Nearly half of US households do pay fed income tax

"you're provocative"

in a sexual way? ;)

dwell, i don't know you THAT well. but i'm certain you could be if you so wished.

well, she? did me good advice on the thong issue. thanks again, dwell.

Dwell... Don't let all the collectivists intimidate you. Most of them are justifying their government welfare.. They are afraid to live a life without demanding largess from the productive in society. The 3 percent of people who are to dysfunctional to take care of themselves society will help. The rest, let them stand or fall on their own merit.

no prob, ranger, just tryin' ta help! ;)

Julia: you & I are sympatica, but in this city, we're in the minority, so I'm doin' my own affirmative action in a sexy, provocative way.

Hey Julia, reminds me when I used to poll watch on election day. One day, I noticed a lot of flyers from the "Working Family Party". I knew what that meant: commies! Hey, I may be sexy, but I just don't go that way. Eastern Europe has given up Communism, but the USA is heading in that direction & I think it's wrong. Teach a man to fish, don't give'em the fish.

> One day, I noticed a lot of flyers from the "Working Family Party". I knew what that meant: commies!

WFP = ACORN + unions. ACORN and WFP shared leadership and even offices for a while... they just don't want you to know.

Now a Democrat can't get elected without them in this town...

somewhereelse, I know, I know, I know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 5th column. If you have not done so, read Venona. The US has been down this road before, 1930s-1950s. We can't let'em win. If they want communism, move to Cuba or Tajikistan, which, I believe is the only former Soviet Republic to remain Communist.

I'm the great nebulous middle - caught somewhere between Ayn Rand and ACORN/WFP/International Socialists.
More generous on nice, sunny days. Less generous and more right-wing on bad-weather days.

I don't want to stumble on homeless families while wearing my designer sheep clothing but I also recoil from supporting underemployed chain-smoking, McD-gulping fatties on my tax dollars.

I think people like me are the zeitgest basically. Craft a message that will appeal to me (or the American me) and you will win the vote.

"I don't want to stumble on homeless families"

I don't either, nyc10023, but if they had a job & a work ethic, they wouldn't be homeless. We don't want multi-generations on welfare & homeless. Education, job skills & jobs, plus an environment which encourages a work ethic & the desire to achieve. Teach a man to fish, don't give 'em the fish.

Note that I said families. Children should not be penalized for the failings of their parents. It galls me that I know single mothers who blithely reproduce, never had a job, all on the state's dime from cradle - ???. However, I would be the last to cut their benefits because I don't think the kids should be penalized. Mandatory birth control, perhaps, but don't punish the kids.

Should have added that it galls me because I know responsible, hard-working families who struggle with the decision to have even 1 child, while others blithely have a clutch.

I like the idea of a safety net. I like the idea of helping people who might need it (and are willing to help themselves).

But the mistake way too many lefties make is if you cushion TOO much (and at the same time remove opportunity), being lazy becomes a smart choice.

There SHOULD be some struggle involved.. there needs to be, to line up incentives.

nyc10023, I agree.

"I know single mothers who blithely reproduce, never had a job, all on the state's dime from cradle -"

This is a mentality which we should not be supporting & should discourage. If the state provides for all of one's needs, there is no incentive to do for oneself.

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

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

Jason: Two problems - that table looks only at CASH transfers, and not at the net effect of say free health care for all, free university tuition, subsidized mass and rail transit, etc. That particular chapter ALSO cites the effect of services provided by the government, which are HARDLY a tiny part of spending in Europe. In fact, its very common!

Its retarded to cite that particular OECD book when overall it concludes that the US is is not only one of the most un-equal OECD nations but that inequality has gotten worse and that the decrease in top marginal rates has a great deal to do with it. All in the same publication you cite!

Secondly, the chapter has a GIANT caveat: For the US, "taxes" EXCLUDES payroll taxes paid by the employer (medicare, social security, unemployment insurance) but INCLUDES them for other countries where the employee pays the tax. Hence it overstates how much taxes are paid by the wealthy in the US and understates how much is paid by the poor.

Thirdly, and here is a direct quote on the table JUST BEFORE very same table you show us: "the distribution of cash benefits for the entire population is most progressive, by a wide margin, in Australia, followed by New Zealand, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Finland, and Ireland." What? Right. The US is NOT listed as most progressive.

So the US has more progressive TAXES, but not at all progressive cash TRANSFERS, so net-net, the U.S. is, per the very publication you site, LESS PROGRESSIVE. Here is the exact quote:

"Overall, thee is less variation in the progressivity of taxes across countries than in the case of transfers..."

Its actually laughable that you would argue that taxes and transfers net out to be LESS progressive in teh Scandie countries and France than the U.S. utterly laughable!

Finally, just to kill you - what does the text just under the table you give us say? Here it goes: "...however, the richest decile in the United Sates has one of the highest shares of market income of any OECD country. After standardizing for this underlying inequality, Ireland has the most progressive tax system.

So net-net - SURPRISE! The very chapter of the very book you site says the most redistriobutive countries in teh OECD if you include taxes AND cash transfers are....can you guess? Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Denmark. The lowest? The U.S, Switzerland, Poland, Korea.

read it here;

http://books.google.com/books?id=KxO4KSPtz6gC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=How+Much+Redistribution+Do+Governments+Achieve%3F+The+Role+of+Cash+Transfers+and+Household+Taxes&source=bl&ots=-32UQfWyTR&sig=UEnDty3Y4g7cpH1GZiTPgOAt4x8&hl=en&ei=DK3IS_8chPLSBOXe5M4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=How%20Much%20Redistribution%20Do%20Governments%20Achieve%3F%20The%20Role%20of%20Cash%20Transfers%20and%20Household%20Taxes&f=false

"I think people like me are the zeitgest basically. Craft a message that will appeal to me (or the American me) and you will win the vote."

Individuality, Liberty and Personal Responsibily.... Plus the Constitution and Bill of Rights That is my message.

Did jason include payroll taxes paid by employers in his analysis of taxes paid by the poor? More lost credibility.

aboutready, do you want to know how to pay for basic services? Cut the profligate spending on other things and change the ridiculously wasteful government labor union costs. Trying to soak the wealthy to pay for handouts for half the country just won't work.

some interesting discussion in the comments here. and i agree with bartlett. why now? why the complaints when the damage has already been done and we face enormous deficits and unemployment as the result of a decade of overspending by both individuals and gov't and undertaxing by gov't? do we think the deficit will recede magically, that there's so much pent-up production potential and no slack so that we'll increase revenues massively any time soon?

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1653/what-people-dont-know-about-federal-income-taxes?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CapitalGainsAndGames+%28Capital+Gains+and+Games+-+Wall+Street%2C+Washington%2C+and+Everything+in+Between%29

"did jason include payroll taxes paid by employers in his analysis of taxes paid by the poor? More lost credibility."

Crazy. I pay these taxes, it comes out of my pocket, and they want to claim that the employees have that burden. Funny.

btw, social security isn't actually a tax... its a "contribution". And poor folks not only get it back, its subsidized for them. Its like calling 401k contributions a "tax".

Take that out of the tax burden, and now you're REALLY talking progressive.

"Cut the profligate spending on other things and change the ridiculously wasteful government labor union costs"

yup

4 trillion dollars poured down the drain in the name of "the War on Poverty".. Go to Penn Station Saturday night at 11:00pm to witness the abject failed policies of the" progressives". The misery and homelessness is a complete indictment of the welfare state... Don't look at the liberal's intentions, examine their results.

Julialg: homelessness isn't an indictment of the welfare state. Cradle to grave benefits reduce the amount of homelessness. This might be an expensive bandaid, but like I said, I don't want to be tripping over families. You will never reduce homelessness to zero - it's not a question of poverty alone.

To me, a truer measure of the lack of success of social welfare policy is the entrenchment of some families in the welfare system. In addition, the failure of the ability of the state to provide equal educational opportunities to all.

And if the conservatives want to win power, they need to appeal to the soft, nebulous middle-of-the-ground voter. Know what we want to hear, and you will win power. Just mouthing platitudes won't cut it. Neither will quoting Ayn Rand.

This is, however, an opportune time for the conservatives to undermine unions. Public sympathy is not with unions, especially public service unions.

"In addition, the failure of the ability of the state to provide equal educational opportunities to all." Totally agree. All poor children should have school vouchers.. But the teachers unions and hack politicians want to keep the poor in bondage. An educated citizen is a threat to the establishment. Clinton and Obama send their children to elite private school but fight against vouchers for the poor. (Very compassionate)

10023, it will be interesting to watch the public's response to the measures that will be taken by state and local governments to close their funding gaps. while it is easy to dislike the services that are provided to others, we tend to be rather fond of the services that we receive.

Julialg - no question that vouchers would help some. However, vouchers hurt the most vulnerable children and take away $ from their schools. Believe it or not, a substantial # of kids who would qualify for vouchers also have parents who would not have the drive to apply for charters/privates. And what do you do about the kids who get kicked out for behavioral reasons or don't get into any charters/privates? Do they not deserve another chance or do they go back to their failing schools? You also impoverish the schools in marginal nabes who have their brightest, better-behaved children leaving the schools.

And do you really want to increase the participation of parochial schools? The U.K. has some interesting issues because many of their better "state" schools are Church of England schools and admit based on church affiliation.

AR: yes, hypocrisy reigns.

Hmm, what are my favorite services?

1) Garbage pickup - 3x/week. Which is total luxury for most large cities. Londoners have weekly pickups. Larger buildings can contract for extra private services, IMO.

2) Mail to my door. A few cities have gone to super-mail-boxes only (though admittedly hard to implement in dense Manhattan).

3) 24-hour public transit.

4) Free bkfast at public schools. Can you imagine if free bkfast was taken away for most public school kids in NYC? Though, sadly, many parents don't get their kids in early enough to take advantage.

5) Well-maintained public parks for those of us lucky to near 'em.

And do you really want to increase the participation of parochial schools? The U.K. has some interesting issues because many of their better "state" schools are Church of England schools and admit based on church affiliation. No. But obviously the school system is failing the poor. The same tired excuse of "However, vouchers hurt the most vulnerable children and take away $ from their schools. Believe it or not, a substantial # of kids who would .. "bla bla bla is old thinking. THe hypocrisy of the left is striking. This example is not the progressives finest moment.

julia, neither the left nor the right has presented any credible answers on what to do about public education. it is tragic that with the amount that is spent per child we can't do a better job. it is clear that the system is failing many children, but what you seem to want is something better for YOUR child/ren, not something that provides better average care for all children. your hypocrisy is striking.

10023, another service although here mostly private that is going to be severely strained is hospitals. cabrini and st. vincent's have already closed. hospitals, particularly emergency rooms and urgent care centers, are closing at a notable rate around the country, largely due to the fact that so many people are uninsured and can't pay. while that's awful for the poorer communities in which it is happening, obviously it will lead to massive overcrowding in the remaining emergency rooms.

"but what you seem to want is something better for YOUR child/ren, not something that provides better average care for all children. your hypocrisy is striking." The public education for the poor is a complete failure.. You can make false attacks against me but that will not change reality. The school system establishment is failing the people they claim to sooo want to desperately help. While at the same time the teachers and union thugs enrich themselves and bankrupt society.

i just love people who are abundantly able to criticize but won't admit that there isn't a simple solution.

so what do you do? fire all the teachers? i agree something must be done with the unions, and it looks as though the time has come. but beyond that what about the kids? this voucher system you naively support? what would happen? do you really think private entities would spring up in abundance and find the facilities to teach all the poor children? and with which teachers, the current ones you despise, or will they be able to find a new stock of people willing to teach poor children?

Julia: you haven't answered. Vouchers for the most motivated of the "poor" - what about the rest? I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but it ain't vouchers.

AR: that's why I left out hospitals. We'll see if a more universal insurance system will improve things.

Maybe there's underlying structural issue that prevents us from educating a highly diverse society in the public system. Not that we should give up.

julia: you haven't answered. Vouchers for the most motivated of the "poor" - what about the rest? I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but it ain't vouchers.

I don't know either. But, charter schools in the children's own neighborhood seem to work much better. I know the present situation is a failure, so lets be created and try different things.

I've had teachers-in-training (at that fine institution, TC) who've gone on to teach in both public & charter schools. IMO, by the time, under-served kids reach K, the battle is already half-lost. If they're not highly motivated or have outlier parents, the battle has been lost for them.

"AR: that's why I left out hospitals. We'll see if a more universal insurance system will improve things" Why do you seem to need AR approval.

"If they're not highly motivated or have outlier parents, the battle has been lost for them. " I agree.. So ultimately, It is the individuals own responsibility. Society can't help that much.

julia: it hasn't been proven that charters are better schools. Hospitals haven't traditionally been a public service provided wholesale throughout the U.S., so it didn't make it to my list of favorite public services.

Uggggh, you are too stupid LTR. The OECD ALSO included cash transfers (like Social Security) in there oveall analysis. The very same analysis your guy showed. When you include BOTH cash payments to taxpayers (ie welfare, SS, unemployment, etc) AND taxes paid, the US is one of the LEAST progressive systems. Its stupid to JUST include taxes paid but not the transfer of that same revenue (ie the SPENDING) in cash payments to those very same taxpayers!

So if two people in the US and Sweden both make $50,000 a year, and the Swedish person pays $10,000 in taxes and the American $5000, your retarded analysis says the US is more progressive. Whereas the OECD report in question would also factor in the $0.00 the American got in cash payments and the $8,000 the swede got in childcare subsidies, housing subsidies, whatever. So net-net, the Swede is down $2,000, and American down $5,000.

Up and down the income brakets, the Swedes and Australians and 19 of the 22 countries have more PROGRESSIVE systems than the U.S., including all tax breaks, tax credits, and cash transfers.

Its retarded to claim that the US is MORE socialist than France or Sweden, period.

Julia: except that we, as a society, could provide high-quality free childcare for all, thereby helping those who didn't chose to be born. It won't be "fair" because there will be some who will take advantage and never pay their dues.

So free childcare will help. Help who?

"If they're not highly motivated or have outlier parents, the battle has been lost for them. "

I agree, but seems to me the responsibility falls on the parents prior to K. Again, talking individual responsibility otherwise, the State should just take the kids after birth.

nyc10023, you have a good & caring heart, but, individuals must take responsibility, gov cannot do everything for them. Unfortunately, we are going down a path where more & more people expect gov to do for them & give them. I think that's dangerous. It could lead to the point where the majority is an 'underclass' that expects the gov to feed & house them &/or employ them.

Thank you dwell.. eloquently said.

Help us, in the long run. Unless you subscribe to schemes like "pay to be sterilized". Unfortunately, the history of state and church sponsored foster homes has not been good.

the working poor don't pay federal income tax but they have taxes taken from their paychecks...please don't jump on people who are barely making a go of it..

True story - I was at Fway uptown and asked someone whose first language is English if they sold soil. The word "soil" was not in his vocabulary. I know my Canuck accent is thick...

Dwell: it's not a question of goodness. I see these poor kids in the nabe whose parents are still kids, and the battle has been lost for them at the moment of conception. Damned if you do and damned if you don't do for them. You know?

Thanx Julia.

bottom line: there is no free lunch, one way or another, we all have to pay for food, shelter, education & services. The question is: how to best do that? I think to look for a government to provide the majority of these things is the wrong way to go because it makes us vassals of the state & if the state is your "daddy", pretty soon, the state will control you. I prefer small government, big individual responsibility & help your neighbor.

Public schools are pretty simple. The basic problem is local funding and control, which leads parents and taxpayers to focus on protecting their own rather than education, and invites political extremists to abuse the lack of transparency of local elections.

For the academic track, you need to professionalize the curriculum and equalize the budget. That means a Federal curriculum written by professionals who understand scientific method and know the difference between history and propaganda and aim to challenge children and are protected from the wackiest politicians. Housed in a real Education Ministry able to attract the best educators nationwide.

Federal funding, from Federal taxes, so that school district tax bases are irrelevant. And local hiring and administration in administrative districts with flexible boundaries, set by professionals who aim for integration, not economic or racial segregation.

Oh, and pay for teachers that reflects their "merit" and "the number of jobs they produce" -- it should be at least as high as that of the heirs to the destroyer of America's small-town downtowns.

Then, you need a viable non-academic track, traingin students who don't like school in a set of saleable technical skills. It also needs to be national, taking into account national economic needs, and run by professionals dedicated to rebuilding manual, technical and craft skills and jobs. And of course, it'll need to be matched by a conscious effort to help factories and other institutions to rebuild to use skilled workers and generalized technology, instead of the other way around.

With basic equality, we could then move our public schools from their current level up to the higher level of competitors such as Japan, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, or Croatia. Maybe we could even rival the famously abysmal schools of England.

Nothing is likely to help much, however, if it remains the case that educated or not, kids from the bottom fifth of the income distribution have little realistic chance of improving their lot.

"the working poor don't pay federal income tax but they have taxes taken from their paychecks...please don't jump on people who are barely making a go of it.." I am criticizing the government for failed policies that hurt the poor. The government uses the poor and middle class to stay in power. The policies will only perpetuate their condition.

And everyone pays a sales tax....
And if we didn't waste money on cars for clunkers and home owner bail-outs we'd have money for education and NASA.

" The government uses the poor and middle class to stay in power. The policies will only perpetuate their condition."

more slogans....can you give any concrete examples of what this means? which government? the dems? the republicans? who and how? which policies perpetuate the condition of the poor?

"So if two people in the US and Sweden both make $50,000 a year, and the Swedish person pays $10,000 in taxes and the American $5000, your retarded analysis says the US is more progressive."

The retarded part about this is confusing tax percentages on specific people with regerssive vs. progressive system.

That one country pays a larger share in taxes doesn't make it progressive OR regressive. Its the SHARED that do..

Your logic in this case is completely irrelevant.

"more slogans....can you give any concrete examples of what this means? which government? the dems? the republicans? who and how? which policies perpetuate the condition of the poor?"

Sure, an easy one.

NYS Democratic legislature... turned down the Kingsbridge Bronx development, which would have added jobs, which the community WANTED... and which was turned down ONLY because the unions wanted union employees only... all under the banner of "doing it for the poor", but it in fact screwed the people of the neighborhood who wanted the jobs, and wanted the better retail.

And now get nothing.

And there are countless examples of this.

> Oh, and pay for teachers that reflects their "merit" and "the number of jobs they produce" --

Absolutely!

Too bad the Democrats, the UFT, and the WFP will never let us have it! Thanks Democrats!

"i just love people who are abundantly able to criticize but won't admit that there isn't a simple solution."

I just love people who think that because there isn't a simple solution, its ok to continue the horrible current scenario.

"so what do you do? fire all the teachers?"

Lets just start with the incompetent ones.

"i agree something must be done with the unions, and it looks as though the time has come."

Well, of course. The obvious first step.

Except the one the Democrats won't touch.

"but beyond that what about the kids?"

what about them?

"this voucher system you naively support? what would happen? do you really think private entities would spring up in abundance and find the facilities to teach all the poor children?"

So, if it only makes things better for SOME poor kids, its bad? Thats ridiculous. And who says they can't grow. Fact is, there are tons willing to do it already.

NYS has CAPPED charter schools. Can't we start by just allowing the ones willing to create those?

Democrats, how about getting out of the way?

"and with which teachers, the current ones you despise, or will they be able to find a new stock of people willing to teach poor children?"

There is already a waiting list.

AND imagine if it was a better job, with merit pay and without moronic rules that hurt the children?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/04/obamas_tax_return.html

Obamas Made $5.5 Million Last Year, Paid $1.8 Million In Taxes

Somewhere, you can't really be that stupid. If you pay $10,000 in taxes, but get a check for $8000 FROM the governent, your net payments to the government are $2000. If someone else pays $5000 to the government and gets zero back from them, the net impact is $5000. This is simple math. This is why the very OECD report you cite above says Sweden et al are more progressive than the US, which is one of the least progressive. The tax system works both ways. And they are ONLy talking cash transfers, not non-cash benifits like free healthcare. Literally, subsidies.

If you get a check from the Swedish government to help pay your rent, another to pay your day care expenses, that clearly offsets your taxes paid. Why this seems difficult for you to understand is beyond me.

Because he's a Brooklynite?

> Somewhere, you can't really be that stupid

jason, you can't really be so stupid to think that if someone else pays for something, its YOUR tax burden...

"If you get a check from the Swedish government to help pay your rent, another to pay your day care expenses, that clearly offsets your taxes paid. Why this seems difficult for you to understand is beyond me."

Do you do the same for social security?