all three groups or not? It's ambiguous in the article and people making 10-30k paying only 5.7% seems very inaccurate when you consider the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes add up to 7.65% on their own (6.2% + 1.45%) on the employee side.

And I don't have a problem with richer people paying a higher % of their total income if that's what you're concerned about.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I asked a simple question: does the first comparison include income and payroll taxes for all three groups or not? It's ambiguous in the article and people making 10-30k paying only 5.7% seems very inaccurate when you consider the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes add up to 7.65% on their own (6.2% + 1.45%) on the employee side.

yes, it includes income and payroll taxes, as defined in the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

---

And I don't have a problem with richer people paying a higher % of their total income if that's what you're concerned about.

I have a problem with Obama using lies to tax them more when they're already paying more than their "fair share"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

---

I asked a simple question: does the first comparison include income and payroll taxes for all three groups or not? It's ambiguous in the article and people making 10-30k paying only 5.7% seems very inaccurate when you consider the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes add up to 7.65% on their own (6.2% + 1.45%) on the employee side.

6.2% + 1.45% + earned income credit for making wrong choices and flunking basic reading and math = 5.7%

[greenforest32]

---

I asked a simple question: does the first comparison include income and payroll taxes for all three groups or not? It's ambiguous in the article and people making 10-30k paying only 5.7% seems very inaccurate when you consider the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes add up to 7.65% on their own (6.2% + 1.45%) on the employee side.

6.2% + 1.45% + earned income credit for making wrong choices and flunking basic reading and math = 5.7%

The earned income tax credit does not apply to payroll taxes, only to income taxes (which make up none of that 7.65% btw)

I have a problem with Obama using lies to tax them more when they're already paying more than their "fair share"

So it's a lie that hedgefund managers use the carried interest technicality to pay a 15% income tax rate instead of 35%? Warren Buffett is a billionaire, not a millionaire. There's a big difference between the two. He pays a lower effective tax rate than his middle income employees and I imagine that's what the supposed 'Buffett' rule is going to address although we don't have the specifics as the details haven't been released on it yet.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

6.2% + 1.45% + earned income credit for making wrong choices and flunking basic reading and math = 5.7%

The earned income tax credit does not apply to payroll taxes, only to income taxes (which make up none of that 7.65% btw)

so you really do have a problem with math - it's still a negative income tax rate

so...

6.2% +1.45% + x = 5.7%
x = 5.7% -6.25% -1.45%

x = -1.95% effective federal income tax rate

in some cases, it's a -45% (negative forty-five percent), so that would be 6.2% + 1.45% - 45% =

-37.35%

…that’s a NEGATIVE THIRTY-SEVEN POINT ONE FIVE PERCENT!!!   And that is BEFORE government handouts like welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

--

I have a problem with Obama using lies to tax them more when they're already paying more than their "fair share"

So it's a lie that hedgefund managers use the carried interest technicality to pay a 15% income tax rate instead of 35%? Warren Buffett is a billionaire, not a millionaire. There's a big difference between the two. He pays a lower effective tax rate than his middle income employees and I imagine that's what the supposed 'Buffett' rule is going to address although we don't have the specifics as the details haven't been released on it yet.

It’s a lie to use than <1% of those making over $1M/year as an example to justify taxing the other 99%.

Obama is out of ideas and out of quarters, and he’ll soon be out of office….all he has left is lies.

[greenforest32]

6.2% + 1.45% + earned income credit for making wrong choices and flunking basic reading and math = 5.7%

The earned income tax credit does not apply to payroll taxes, only to income taxes (which make up none of that 7.65% btw)

so you really do have a problem with math - it's still a negative income tax rate

so...

6.2% +1.45% + x = 5.7%
x = 5.7% -6.25% -1.45%

x = -1.95% effective federal income tax rate

in some cases, it's a -45% (negative forty-five percent), so that would be 6.2% + 1.45% - 45% =

-37.35%

…that’s a NEGATIVE THIRTY-SEVEN POINT ONE FIVE PERCENT!!!   And that is BEFORE government handouts like welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

Why didn't you just write it like that in the beginning? It's more much clear.

I have a problem with Obama using lies to tax them more when they're already paying more than their "fair share"

So it's a lie that hedgefund managers use the carried interest technicality to pay a 15% income tax rate instead of 35%? Warren Buffett is a billionaire, not a millionaire. There's a big difference between the two. He pays a lower effective tax rate than his middle income employees and I imagine that's what the supposed 'Buffett' rule is going to address although we don't have the specifics as the details haven't been released on it yet.

It’s a lie to use than <1% of those making over $1M/year as an example to justify taxing the other 99%.

Obama is out of ideas and out of quarters, and he’ll soon be out of office….all he has left is lies.

Hasn't he been calling for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the upper brackets (i.e., bump the top rate from 35% back up to 39%)? I don't see how the 'Buffett rule' is inconsistent with taxing the wealthier.

[Sbane]

Yes, Millionaires need to pay a higher share of their income than do poors. End of discussion.

[Torie]

Yes, Millionaires need to pay a higher share of their income than do poors. End of discussion.

Actually in a thread I created a few months backed up with data, the US has the most progressive income tax structure in the world - in fact the most progressive tax structure period in the world. It is the middle class that is the most dramatically "under-taxed,"  relative to other major industrial democracies. But then you already knew that I suspect. This stuff about repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, or whatever the F Obama wants now in his new incarnation, is just noise. Maybe it is a fairness issue for some, but it certainly isn't very fiscally relevant.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

greenforest32

Hope you understood my persona was simply me doing my Larry Bishop routine from Kill Bill 2...by far my favorite scene from the movie....check the pic: he is snorting coke with a dancer, and on his desk is a pile of cash, a money counting machine, and a calculator to help him add it all up.  And to his right is a shotgun within a handy split-second's reach in case someone tries to kill him.

LOL! Brilliant!!!

[Marston]

Even if true, they should pay more! The top marginal tax rate was 91% back during the Eisenhower presidency and now we're arguing between 35% and 39%. Shame!

(And don't respond with that tripe that we compete in a "global economy" now)

[Sbane]

Yes, Millionaires need to pay a higher share of their income than do poors. End of discussion.

Actually in a thread I created a few months backed up with data, the US has the most progressive income tax structure in the world - in fact the most progressive tax structure period in the world. It is the middle class that is the most dramatically "under-taxed,"  relative to other major industrial democracies. But then you already knew that I suspect. This stuff about repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, or whatever the F Obama wants now in his new incarnation, is just noise. Maybe it is a fairness issue for some, but it certainly isn't very fiscally relevant.

Well, it should have a progressive income structure, though I have a feeling small businesses get slammed the most. Let's repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts and get rid of most deductions. Then we can see where we stand.

IIRC the US only takes in 14 or 16% of it's GDP in taxes. That needs to be raised, and it will be better accomplished by ending loopholes and deporting all lobbyists to Guantanamo.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Even if true, they should pay more! The top marginal tax rate was 91% back during the Eisenhower presidency and now we're arguing between 35% and 39%. Shame!

it's highly probable that the richest 10% pay MORE in terms of percentage of total income taxes collected than they did back in Ike's day.

[bullmoose88]

Even if true, they should pay more! The top marginal tax rate was 91% back during the Eisenhower presidency and now we're arguing between 35% and 39%. Shame!

it's highly probably that the richest 10% pay MORE in terms of percentage of total income taxes than they did back in Ike's day.

There's a reason why the AMT was enacted (not necessarily directed at jmf) after all.

[opebo]

-37.35%

…that’s a NEGATIVE THIRTY-SEVEN POINT ONE FIVE PERCENT!!!   And that is BEFORE government handouts like welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

This is good and precisely what we need to see more of - though I would prefer a $15/hour minimum wage and a generous, livable dole in order to make toils optional.

Actually in a thread I created a few months backed up with data, the US has the most progressive income tax structure in the world - in fact the most progressive tax structure period in the world. It is the middle class that is the most dramatically "under-taxed,"  relative to other major industrial democracies. But then you already knew that I suspect. This stuff about repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, or whatever the F Obama wants now in his new incarnation, is just noise. Maybe it is a fairness issue for some, but it certainly isn't very fiscally relevant.

But it is precisely the point - which you are not addressing - that it needs to be much more progressive than it is in order for the economy to function well.