Nearly half of US households do pay fed income tax

Equality is not discussed or implied, but outcome certainly matters.

The Waltons have done their part to help the small family farmer by funding the vigorous fight against any inheritance (or "estate") taxation ... how noble of them.

"The argument for taxing the "rich" is so distorted. Eveyone talks about the top quintile 0.1% and then use that to hit earners making just over $200k. Talk about bait and switch."

taxing the "rich" should come in the form of taxing WEALTH: financial assets and property, not earned income.

taxing the "rich" should come in the form of taxing WEALTH: financial assets and property, not earned income.

or institute a VAT that taxed purchases, which leaves the money for investment.

because, of course, had there been a higher top marginal tax bracket, bill gates wouldn't have bothered to start microsoft, sam walton would have been happy with one store and warren buffet would have been a dentist.

oh wait...when they all started the marginal tax bracket was way higher.

check this out.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

financeguy - i am really nonplussed by your handle but i will try not to obsess over it. but i swear you really must be the cfo of the working families party given your views.

thats a pretty stark example you just gave but know this - warren buffett, bill gates and others will ultimately do more to help mankind in ways almost as disproportionate to their wealth. i like a system that ultimately rewards folks for their accomplishments and to take the extreme illustration of the mega successful will always seem to skew the argument in an unbalanced way.

i continue to say the problem isn't the poor not paying enough taxes or the rich paying too much, the problem is the ultimate "consumer" of our tax dollars. the angst and outright hostility is more about gvmt waste, inefficiencies and finance models (come on, you have to appreciate this) that make NO economic sense. especially in nyc/nys.

state gvmt is the only place where a legalized bookie (otb) actually goes bankrupt. three finger louie is rolling over in his grave. i can cite hundreds of more examples.

cc, it doesn't matter. it's still PROGRESSIVE. less progressive, maybe, but that doesn't matter.

"Somewhereelse is correct.

A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases"

Exactly. The loony ACORN/Democratic party putzes do their best to sucker folks into thinking this isn't the case. Sadly, it has worked... The majority of americans want a flat(ter) tax, yet think that means INCREASING them on the rich...

flat tax - steve forbes, your life's mission accomplished.

"The majority of americans want a flat(ter) tax, yet think that means INCREASING them on the rich"

We want SIMPLE tax, not 20-30 pages of paperwork. I think if I combined my state federal, I filed about 50 pages. Flat tax would make it a lot easier.

"i continue to say the problem isn't the poor not paying enough taxes or the rich paying too much, the problem is the ultimate "consumer" of our tax dollars. the angst and outright hostility is more about gvmt waste, inefficiencies and finance models (come on, you have to appreciate this) that make NO economic sense. especially in nyc/nys."

Wow, rf, for once I can say I totally agree with you.

All this leftie "soak the rich" crap is just a cover for the fact that our governments are an absolute mess. And then calling it "slavery"... talk about pulling out the race card.

OF COURSE its coming from the same folks who have run NYS into the ground...

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist (not sure why this discussion makes me think of the Usual Suspects).

But, short story, its been a pretty nifty trick of the moronic left to get the whole "rich aren't paying fair share" when they pay for far more than they ever have, and we as a country have less.

its just being spent poorly.

You name the part of government. Education budgets have gone up dramatically (particularly in NY) and the kids get dumber. This moronic democrat view has enabled governments to avoid making good decisions.

And the saddest part are the limousine liberals who suck it all up.

"3 families have twice as much wealth as 40% of the population. The richest is composed of people who've contributed nothing to the country but being born. "

Its hillarious... its almost like financeguy wants to prove himself wrong. 2 of the 3 people he named will probably do more for education than anyone in the history of this country - particularly on a financial front.

I CERTAINLY would rather Gates (or Carnegie, or Vanderbilt...) spend it than the New York Legislature!

You're proving the point...!

How about looking at income and wealth on a logarithmic scale. The $500K family has a nicer life than the $100K family, though expenses creep up, and that $500K guy might be aspiring to get to $1MM, maybe $2MM and I think should have that opportunity without confiscatory tax rates. But $25MM, totally different scale especially if it's quick money through hedge funds, etc. $100MM, $200MM per year, people who have $1BN and more, those tax rate discussions should be distinct from the $1MM per year folks.

financeguy pushes more socialist propaganda. Tell me how Bill Gates does not pay his fair share? In a system based on merit, the ones who produce the most also have the most wealth. That is fairness and that improves the whole system for everyone. Redistribution of wealth causes stagnation.

And according to you, 120 million Americans have a total wealth of $95 billion. That is an average of almost $800,000 in wealth for the BOTTOM 40%!!

And how many jobs did Bill Gates produce? How much in taxes has been paid by the folks he employs (and often made rich). Or the industry that bloomed off the PC?

I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind thinks the New York Legislature, or the retards in California should have more of what someone like him makes.

SE: What exactly is the contribution the Walton heirs made that is commensurate with having the same wealth as 40% of the population?

DB: Simple forms and flat tax have nothing to do with each other. The only reason why 90% of the population needs to file income tax returns is that the upward-redistributionists wanted to make sure that they would remain unhappy about it, in the hope of using them as tools in their Reverse Robin Hood Campaign. The IRS could easily prepare returns for anyone who has only reported income (wages, salary, dividends, most interest -- pretty much everyone who isn't self-employed or a business) and usual deductions (kids, mortgage, state income tax) and then just send it to you for verification.

SE: What exactly is the contribution the Walton heirs made that is commensurate with having the same wealth as 40% of the population?

DB: Simple forms and flat tax have nothing to do with each other. The only reason why 90% of the population needs to file income tax returns is that the upward-redistributionists wanted to make sure that they would remain unhappy about it, in the hope of using them as tools in their Reverse Robin Hood Campaign. The IRS could easily prepare returns for anyone who has only reported income (wages, salary, dividends, most interest -- pretty much everyone who isn't self-employed or a business) and usual deductions (kids, mortgage, state income tax) and then just send it to you for verification.

"And according to you, 120 million Americans have a total wealth of $95 billion. That is an average of almost $800,000 in wealth for the BOTTOM 40%!! "

God bless America.

"And according to you, 120 million Americans have a total wealth of $95 billion. That is an average of almost $800,000 in wealth for the BOTTOM 40%!! "

God bless America.

"SE: What exactly is the contribution the Walton heirs made that is commensurate with having the same wealth as 40% of the population?"

That actually sounds about right. What does Walmart do, employ about that % of the population?
;-)
Not to mention, they pay for more in taxes!

financeguy, tell me about the contributions of those on perennial welfare... I'd like to hear how those match up.

again, financeguy, should the government be spending gates' endowment?

Who would you give it to? The NYS legislature?

"The Waltons have done their part to help the small family farmer by funding the vigorous fight against any inheritance (or "estate") taxation ... how noble of them."

And ACORN fights for more money redistributed to them. How noble.

swe, i am not a vengeful guy but the last time we had a back-and-forth on these boards - you were wrong. but, hey, no hard feelings. now go fight with financeguy.

"Who would you give it to? The NYS legislature?"

Or, as Gates does, almost entirely to local Seattle-area causes and world health measures. Let's see, what does that leave out that government supports?

The Walton heirs may not have contributed, but the Waltons who created and developed the business contributed mightily, and it was their wish to have the money they earned passed to their children and grandchildren. Who are you to say the government should override their choice about what to do with the money they earned, and just take it from them?

LIC Comm: "In a system based on merit, the ones who produce the most also have the most wealth."

Or, as the old advertisement for EF Hutton or some such concern stated: "At [EF Hutton], we make money the old fashioned way ... THEY earn it." [laborers toiling in the background, speaker's thumb pointing behind him towards them]

LICC: You slipped three decimal places in your calculation. But that's no less accurate than the rest of your post.

I'm pretty sure there is no "merit" or "production" involved in inheriting wealth. But if Eisenhower was a socialist, then words don't have their ordinary meaning, so maybe I'm missing some secret reference here.

As for Gates and Buffet, the merit of profiting from state-granted monopoly, or noticing that the legal protections of insurance companies could be used as a low (i.e., state subsidized) source of funding for stock trading, does not strike me as equal to the life-time efforts of 40% of the country. But maybe that's because I was raised on American values, not those of pre-Revolutionary French aristocrats.

How exactly would the US be worse off if the Walton heirs had never been born, Gates had been paid like an ordinarily-overpaid CEO, and Buffet had never bought an insurance company and leveraged other people's money to create an unregulated investment firm?

"if the Walton heirs had never been born, Gates had been paid like an ordinarily-overpaid CEO, and Buffet had never bought an insurance company and leveraged other people's money to create an unregulated investment firm"

... then who would connive to put their employees on government (taxpayer-supported) assistance by a careful combination of low pay and carefully-controlled part-time hours?

... then who would muster up a really good legal team to steal intellectual property from the people and businesses who developed it, then used another good legal team to keep monopolistic practices in effect for long enough to own the market?

... then who would be the hero to thousands of slavish followers, simply for becoming very very very wealthy?

AH: Do you really believe no one would volunteer to perform these useful services even at a 90% marginal tax rate or without stock ownership?

Even under the current socialist regime, Sarah Palin is willing to advocate that patriots avoid supporting their country and she only charges in the millions for it.

financeguy, taking your logic to its natural conclusion, we should abolish all for profit private industry and free trade. you'll be working side-by-side with alan on that commune in no time. viva la revolucion!

"we should abolish all for profit private industry and free trade" ... RF, need I remind you that, despite that being a great idea of yours, it won't work? Rich people need to be offered little bits of dried carrots to motivate them.

Now please leave me to my USDA-surplus Chateaubriand.

HA!! and your sidecars. what, no gvmt cheese deliveries on thursdays?

RF: don't like communes; by and large too much gossip and not enough showers for my taste.

I prefer sophisticated cities in modern democratic republics with mixed capitalist economies under governments dedicated to establishing Justice, promoting the general Welfare and guaranteeing equal protection under the law, with citizens willing to contribute towards the common enterprise, controls on bullies and free-riders of various sorts and limits on the freedom of those who want to abuse others. Oh, and no hereditary aristocracy.

alan, people can refuse to shop there and workers can decide to seek other gainful employment.

what other gainful employment? jobs are so plentiful.

And, of course, We the People can decide to eliminate their special privileges and/or pass better zoning or minimum wage or tax laws or change the exchange rate.

Microsoft received a state-granted monopoly? Gates hasn't created anything worthwhile? Really, who are you to judge how much wealth a person should have in a free and fair society, where the rules apply the same to everyone. The ideal should be equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

Not if you're productive enough in removing those options from people and workers ... and by not taxing the Waltons enough, we enable them to undercut all the local business until they are no more.

Fortunately, the Waltons generously share their wealth with lobbyists, who then spend their money on politicians, who then ... well, you get the idea, it creates a whole robust economy. Trickle-down. Bootstraps. Keep your change.

Morning in America.

Invisible hand of the market. Disembodied. With halo.

financeguy, we the people can and should make choices that will decide ultimately if the walton business model is successful or not. i repeat, don't shop there. don't like working conditions, don't work there. you are reverse-engineering the issue.

don't like the exchange rate, you can be like the rappers and start walking around flush with euros. ooops, that was before greece.

ar - you finally agree with me, the private sector will be the solution to increased joblessness, not the gvmt projects that are making me take a 3 block detour to my subway stop.

btw, don't know why i am defending the waltons. what a dysfuncional lot, but you catch my drift.

"swe, i am not a vengeful guy but the last time we had a back-and-forth on these boards - you were wrong. but, hey, no hard feelings. now go fight with financeguy"

rangers, if you really want to rehash the past...

you can repeat yourself for the 20th time, but your facts were off and your logic was awful... AND you kept changing your story each time you were proven wrong. 5-7 other people on that thread also called you out on it.

> "Who would you give it to? The NYS legislature?"
> Or, as Gates does, almost entirely to local Seattle-area causes and world health measures. Let's
> see, what does that leave out that government supports?

So, alan, your argument rest on what one particular billionaire gives to? Funny.
Bloomberg also goes fairly local.
That doesn't help your case much.

You also still haven't answered the question...

swe, now really. your big supporter on that issue was samadams - that brilliant beacon of logic. you said on a recent thread (2+ months AFTER our exchange) that we would net out on the banks - exactly the opposite of what you posted earlier. but, forget it. i know.

So what's the question?

Is it
"again, financeguy, should the government be spending gates' endowment?

Who would you give it to? The NYS legislature?"
?

sorry.....but it seems unfathomable to me that 3 families have the same net worth as 120 million people. how that can be in our common best interest is also unfathomable.

RF, the private sector has and will indeed continue to create many jobs. in china, brazil and india.

alot of those jobs that were "outsourced" are now coming back. i saw your discussion on why were f*ed.

"swe, now really. your big supporter on that issue was samadams - that brilliant beacon of logic."

given your bouts with logic, I'm not sure you should be one to talk.
;-)

> you said on a recent thread (2+ months AFTER our exchange) that we would net out on the banks -
> exactly the opposite of what you posted earlier. but, forget it. i know.

You claimed we had already netted out on the financials! Back then! Then you CHANGED your statement to be "banks". whoops. I notice you're trying the same thing now.

Sorry dude, you were wrong.... and that wasn't the only mistake you made.

"sorry.....but it seems unfathomable to me that 3 families have the same net worth as 120 million people. how that can be in our common best interest is also unfathomable."

... Every three families have equal opportunity to have the same net worth as 120 million people. Speaks to equality of outcome and not equal opportunity.

"alot of those jobs that were "outsourced" are now coming back."

Like what? Did Kia open a new robot-operated factory in Tuscaloosa or something?

Actually, rangersfan, you were actually even more off than that. First you claimed TARP overall would be profitable... then you changed it to financials, and then you changed it to just banks.

I suppose if you keep changing your story enough, you might get one right!

i'm not just talking about the outsourced ones, although for those coming back there are still those going out. i'm talking about meeting demand, both ours and globally, going forward. why bother to manufacture anything in a country that insists on a certain level of environmental guidelines compliance, that has OSHA and other standards for its workers, and has the most expensive health care system in the world?

just go elsewhere where those pesky problems don't exist, and you can make more profit and sell more shares and pay your shareholders higher dividends.

oh, and don't worry so much about quality. a high level of breakage and malfunction ensures higher levels of consumption, great for sales.

actually, which outsourced jobs have returned?

swe, not true but again, no need for me to educate you on that all over again.

ar - chinese trinkets, no worries. chinese satelites, agree.

ar - certain american coroporations (with the benefit of recent experience) are finding out that alot of what you speak is bad business practice and thus things should start swinging the other way.

Happy tax day everyone...and oh yeah..."Why isn't Charles Rangel in jail!."

small examples, call centers, certain financial roles (research, ops, tech) and now engineers as well. granted, not your garden variety manufacturing jobs vital to our economy but some examples nonetheless.

"...The loony ACORN/Democratic party putzes do their best to sucker folks into thinking this isn't the case. Sadly, it has worked... The majority of americans want a flat(ter) tax, yet think that means INCREASING them on the rich..."

Sorry, but even Mitlon Friedman said that sales and property taxes are regressive. This is not some "left/loonie/acorn" proaganda. Most states and local governments get the vast majority of their funding from regressive taxes.

We have a progressive system, all in, up to about the top 10% level, then it levels off and actually becomes REGRESSIVE for the top 5% and top 1% and top 0.01%...so as others have pointed out, we have a crazy debate whereby those who pay MORE than the very wealthiest are arguing that the very poorest should pay more and that those wealthier than them (or than they ever will be) should pay less.

Insane.

"If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%)"

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200324/200324pap.pdf

That is from the Federal Reserve, not some left-loonie ACORN group!

"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes."

http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm

A strictly non-partisan group, straight down the middle.

"The National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax rate for most workers to be about 40% of income."

"...Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.

As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%. There are some exceptions: A 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year, for instance, pays 24.4%, and a 60-year-old couple making $150,000 a year faces a tax rate of 47.7%.

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points..."

This is as non-partisan a group as you can get. Its also the group that officially decides whether or not we are in a recession, etc. See

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tOZOBfvqesoJ:articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx+%22Your+real+tax+rate:+40%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

or the full report at

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12533

jason, STOP with the facts. get with the program. attack groups like ACORN because it's EASY. diverts from the truth, like the fact that the top 400 only derive 6.5% of their income from earned income. and almost half of them aren't even in the top marginal income bracket. unfuckingbelievable. but that's as it should be, don't you know? the rich should get richer, and the poor should pay some more.

again, doesn't anyone want to respond to the fact that if almost 50% of our country doesn't make enough to pay taxes (roughly $10k for a single person, different but not enormously so with the EITC) then we have a fuck of a lot of poor people in this country? you really want people who are barely subsisting to pay taxes at a time when 17ish% of all people are un or underemployed, not counting those who've left the workforce due to a perceived lack of opportunity? shame on you. i think it's horrifying that so few pay taxes, but because they don't make enough to do so, not because they aren't paying taxes.

jason -- thanks for the interesting link, but I suspect, based on other things I've read recently, that this is an economic analysis based on average income and spending by demographic groups, and NOT based on actual tax returns. I just read about an AVERAGE federal income tax burden of 16% or so for "wealthy" americans, and if that is true, then you can toss in some state taxes and nominal consumption and capped payroll taxes and see that the theoretical nominal rate for this group has nothing to do with what is actually being paid. I'm not saying your article is wrong, just that it seems a bit ivory tower, and thus meaningless. or not??

And isn't that the great thing about our tax system -- nobody has the faintest idea what is actually being paid by who! All I know is that I pay waaaaaaaay too much -- not a single f'n credit aside from that $62.50 NYC school thingy! :-O

west34th, not to respond on behalf of jason, but i think these numbers work up to the top 5% or so of earners. above that the income skews heavily toward capital gains, which isn't true of those unfortunate souls in the bottom 95%. if you were reading my link you would have noted that of the truly wealthy's yearly income only 6.5% on average came from earned income. skews the number tremendously.

yes ar, the ultra rich, are, in fact, different ;-) but I think of them in much the same way I think of pedophiles, scientologists, and creationists -- I know they exist, and they are sometimes around me, but I try not to think of them and what they're up to.

Well, there were THREE links. Did you actually read the three posts?

all of the studies are based on the average paid by different demographic groups, including by income. There is no other possible way to do such a study. So if that's "ivory tower", then so is every single other study ever done on the topic.
On AVERAGE, the marginal tax rate for the vast majority of Americans was 40%, including all state, local, and Federal taxes. The NBER study was the most detailed, looking at no only income levels but age, etc. It found SOME outliers (people who paid more or less) but most americans at all income levels pay this amount.

The Federal Reserve study based it on wealth, not income, but as many have said, this another way of looking at the "fair" amount - and based on wealth, on average each wealth group pays an equal amount. OF COURSE their is variation within each group but its retarded to say that is "ivory tower" because for any study on any topic whatsoever, you have to look at broad trends. If SOME wealthy people pay more, then SOME pay less, and SOME poor people pay more too.

Finally, the CBPP, which is as middle of the road as you can get, points out what everyone else forgets - that most Americans pay more in payroll taxes (directly or indirectly) than they do in federal income taxes. So to say that they pay ZERO taxes is a bold faced lie.

Finally, I would point out that for the majority of America's history, nobody paid ANY Federal Income tax, and at the time of the founding of the US, there were states that did in fact allow voting for all men regardless of taxes paid, and so certainly the founding fathers were quite aware of this. This is exactly why they left it up to each individual state to determine who should vote. if they WANTED property owners only to vote (a la Hamilton), they would have said so.

In fact this very question WAS debated and the compromise was that each state could determine this. Since then the constitutions of various states and the federal government has been amended several times, and the Supreme court has ruled many times, and the notion of male universal suffrage was essentially settled by the time of Andrew Jackson, women were included 100 years later, and non-whites, finally, 40+ years ago.

If at ANY of those times the founders or other leaders of our past had wanted to restrict the vote to those who paid taxes, they could have. In fact, they said and did the EXACT OPPOSITE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

julia, still spouting trickle down? still following the chicago school? really?

ar - pls. for every fifth post to sprinkle in haliburton really kind of diminishes your argument - no? i mean, youre above that (i think), should we counter with code pink and the chicago 6 and the like? just hurts your position. i know i just stuck my foot in it....

crap, you didnt mention haliburton again, did you. freudian, sorry, my bad.

"julia, still spouting trickle down? still following the chicago school? really?"

Milton Friedman said that sales and property taxes are regressive, and was in FAVOR of a reverse income tax ie the EITC. In fact, Reagan specifically cited Friedman when Reagan (yes, Reagan) first introduced the idea. Reagan also thought that even with a FLAT tax that the poor should not pay taxes. Yes, Reagan.

"...Milton Friedman... [proposed] the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. A family of four with no market income would thus receive an annual payment from the I.R.S. of $24,000. For each dollar the family then earned, this payment would be reduced by some fraction — perhaps 50 percent. A family of four earning $12,000 a year, for example, would receive a net supplement of $18,000 (the initial $24,000 less the $6,000 tax on its earnings)..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html?_r=3

Huge Tea Parties nationwide, even in the People's Republic of Manhattan!! Yay!

Waltons have too much money, agreed. Personally I find it sinful how
much was passed on without helping others enough. But they can't be in the same breath as my family with half a mill income trying to get to a mill through hard work - today, not hard work of prior generations - without confiscatory taxes. Go tax the hedgies making over $10 per year and make the estate tax greater than 50pct for people with over $100, and have it in effect each generation, encourage charity and cancer research. On Gates, he's working on giving it away, but his company truly created global value. And Buffet, he's a long term investor, not a flipper

not surprisingly, "members" of the tea party favor those tax collections that benefit them, while they claim to abhor taxes generally. i'll have to find it, but i saw another poll that showed how insanely misinformed tea partiers are in terms of taxation facts.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/the-only-tea-party-stat-you-need-to-know/

dwell, how do you propose we pay for basic services, after a decade of profligate spending and tax cuts?

RF, are you channeling Cheney? that can't be good for the soul.

from wiki.

Partial History of
U.S. Federal Marginal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913
Applicable Year Income Brackets First Bracket Top Bracket Source
1913-1915 - 1% 7% IRS
1916 - 2% 15% IRS
1917 - 2% 67% IRS
1918 - 6% 77% IRS
1919-1920 - 4% 73% IRS
1921 - 4% 73% IRS
1922 - 4% 56% IRS
1923 - 3% 56% IRS
1924 - 1.5% 46% IRS
1925-1928 - 1.5% 25% IRS
1929 - 0.375% 24% IRS
1930-1931 - 1.125% 25% IRS
1932-1933 - 4% 63% IRS
1934-1935 - 4% 63% IRS
1936-1939 - 4% 79% IRS
1940 - 4.4% 81.1% IRS
1941 - 10% 81% IRS
1942-1943 - 19% 88% IRS
1944-1945 - 23% 94% IRS
1946-1947 - 19% 86.45% IRS
1948-1949 - 16.6% 82.13% IRS
1950 - 17.4% 84.36% IRS
1951 - 20.4% 91% IRS
1952-1953 - 22.2% 92% IRS
1954-1963 - 20% 91% IRS
1964 - 16% 77% IRS
1965-1967 - 14% 70% IRS
1968 - 14% 75.25% IRS
1969 - 14% 77% IRS
1970 - 14% 71.75% IRS
1971-1981 15 brackets 14% 70% IRS
1982-1986 12 brackets 12% 50% IRS
1987 5 brackets 11% 38.5% IRS
1988-1990 3 brackets 15% 28% IRS
1991-1992 3 brackets 15% 31% IRS
1993-2000 5 brackets 15% 39.6% IRS
2001 5 brackets 15% 39.1% IRS
2002 6 brackets 10% 38.6% IRS
2003-2009 6 brackets 10% 35% Tax Foundation

aboutready, still spouting keynesianism? Really? Keynesianism?

LICC, still spewing nonsense? not surprised.

go play with your GI Joes.

jason, as usual you only give half a story, which destroys your credibility for the entire argument. He advocated a limited negative income tax as a complete replacement of welfare programs:

Milton Friedman proposed a model in which a specified proportion of unused deductions or allowances would be refunded to the taxpayer. If, for a family of four the amount of allowances came out to $10,000, and the subsidy rate was 50% (the rate recommended by Friedman), and the family earned $6,000, the family would receive $2,000, because it left $4,000 of allowances unused, and therefore qualifies for $2,000, half that amount. Friedman feared that subsidy rates as high as those would lessen the incentive to obtain employment. He also warned that the negative income tax, as an addition to the "ragbag" of welfare and assistance programs, would only worsen the problem of bureaucracy and waste. Instead, he argued, the negative income tax should immediately replace all other welfare and assistance programs on the way to a completely laissez-faire society where all welfare is privately administered. The negative income tax has come up in one form or another in Congress, but Friedman opposed it because it came packaged with other undesirable elements antithetical to the efficacy of the negative income tax. Friedman preferred to have no income tax at all, but said he did not think it was politically feasible at that time to eliminate it, so he suggested this as a less harmful income tax scheme

aboutready, are you still spewing your vile comments about the U.S. military's effect on the world?

Don't have time to play right now, I go to work every day.

"Waltons have too much money, agreed. Personally I find it sinful how
much was passed on without helping others enough" I think we should put you in charge and you can judge what is fair. You seem unusually intelligent. Please tell me how much i can earn this year.

I did not ignore anything. Friedman was in favor of DIFFERENT kind of welfare, in favor of a negative income tax - so not only NO taxes for poor people, but NEGATIVE taxes. You guys have been arguing against any kind of welfare, including the EITC (which was inspired by Friedman, in the words of Reagan) and are FOR poor people paying taxes. I for one think Friedman is correct, and we ought to replace all welfare, farm subsidies, etc with a straight negative tax.

But what neither Friedman, Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan were in favor of was the poor paying taxes. And two of the three were in favor of the poor getting straight up cash to boot.

Is the argument that "the rich" don't pay their fair share really a smoke screen for despising successful people?

So jason believes that 50% of U.S. households are "poor". That is some way of defining poor.

jason, I believe the idea originated with Nixon, no? Unfortunately a president whose legacy will forever be distorted - in many ways he was more liberal than any president since.

No, it originated with Milton Friedam in "Capitalism and Freedom" written in 1962.

And LIC - you are the one who says everyone should pay taxes. Does that not include the poor?

And since 75% of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes - that is, including employe contribution, almost everyone, including the working poor pay at least 15% in Federal taxes, just not INCOME taxes. But a tax is a tax. And adding sales and excise and property taxes, and viola, they pay a marginal tax rate of 40%, on average, per the above study (which was not by any "ACORN" type group.)

The founding fathers debated requiring only wealthy taxpayers be allowed to vote, and they resoundingly defeated the idea. Most of those same founding fathers lived in states that allowed universal free male sufferage, regardless fo taxes paid, and themselves favored this.

The constitution has been amended regarding voting rights 5 times and the income tax once, and never once did the idea of restricting voting to only taxpayers enter into the equation.

Virtually none of the icons of the right have ever proposed such a thing - not even the far right Rand and Bircher types.

Its also certainly not a libertarian idea.

Its really a hair brianed and out-there idea.

Finally, about 99% of Americans pay SOME form of tax, so focusing JUST on the Federal income tax is retarded. (

And by the way, when enacted, it was SPECIFICALLY sold as a tax that would ONLY be on the "rich", by both Republicans and Democrats (Teddy Roosevelt and Taft were both for it! Hell Taft PROPOSED IT!) and the idea that EVERYONE should pay it was never part of the equation. For most of the post 16th-amendment history of the US, most Americans have NOT paid the Federal Income tax, so this is hardly a new or different concept.

In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million 2007 dollars).

> swe, not true but again, no need for me to educate you on that all over again.

rangers, you can keep repeating yourself all you want, but its all in black and white (I just checked to make sure). If by "educate" you mean lie about what you already said, I agree, no need... we have you on record...

"Sorry, but even Mitlon Friedman said that sales and property taxes are regressive."

And those are the only taxes out there?

If you inferring that I said that each and every tax was progressive, you're creating a strawman. I clearly said multiple times that the SUM of all taxes is progressive, thus we have a progressive system.

I said just this week there will be specific progressive and regressive taxes... and thats part of the system that allows the acorn/democratic lefties to hide the overall progressive part!

> This is not some "left/loonie/acorn" proaganda.

The part about us having a regressive system CERTAINLY is!

> Most states and local governments get the vast majority of their funding from regressive taxes.
Again, you're playing right into the propagands again.

"We have a progressive system, all in, up to about the top 10% level, then it levels off and actually becomes REGRESSIVE for the top 5% and top 1% and top 0.01%..."

Nope, incorect. Your data is poor. The only stats that show regressive are crap - including the last one posted that put PAYROLL TAXES PAID BY EMPLOYERS AS AN "EMPLOYEE TAX". Now thats a propaganda move if I ever heard one!

The non-partisan accounts demonstrate a progressive system.

no only are we progressive, we're more progressive than anywhere else:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html

"dwell, how do you propose we pay for basic services, after a decade of profligate spending and tax cuts?"

AR, I think no matter how I respond to that question, you'd just attack. So, let's just agree to disagree.

well dwell, cheering on the tea party demonstrations is hardly taking a neutral stance.

"Is the argument that "the rich" don't pay their fair share really a smoke screen for despising successful people?"

well, that, and a power grab for folks who want to ride it to the top of the Democratic party...

Must I be neutral? I never claimed to be so

no, you're provocative. so don't be surprised when you elicit a response (or "attack" as you put it) from others who are not neutral either. just chatting here, dwell.