A fellow recently asserted to me that the top 1% paid 38% of the income taxes in 2008. Is that true and if so, how much of their income was the top 1% taxed on themselves? Also, do we have data more recent than 2008 on how much of the income tax was paid by the top 1% and how much of their income was taxed?
The top 1% of the population paid did indeed pay roughly 40% of income taxes in 2008.
However a large reason for that is because they took in a full 21% of total income in 2008. Furthermore as per that first link I posted, since those at the very top only pay a tiny proportion of payroll and excise taxes, overall they paid 28% of total federal tax revenue.
I would be surprised if any data more recent than 2008 was available. It takes time to compile the data but, more importantly, it takes time for people to put together and file their tax returns. 2009 tax returns weren’t due until 4-15-10, extendable to 10-15-10 (for fiscal year filers). There are plenty of stragglers who don’t even file by the extended date and I suspect the wealthiest people are among those stragglers on a regular basis.
In fact, if you include state taxes as well, according to this study the top 1% earn 20% of the total income in the country, and pay 21% of the total taxes. The focus on the federal income tax figure alone is a misleading way to look at the picture.
It’s only “misleading” if you are trying to paint a particular picture. Income tax is income tax. If someone asks who pays what % of federal income tax, the answer is as given earlier.
This is obviously bordering on GD, but surely you know that it is extremely common these days for politicians and pundits to be less than clear about what they are referring to when making these statements. Even in the OP, the question was stated as “income tax”, not “federal income tax”. I’m sure you have heard the common conservative outcry about how “50% of Americans don’t pay any taxes!”, which is clearly false.
That’s true. But I suspect whoever presented the figure to the OP put it in terms of, “it’s unfair to increase taxes on the top 1% of the country: they already pay 40% of federal income tax, and 47% of the country pays no net federal income tax at all!”. Both those statements are basically true, but they ignore the fact that the distribution of payroll, excise and state taxes is the complete reverse, as well as distribution of income itself, so overall the top 1% are actually making 20% of total income and paying 21% of total taxes.
And you’re ignoring that the person probably meant “it’s unfair to increase the federal income tax…” So why should other taxes, that go to other entities to pay for other things, matter? If the conversation is about federal income tax, then why drag in other things just because they’re called “taxes,” too?
The same argument comes out when the issue is removing the cap on payroll tax contributions as well. It’s the worst kind of statistic, one that obscures more than it illuminates.
Anyway, the GQ answer has been given. For federal income taxes, the quoted number is reasonably correct. For all federal taxation it is not. For federal and state taxation it is not.
Because the implication tends to be that the top 1% are overtaxed, whereas the amount of tax the top 1% pays to the government is actually equivalent to their proportion of the country’s income. In that context, personally I would say the idea of increasing their federal income tax rate from 36% to 39% is very manageable for them; but if you’re given the false impression that they’re already shouldering an enormous overall tax burden compared to everyone else, that will change a lot of people’s minds, which I think is the point.
In any case though, that’s all up for debate. The answer to the question is that the top 1% do pay around 40% of the federal income tax. They do, however, pay a much smaller percentage of payroll, excise and state taxes, so overall they make 20% of the national income and they pay 21% of all taxes.
I have only ever heard that from people complaining about conservatives. I googled the phrase. Every single hit was someone complaining about the conservative “lie”, and not a single hit from a conservative making the actual claim.
Erik Ericson is the current guy pushing it (with his asinine “We are the 53%”). Hannityhas said it. Limbaughhas said it. Bachmann and other House Members played the game.
Representing federal income taxes as all taxation is a common trick used by the GOP and conservative commentators to imply that the poor and lower-middle-class are under-taxed.
So, keeping it GQ as possible, doesn’t that mean that they are already paying a “fair share”?
Also, I don’t think that conservatives are misleading anyone with the “50% don’t pay taxes” when in the context of a debate over the federal income tax.
The left is eagerly ready to point that out when Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making under $250k, then promptly raised the cigarette tax, which obviously affects smokers making under $250k, that he didn’t lie.
They roar right back with, “Well, he obviously meant income tax, not ALL taxes” and it is a fair retort. In a debate about federal income tax levels, it is not necessary to keep repeating a disclaimer that there are other taxes in society. We all know that.
As far as I’m concerned, the word “fair” has no place in GQ unless we’re talking about events featuring farm animals or people with light-colored skin. To determine fairness in the sense that you’re talking about involves many value judgments and there’s no general consensus on it.
You must not listen to much conservative media, or follow conservative politicians. It’s a constant refrain on Fox News, on Rush Limbaugh’s show, on websites like RedState and the National Review. John Cornyn said it on the Senate floor, Michelle Bachmann said half of Americans pay “no taxes at all”, Eric Cantor said “nearly 50 percent of people don’t even pay income taxes”, Mitch McConnell said “in fact about half of Americans [don’t pay](in fact about half of Americans don’t pay any income taxes at all.” Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/07/28/brian-williams-demands-mitch-mcconnell-why-shouldnt-rich-folks-pay-more#ixzz1akkOi4Zj) any income taxes at all”. If you haven’t heard conservative politicians or conservative media making the claim, you don’t follow them.
In terms of whether it’s a “fair share”, that’s a question about whether you agree that taxation should be flat or progressive. You could argue that it would be fair to institute a flat tax, charging everyone, say, 20%, regardless of income or wealth. It sounds fair in the abstract, but no developed country in the world uses it, because societies have generally decided that people earning millions of dollars a year have enormous amounts of purely disposable income and thus can afford to pay a higher tax rate to help people not as fortunate as them. The classic example is that it’s not fair for a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as his cleaner.
On your second point, I would say that Obama did technically break that promise to not raise any taxes - if he’d said on the campaign trail “I promise not to raise your federal income taxes one dime”, people would have rightly replied, “well what about all the other taxes? You’re just going to raise them instead aren’t you?”. I think you need to look at the total distribution of the tax burden in society. It wouldn’t be fair to say that the richest members of society only pay 5% of payroll taxes, therefore they’re massively undertaxed; similarly it’s not fair to say that that they pay 40% of federal income tax, therefore they’re massively overtaxed. Either way it’s misleading.
It is true that I do not listen to conservative talk radio (with the exception of libertarian Neal Boortz) or watch conservative opinion shows such as Hannity/Beck. I do read widely, covering people such as George Will, Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer. And of course that endangered species, the conservative Doper.
Clearly links have been provided to people stating “no taxes” or “no income taxes”. In at least some, the context is needed. For example, the John Cornyn cite has him saying “Let’s talk about federal tax reform” before stating “paid no income tax”. I really do not think that indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Even in the context of federal income taxes, it’s misleading to argue the top 1% are overtaxed for paying 40% of federal income taxes: firstly because they also earn 20% of the country’s income, and secondly because they pay only a tiny proportion of federal payroll and excise taxes, which bring in just as much revenue as income taxes. If I said, “the top 1% of the country earn 20% of its income, but contribute only 5% of its payroll tax. So they’re massively undertaxed, we should quadruple their payroll taxes!” - the facts there are true, but presented like that they’re misleading and the conclusion is sophistic. It’s similarly misleading to argue that income tax on the top 1% needs to be cut because “they pay 40% of income taxes, while half of Americans pay nothing at all, so they’re overtaxed!”, which is one of the most frequently cited arguments on the conservative side when it comes to tax policy at the moment.
I am not arguing that nor defending those that do.