# The top 1% of US taxpayers pay almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom 95%, and half of that bottom group paid no taxes at all in 2010

According to new IRS data, the 1.35 million taxpayers that represent the highest-earning one percent of the Americans who filed federal income tax returns in 2010 earned 18.9% of the total gross income and paid 37.4% of all federal income taxes paid in that year.  In contrast, the 128.3 million taxpayers in the bottom 95% of all U.S. taxpayers in 2010 earned 66.2% of gross income and that group paid 40.9% of all taxes paid. In other words, the top 1 percent (1.35 million) of American taxpayers paid almost as much federal income tax in 2010 (\$354.8 billion) as the entire bottom 95% of American tax filers (\$388.4 billion), see chart above. And it’s that group of top income earners (with income above \$221,000 in 2010 to be in the top one percent), that Obama and the Democrats want to tax even more.

Further, there were more than 58 million Americans in 2010 who had tax returns with a zero or negative tax liability, so about half of the bottom 95% of American “taxpayers” paid nothing or got a tax refund.

With those data in mind, consider Nolan Finley’s column in the Detroit News comparing paying for milk and paying for taxes, based on an analysis a reader (corporate lawyer Jon Taub) provided:

If every U.S. taxpayer purchased a gallon of milk, each person would pay \$2.49, and the total cost would be 140.5 million times \$2.49 — or \$349 million.

Now let’s assume the government treated milk like government services and determined its price the same way it determines tax rates. The pricing would change as follows:

When the bottom 40 percent of earners buy their milk, they won’t pay a dime for it. In fact, the government would give them \$1 in reverse payments for every gallon of milk they purchase. The total cost of providing one gallon of milk to each person in this group would be \$196.1 million.

The cost of providing milk to the remaining 60 percent of the taxpayers would be \$209.9 million, bringing the total cost burden of all taxpayers’ milk to \$406 million.

Under our existing tax rates, instead of paying \$2.49 a gallon, the top 1 percent of earners would pay 38 percent of the total milk burden or \$109.81 for a gallon of milk.

Nolan concludes:

Taub urges everyone to think about that example whenever they hear President Barack Obama talk about tax fairness, as they will incessantly over the next few weeks.

The current tax system is unfair, but not because the wealthy don’t pay enough.

It’s out of whack because it doesn’t acknowledge that the rich are paying more for their government milk than it’s worth so most others can pay less. And instead of saying thank you, we’re milking those cash cows dry.

## 175 thoughts on “The top 1% of US taxpayers pay almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom 95%, and half of that bottom group paid no taxes at all in 2010”

1. Same lame argument. The top 1% actually OWN 40% of the wealth production, which essentially preserves and annuitizes their wealth. In the meantime, the numbers might even mean something if people like Mr Romney didn’t pay a 9% effective tax rate.

A 4.9% increase on incomes over \$250,000 – which again, really doesn’t kick in until the figure on Line 1 of the 1040 hits \$340,000- is hardly “milking the cow dry.”

Pathetic stuff, but the more you repeat the message, the more people believe it.

• more made up facts from max.

do you ever get tired of spouting this nonsense?

the US has the most progressive tax structure in the oecd and yet you keep yapping that the rich must pay more.

you keep making up facts as well.

9%? BS. that number has been a lie every time you have trotted it out and still is. this has been demonstrated to you over and over which means this lying can only be deliberate.

you are like some bizarre parody of yourself: constantly lying and spewing emotional vitriol while accusing others of doing so.

is this some sort of psychological condition or what?

does this tactic work for you somewhere?

it just seems ridiculous.

• “more made up facts from max.

do you ever get tired of spouting this nonsense?

the US has the most progressive tax structure in the oecd and yet you keep yapping that the rich must pay more.

you keep making up facts as well.

9%? BS. that number has been a lie every time you have trotted it out and still is. this has been demonstrated to you over and over which means this lying can only be deliberate.

you are like some bizarre parody of yourself: constantly lying and spewing emotional vitriol while accusing others of doing so.

is this some sort of psychological condition or what?

does this tactic work for you somewhere?

it just seems ridiculous.”

No, YOU seem ridiculous, and you get called out every time and you come back for more.

The 9% figure came right off Romney’s own return, and was widely reported. If you want to debunk it, go right ahead and present your evidence.

This tax thing is bullsh*t. It is a tiny increase to a change in the tax code that never should have been made in the first place, did nothing for our economic well being, and stupidly, by putting a 10 year “sunset clause” on it, has created the makings of more of the AEI’s precious “uncertainty” than the EPA could conjure up.

Grow up. Get serious.

• max-

once more:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

and here is the return itself:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/romney_tax_return_1040_2011/

so, sorry maxie, but once more your facts turn out to be nonsense.

perhaps instead of calling everyone else stupid and telling them they need to grow up, you should take your own advice, stop pathologically lying, and accept that you have no idea what you are talking about.

the rest of us already know it.

time you woke up and realized it too.

• God, I’ll call people “stupid” when they indeed act stupidly.

This is from the CNN article:

“”It is quite unusual for people not to take tax deductions that they’re entitled to,” Press said.”

Yeah- I would say so.

• actually, no, it’s very common not to take deductions. many people do not even know what they are entitled to.

but again, they guy pays MORE than he has to and as a result you go after him for AVOIDING taxes? what color is the sky on your world?

you do realize that you are describing paying more than you have to as tax evasion, right?

then you ask others to get a grip?

wow. just wow.

also note:

he paid 14% in 2010 as well.

• “actually, no, it’s very common not to take deductions.”

I’m sure Romney isn’t using a 1040 EZ.

And no, I didn’t accuse him of evasion by paying more, but there is no question in my mind he is a serial evader.
That’s on the returns he refused to release.

• No, Max, you are wrong. The “wealthiest” Americans do not have nearly as much money as you imagine. That’s why Obama calls the “rich” those earning \$200,000 or more. They are not rich. In New York City here, a teacher married to a bus driver earn more than that and one would be wrong to call that rich. The really big money to be taken from the people is for the government to take it from the middle class which is exactly the Obama plan. The middle class can be tyrannized to give up hundreds of billions at any given moment. And, you will watch and see that is exactly what will happen. That is the Man’s Plan.

• “No, Max, you are wrong. The “wealthiest” Americans do not have nearly as much money as you imagine. That’s why Obama calls the “rich” those earning \$200,000 or more. They are not rich. In New York City here, a teacher married to a bus driver earn more than that and one would be wrong to call that rich. The really big money to be taken from the people is for the government to take it from the middle class which is exactly the Obama plan. The middle class can be tyrannized to give up hundreds of billions at any given moment. And, you will watch and see that is exactly what will happen. That is the Man’s Plan”

Let’s try this again:

I live right next door to NY City, and have all of my life, so I know what it costs to live here. The suburban county I live in is even MORE expensive thanks to my property taxes, which I thankfully, can deduct.

We are talking about a 4.9% tax increase on a couple’s TAXABLE earnings ABOVE 250K. Which means that couple would have to earn close to \$340k before they saw ONE EFFING DOLLAR in a real tax hike, because we presume that couple does have some deductibles, like state and local taxes, child tax credits, etc.

So this is bullsh*t. I hear from a lot of people who make over 250K and claim they’re not “rich,” but that is status envy, not reality.

• QUOTE: “the US has the most progressive tax structure in the oecd and yet you keep yapping that the rich must pay more.”

And before President Lyndon Johnson lowered the rates back in ’63 the upper braket was over 90%–and YET, the rich still got richer!

• “The top 1% actually OWN 40% of the wealth production..”

Even if this data is true (and its not–Max pulled this one right out of his sphincter), then it explains why this small 1 percentage of big earners, earn more than the larger percent own less income production. It explains why the non-owners, earn less.

Smart people tend to earn more because they own my brain power and more ambition. Hmmmmmm….how strange.

This all sounds pretty logical to me. And if you own the source of income, then your future income stream guarantees that you earn more in the future. Hmmmmmm…sounds pretty logical to me–if you get to keep your own brain or ambition.

More is more and less is less and the solution is a wealth tax and a brain transplant? Hmmmmmmm.

Little early for a bottle of Jack Daniels don’t you think, Max?

• “Smart people tend to earn more because they own my brain power and more ambition. Hmmmmmm….how strange.”

Some of the dumbest people in the world have lots of money, and that should be obvious to anyone by now.

• then it explains why this small 1 percentage of big earners, earn more than the larger percent own less income production. It explains why the non-owners, earn less.

Yes, it does. The explanation is that they created the wealth. Yes, “they built that”, thus they own it. They are in possession of that wealth because wealth flows from people who can’t hold onto it to people who can.

Little Maxie and his peasant mob are upset because they didn’t build it, but they want to have it. The U.S. has become a country of thieves.

• “Yes, it does. The explanation is that they created the wealth. Yes, “they built that”, thus they own it. They are in possession of that wealth because wealth flows from people who can’t hold onto it to people who can.”

What a stupid remark! All I can say is the people who hold these beliefs can thank their lucky stars they didn’t get what they asked for. No one would live in a society that isn’t worth having.

• LOL! Another “what a stupid remark! Everyone knows the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth. Nobody would want to live in any other kind of world!” from our resident imbecile.

You are impressive, Maxie. I didn’t realize that such depths of stupidity could be reached.

• QUOTE: “The top 1% actually OWN 40% of the wealth production.”

There’s thing called “cut-and-paste,” if you do that to the above the first says that it was 35.4% in 2010.

• Maybe you can stick those statistics up MacDaddywatch’s sphincter.

Well, you could, if Obama’s dong wasn’t already firmly embedded in it.

• With such a classy response as that, is it any wonder why we are falling behind the other indutrialized nations?!?

• The person who wrote this Forbes article is pissing in the wind.

Amazing how you guys dig this stuff up. ROMNEY’S OWN TAX PREPARER said his rate was 13%, AFTER DELIBERATELY not taking write offs to make him LOOK LESS GREEDY!

“Taxed twice?” So is everyone else.

I mean, this is really pathetic stuff, guys. If you have to cheat on your own return to PAY MORE for appearance’s sake, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on.

• “ROMNEY’S OWN TAX PREPARER said his rate was 13% …” — Max

Again, no citation. But you have at least conceded that you 9% claim was bullshit. Baby steps.

• “Again, no citation. But you have at least conceded that you 9% claim was bullshit. Baby steps”

You people think you’re being clever with this argument? Really? When someone dummies up his own taxes by willingly not taking a deduction for appearance’s sake, you think that’s a win, huh?

Suit yourselves. If you’re stupid enough to buy it, wear it.

• Actually, Maxie, I’d be quite upset if it were true that Romney paid 9% of his investment income in taxes. Investment income shouldn’t be taxed at all.

• From the article: “There are two reasons that the Romneys’ tax bill is below 15%. According to their 2010 tax return (the latest available), Mr. and Mrs. Romney reduced their taxable income by the \$3 million they gave to charities.

The second and most important reason is the majority of the Romneys’ income is taxed twice – first at the corporate level, and a second time when they report it on their personal income tax return.”

So, what they did was to “rescue” their cause by adding back the tax that was paid by the corporation, etc..

• “Pathetic stuff, but the more you repeat the message, the more people believe it.” -Max Planck

What in the post is not factual?

The article points out that the top 1% had 18.9% of gross income and paid 37.4% of taxes. Do you not believe these facts are accurate?

Do you have a source for your claim that the top 1% own 40% of the wealth production?

Your comment about Romney is a red herring. Romney’s tax rate does not change the facts presented that the top 1% paid 37.4% of taxes.

• actually, according to forbes, the top 1% controls 43% of the wealth…… I would be satisfied if they were sharing at least 43% of the tax burden. I guess that is just unreasonable, though.

• They are sharing 95% of the tax burden now.

• First of all, Max Planck was a great physicist – stop pretending. Secondly, I pay more in tips that you do in taxes. Just say thank you to Mr. Romney and then stop whining. Mitt Romney paid more tax in 2012 that 90% of Americans will pay in their lifetime. The percentage is completely unimportant.

2. OK, so the 1% pay double their portion of total taxes since 1980.

And their total share of wealth since 1980 has well over tripled per epi.org, etc.

Yep, that’s totally fair and balanced. Can I buy some loopholes please Alex? /sarcasm

• And, of course, the usual sleight of hand with a title to the post suggesting it is about taxes in general when the specifics are really just about income taxes.

Oh why do so few people appreciate what a brutal ordeal it is to be rich in America?

• Does not the title state Income Taxes and the source is the IRS? This is not sleight of hand but rather <sleight reading comprehension on your part.

• Top 1% of American taxpayers pay almost as much in taxes as bottom 95%, and half of that group paid nothing in 2010
Mark J. Perry | December 27, 2012, 11:37 am

• New title of the post: “Top 1% of US taxpayers pay almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom 95%, and half of that group paid no taxes at all in 2010.”

• By the way, Dr. Perry, do you know what the point of all this was?

Let’s put it this way. The Clinton era tax rates didn’t seem particularly oppressive to anyone at the time, no one seemed to be complaining, especially as the economy was doing well, and creating jobs by the boatload, and then, under the flimisiest of excuses, Bush blew out the surplus he was given, and then cut the rates. But he never matched the Clinton era economy in it’s robustness, and the “growth” wasn’t created by the cuts, it was created by debt.

So what was the point of all this? Under your view ANY increase in revenue is a deal killer, no matter what the circumstance, even though it brought the country nothing but misery.

• Max, are you willing to go back to Clinton-era tax rates AND Clinton-era spending?

Regardless, government spending and revenue are too high.

• “Regardless, government spending and revenue are too high.”

Not really. Your Federal taxes are at a generational low. I don’t support higher taxes for its own sake, but we have a bit of a problem that has to be solved, just as when any individual takes on too much debt- it has to be brought under control.

If we’re successful, tax rates can always come down again. It’s a simple matter of doing what needs to be done, not blind ideology, which is what most of the people here are afflicted with. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be drinking this Kool Aid up.

• “Bush blew out the surplus he was given, and then cut the rates. But he never matched the Clinton era economy in it’s robustness, and the “growth” wasn’t created by the cuts, it was created by debt. ”

Oh, what a load of bilge from Max Pad. The dot com and Y2K bubbles exploded in 2000, and boy Clinton slipped out just as the roof was caving in. Bush “inherited” a recession, but didn’t whine like a little b*tch about it. True, he didn’t do a great job either, but I’ll go back to the Bush “growth created by debt” compared to the Obama debt avalanche any day of the week.

• The same stupid narrative:

“Oh, what a load of bilge from Max Pad. The dot com and Y2K bubbles exploded in 2000, and boy Clinton slipped out just as the roof was caving in. Bush “inherited” a recession, but didn’t whine like a little b*tch about it. True, he didn’t do a great job either, but I’ll go back to the Bush “growth created by debt” compared to the Obama debt avalanche any day of the week.”

The recession Bush inherited was the shallowest of the post war era, and the smartest thing to do was just to let the economy ride it out. It is amazing how hypocritical you people are time after time. You bemoan government intervention in the economy, but when you get a slowdown, what do you advocate?
Government intervention.

High tides and low ones are something we live with in a dynamic capitalist economy, and the trouble comes when people try try to fix things so no one pays the price. You only make things worse.

This jerk Bush and his buddy Hubbard put the economy and the banking system in the ICU, and we’re just getting out of it, thanks to this President.

• Of course you were Citizen B. And I was referring to the title to the post, not the title to a graph contained within the post…which is why I called it “the title to the post.”

3. Thanks for Max and flakester for clarifying that the only income tax rate hike that may(?) quench the redistribution blood lust is a retroactive one, one that checks back in time as far and as frequently as needed such that wealth growth does not quite get too high. Either that, or a mandate to dissipate wealth by frivoloius spending and.or malinvesting (wait, government does that bit already). But to be fair, what they are really longing for has a more respectable progressive pedigree: its called a wealth or an asset tax. That is one experience where tried has shown to kill the proverbial goose.

• You are too kind. These two are as ignorant as they come of the most elementary concepts of economics. Worse, they are devoid of even common sense.

They are inartful thieves who want to pretend that everyone else will stupidly agree that laundering theft through government makes it holy and moral.

Too bad for them. People who are clever enough to become wealthy are clever enough to turn this little war on them into a war on the flakesters and the Maxies. They will suffer by the blade of their own dull, rusty sword.

• “You are too kind. These two are as ignorant as they come of the most elementary concepts of economics. Worse, they are devoid of even common sense.

They are inartful thieves who want to pretend that everyone else will stupidly agree that laundering theft through government makes it holy and moral.

Too bad for them. People who are clever enough to become wealthy are clever enough to turn this little war on them into a war on the flakesters and the Maxies. They will suffer by the blade of their own dull, rusty sword.”

Gee, what prose. And another empty skull boasting of economic literacy, while presenting no evidence of it.

I guess for all this time, now that taxes are at a generational low, we’ve been “stealing” from the rich since WWII ended, and are only NOW on the true path of justice for the afflicted millionaires.

Great.

How do people get this stupid?

• max-

so, on what basis are you entitled to share in the success of others?

they work hard, take risks, and succeed. this provides them with wealth.

yet you feel entitled to some of it. why? what have you done that you deserve them to pay you? on what ethical basis does it make sense? lay it out from first principles. why are you owed free stuff?

you are so used to thinking in terms of class war and entitled theft that you do not even realize how ridiculous and indefensible your framing of this issue is.

you try to blame people for wanting to keep what they build and make.

that implies that they are not entitled to it and that you deserve some of the fruits of their labors.

so i am throwing down the challenge: why? lay it out from first principles. i’ll bet you can’t.

your going to resort to some feeble argument defending tyranny of the majority as though that justifies anyhting. it does not. if the majority favored slavery or taking away rights to political speech, would that make it right?

so have at it.

i’m terribly curious to watch you try to defend your entitled mindset.

• “what a load of crap.

so, on what basis are you entitled to share in the success of others?

they work hard, take risks, and succeed. this provides them with wealth.”

Polly want a cracker?

• QED.

no answer, just more febrile drivel.

you are a liar and a lightweight hiding behind vitriol, bluster, and distortions.

it’s pretty pathetic.

• “QED.

no answer, just more febrile drivel.

you are a liar and a lightweight hiding behind vitriol, bluster, and distortions.

it’s pretty pathetic”

Once again, you have accused me of being a liar, when I have not told a single untruth, and frankly, indulging every idiotic argument you present is not something I’m obliged to do.

The bottom line is this country spent recklessly, cut taxes at the same time, and before these wonderful policies were initiated by Messrs. Hubbard, Bush, and Cheney, the country was in pretty good shape.

Its time to pay the piper. Income inequality has grown, and we’re not going to put the burden on those who can’t afford it and whose lives have already been turned upside down thanks the bankrupt (literally) tautologies you and this site promote.

If you can’t hack the deficits, then goddamn it, pal, start RAISING REVENUES NOW. There’s no free lunch out of this mess, and those who can afford to pay, and milked the system the most, can come up with these piddling increases in tax rates.

• sure you have max.

you lied about the romney tax return.

it’s was not 9%.

this has been shown to you over and over.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

what would you call someone who keeps repeating the same untruth over and over despite having been shown that is it false if not a liar?

you tax cut claims are nonsense.

the big jump in receipts that led to near budget balance were caused by a tax cut.

when clinton hiked taxes, it did not increase revenues as a 5 of gdp. they remained mired at levels worse than any time in the 80′s. what drove it up was the cap gains cut.

at the time of the clinton budgets, only around 20-25% paid no taxes. now it’s 47%.

this has also been shown to you repeatedly, yet you continue to lie.

you claim over and over that you never lie, but you have done so provably right on this thread.

(of course, that also makes your claim about not lying a lie)

you’re just digging a hole here.

• “it’s was not 9%.

this has been shown to you over and over.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html

what would you call someone who keeps repeating the same untruth over and over despite having been shown that is it false if not a liar?”

OH, SCREW YOU, YOU MORON!! This tax evading crook DELIBERATELY GROSSED UP HIS EFFECTIVE TAX RATE IN TIME FOR THE ELECTION’S DISCLOSURE, by NOT TAKING THE DEDUCTIONS HE COULD HAVE.

“But the couple chose to deduct only \$2.25 million of their charitable contributions. The reason was “to conform” to Romney’s statement last month that he never paid less than 13% in income taxes over the past 10 years, Brad Malt, a lawyer who presides over the Romneys’ blind trust, said in a statement.”

You’re calling WHO “pathetic” and a “liar?”

Get a grip.

• “at the time of the clinton budgets, only around 20-25% paid no taxes. now it’s 47%. ”

Put Cox back in charge of the SEC, and you can make it 87%.

Dolt.

• “at the time of the clinton budgets, only around 20-25% paid no taxes. now it’s 47%.”

By the way: THIS WAS THE TAX CODE YOU VOTED FOR. We are living under the Glenn Hubbard designed tax code. As of now, NOTHING HAS CHANGED since Bush enacted that policy.

So don’t complain. You got PRECISELY what you wanted and we’re all living with the results.

• and this

“If you can’t hack the deficits, then goddamn it, pal, start RAISING REVENUES NOW.”

is just total nonsense.

hauser’s law has held for 60 years.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254034/hausers-law-reality-isnt-negotiable-veronique-de-rugy

you cannot raise revenues this high.

when you are spending 24-25% of gdp, it is NOT POSSIBLE to hike rates enough to cover it.

most of these deficits have come from increases in spending, not declines in revenues.

this makes your whole argument nonsense.

if you spend too much, the answer is to spend less, not tax more.

it is the jump in spending to 24-25% from 18.5% in 2000 that has resulted in the majority of this deficit.

as ever, you assume your premises. you start with the assumption that current spending levels are good/right/sustainable and then claim we need more money to support them. this ignores the fact that it is spending that has grown and that merely ending the FICA tax cut (one of the few federal taxes everyone pays) would get us back to normal tax revs as % of gdp but that such a level is not enough to pay for all this extra spending.

until federal expenditures are reduced to around 19% of GDP, the “we need more revenues” argument is as bogus as it is impossible.

• What rubbish! This is “Hauser’s Law”

“Higher taxes discourage the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income”

Which is essentially the same crap we’ve been fed by these shills for decades, without the slightest bit of empirical evidence to back it up. Does it bear mentioning the obvious again, that some of the most prosperous times in our nation’s history have had marginal rates far higher than they are now?

This isn’t “economics” you posted- it’s propaganda.

“Animal spirits.” Right.

I just know that \$38 a week increase in tax that someone who makes \$340,000 a year will pay, will just rain on his parade. No more Hermes ties. Farewell, lunch at “21.” Downsized from a 7 series to (gasp) a measly 5, without so much as a by your leave.

Oh, the inhumanity!!

(Jeez, these people will buy ANYTHING)

• “most of these deficits have come from increases in spending, not declines in revenues.”

Not true- Bush tax cuts cost us over \$3 trillion. BTW, the spending you care about so much is also represented in \$1.4 trillion in war expenditure, which oddly gets lost in these conversations, as if Iraq and Afghanistan were somehow part of the territory.

Let the Waltons pay for those. I’m busy.

• max-

you sure do get angry when you are proven to be a liar.

does that sort of fact free vitriol work for you? am i supposed to be impressed by your emotional tantrum and denial of facts?

you claim that paying more tax than required is tax evasion and accuse others of being morons?

wow.

you do realize that charitable donations ARE tax deductible, right?

oh, and did you net out tax exempt interest? thought not.

clown.

he paid 14% in 2010 as well.

oops, another max lie exposed.

do you even understand how cap gains taxes work?

if you take big losses (as many did in 2008) then you get to carry them forward for years like 2009.

this reduces an effective tax rate and prevents you from having to pay taxes on earning the same dollar twice.

if you have \$2, and lose \$1, you carry that loss forward and so the next \$1 you earn to get back to where you were is not taxed.

as a “financial planner” i’m surprised you do not know that and understand the temporary effect it can have on effective tax rates.

you are just a staggering liar and fraud max and on top of it, lack the basic maturity to deal with getting caught doing it.

so weak.

i also note that you have absolutely nothing to say on why you feel entitled to the fruits of others labor.

that’s because you are simply an entitled, angry fraud.

you know full well that you cannot defend your position, so you try to shift the conversation into vitriol.

there really is no talking to guys like you as you will just lie, prevaricate, and skirt the issue endlessly while hiding behind bluster, anger, and absurdity like calling someone who willingly paid MORE tax than required a “tax evading crook” which is utter nonsense.

can you seriously believe that romney’s tax returns have not been scrutinized to a forensic degree? tax avoidance is not tax evasion. effective financial planning does not make one a “crook”.

so here we find yet more PROVABLE max lies.

romney is neither a tax evader nor a crook based on taxes. you have not one shred of evidence to argue otherwise.

but of course you “never lie”.

you just keep digging this hole deeper.

see if you can get through one post without a provable lie.

that would be a good start.

• “you claim that paying more tax than required is tax evasion and accuse others of being morons?”

No, you flaming moron, and once again, having been caught in the vise of your own ignorance, the 9% number I quoted still holds.

When you’re in the position of DELIBERATELY NOT TAKING A DEDUCTION FOR APPEARANCES SAKE, I think that kind of seals the argument. As it is, Romney was so freaking dense and out of touch, did he actually think this 4% swing would make anyone believe the tax system was fair?

You’re beating a dead horse. He tax was duly calculated at an effective 9% rate by his preparer, and he through the government a tip. That doesn’t add up to 13% because he did it.

Sorry, You lose again.

• max-

what pure nonsense.

you clearly have no idea how taxes work and are trying to substitute possibilities for facts.

then you declare victory.

look, we get it. you are an emotional 4 year old and think tantrums prove points. you have no response to basic questions, lie about all your facts, get caught, then bluster, lie more, and try to shift the debate.

this stuff should have been weeded out of your in kindergarten.

then you make up a bunch of crap about “this is the tax code you wanted” as if you have any idea what i want.

that’s the idiot “if you are not on team blue you are on team red” illogical that partisan hacks fall back on because they cannot think.

you are a pure waste of time.

it’s clear that you are so attached to your dogma that you will lie over and over, make groundless accusations, bluster and scream to prevent your precious preconceptions from facing the harsh light of reality and being exposed as the fairy tales they are.

this is called cognitive dissonance and you appear to be the poster child.

even hard proof that you just lied has no effect on you.

you just ignore it. i note you have not even tried to defend the “tax evading crook” line.

i’m done. there is no point in speaking to someone so unhinged.

• “you clearly have no idea how taxes work and are trying to substitute possibilities for facts.”

You’ll never learn what I forgot. I’ve been filing returns for over forty frikkin years.

You can stamp your feet all you want. Dope.

• “The bottom line is this country spent recklessly, cut taxes at the same time, and before these wonderful policies were initiated by Messrs. Hubbard, Bush, and Cheney, the country was in pretty good shape.” — Max

Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that “the math,” as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts.

After President Bush in late May 2003 signed the largest tax cut since President Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from \$793.7 billion to a peak of \$1.16 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began, a 47% jump.

Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period. The budget gap plunged to \$160.7 billion from \$377.6 billion, according to the president’s report.

Perhaps the most impressive statistic appears on Page 412, one that undercuts Obama’s core argument against continuing the Bush tax cuts.

The post-tax-cut surge in economic growth and tax revenues helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of gross domestic product in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006 and to a manageable 1.2% in 2007.

Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018.
What derailed the forecast was the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008.

Obama’s economic report shows that the average deficit-to-GDP ratio during the entire Bush administration — 2001 to 2009 — was 2%, which is well below the 50-year average of 3%.

During the Obama years, in contrast, the same deficit ratio has averaged 9.1%.

The Bush tax cuts did not “cost” the Treasury revenues. Nor did they increase income inequality.

– “White House Data Debunk Myth Bush Cuts Built Deficit”, IBD

Let me guess, since it’s not from the website of the “Socialist Workers Party” so it must be bullshit.

• “Let me guess, since it’s not from the website of the “Socialist Workers Party” so it must be bullshit.”

Since I haven’t used that site, but I know that IBD is about as truthful as your average Gestapo agent, it IS bullsh*t.

You’re playing the same numbers game the other guys do when they want to prove their point.

Now, when things suit you, you use the percentage to GDP instead of raw dollars. So this makes it look like the tax cuts “worked,” even though the numbers themselves don’t prove that, by dint of causality.

So, yeah, it’s bullsh*t. It’s turning the telescope upside down to gussy up the numbers and make us forget that Bush left us with \$10 trillion in the hole, and a economy deflating faster than a peirced balloon.

Bush HAD no “economy.” This was a giant pump and dump fueled by leverage, not genuine growth, and it was never sustainable.

You’re only indoctrinating yourself with this stuff. You can’t work the numbers both ways.

• The largest part of Obama’s one-time “stimulus package” of close to \$900 billion has become part of the baseline federal budget and has been spent every year since:

Mr. Obama likes to pretend that he is the victim of a budget hit-and-run, as if the projected \$1.3 trillion deficit in 2011 is all the fault of his predecessor. But President Bush didn’t force the White House to request 1.8% of GDP more in new spending in 2011 than it did in 2010. Nor did Mr. Bush force the White House to assume that the stimulus transfer payments it created will be paid out into perpetuity. — “The Eternal Stimulus”, WSJ

The Bush tax cuts cost us nothing. In fact, revenue INCREASED after they were enacted.

As usual, “Max” doesn’t know his head from his ass.

• “The Bush tax cuts cost us nothing. In fact, revenue INCREASED after they were enacted.”

You people are really this stupid. You’re making the same idiotic claim for Bush that you make for Reagan’s “cuts.”

REAGAN TRIPLED THE DEFICIT.
BUSH DOUBLED IT.

You people are like behavioural specimens. You tell yourselves stories and you cheerfully nod your heads, running the numbers the way you want them.

Morgan is doing the same thing with Romney’s tax returns! Self delusion….

• “Bush left us with \$10 trillion in the hole …” — Max

You’re simply pulling numbers out of your ass here. Why stop at \$10 trillion? If you’re going to make shit up, why not \$20 0r \$30 trillion. Pathetic.

• Sir, the number is well documented. I don’t know what you’re arguing against here. I didn’t make it up.

• “Bush HAD no “economy.” This was a giant pump and dump fueled by leverage, not genuine growth, and it was never sustainable.” — Max

Talk about a “giant pump and dump fueled by leverage, not genuine growth”. Let’s see, Obama borrows 42 cents on every dollar that he spends. The Fed is now buying 90 perecnt of all treasury boind issuance, and you talk about Bush having no economy.

I don’t know what you’re on, but if it’s not illegal it ought to be.

• “Talk about a “giant pump and dump fueled by leverage, not genuine growth”. Let’s see, Obama borrows 42 cents on every dollar that he spends. The Fed is now buying 90 perecnt of all treasury boind issuance, and you talk about Bush having no economy. ”

Your response is meaningless, and reflects a wanton ignorance of the economy and it’s condition.

Thanks. I’m impressed.

• … the deficit crisis didn’t come from a reduction in federal income-tax revenue from George Bush’s tax policies, as we can see above … Nor is that the only bit of ill-informed Clinton nostalgia of late … In his eight years as President, Clinton reduced federal spending to 18.2 percent of GDP from 22.1 percent, thanks in large part to a Republican-controlled Congress that forced the issue. Defense spending as a portion of GDP declined by 1.8 points, but non-defense spending dropped by 2.2 points. Clinton and the Republicans in Congress cut spending on domestic discretionary programs as well as entitlement spending through welfare reform.

What followed afterward is instructive to the real problem of our current trillion-dollar trajectory of deficit spending. George Bush increased federal spending as a share of GDP by 2.6 points in two terms, and it wasn’t just spent on defense; the increase was split evenly between defense and non-defense spending, a remarkable statistic considering the two wars waged in those eight years.

Barack Obama managed to hike it 3.5 points in just one term, with 3.2 points going to non-defense spending. Under Obama, federal spending now exceeds 25 percent of GDP, and his has been the biggest increase of any of his predecessors over the last 60 years – even for two-term Presidents. — The Fiscal Times

• How you people dig up this propaganda to indoctrinate yourselves is a mystery for the ages. It uses the same charts as IBD did, and then it states this:

“That bubble also started in the Clinton era, albeit with plenty of assistance from Republicans who wanted to be seen as promoting home ownership and fairness. Congress under control of both parties gave Fannie and Freddie carte blanche to create mortgage-backed securities on bad loans in order to fund this bubble. When housing prices inevitably snapped, after a ten-year holiday from their traditional linkage to the rate of inflation, vast sums of imaginary wealth disappeared nearly overnight.”

Which I have aleady proven – as well as many others- is bullshit. F&F didn’t have “carte blanche” to securitize bad mortgages and even Wallison knows it.

It will always remain a mystery to me why people have a need to cling to these narratives, no matter what the evidence, or deny themselves the ability to follow the evidence and let them go where the truth is.

But they are unwilling. I have never understood this.

Free your minds, kiddies. Just like John Lennon said you should.

• “Study Says Community Reinvestment Act Induced Banks To Take Bad Risks

Max’s little mind explodes in – three … two … one …”

The piece was debunked even before Jimmy P. regurgitated it here.

You can’t cut and paste your way to literacy, and I believe I debunked the CRA lie 1000 times over.

Again: anytime some AEI hack or mouthpiece wants to debate me on this, let them come out of hiding and I will be happy to do so.

• “The piece was debunked even before Jimmy P.I regurgitated it here. I believe I debunked the CRA lie 1000 times over.” — Max

Well, if you believe it it must be true. I have absolutely no doubt that the acceptance of anything that you assert is a faith based proposition. And if you’ve said it “1000 times over”, well, more’s the force.

• Everyone needs to bow down and worship the 1%, of whom I’m a part. Not too many more years and we’ll own you and your entire family – even your steenking little dogs!!!
We already own most large and medium sized companies and politicians!

Gawd… how stupid can you people be when it’s all handwritten on the wall throughout history? It doesn’t get get prettier from here for years.

Signed,
Mr. Cassandra

4. There’s a limit to how much those cash cows are going to allow you to milk them.

The incentive for parasites who receive payment to consume milk is to consume as much as possible. The incentive for those who are forced to buy it at an ungodly price is to agree to buy as little of it as possible (produce as little taxable income as possible).

When the incentive is to be a parasite, the outcome is pretty ugly.

• This is the thing. For a moment, throw out the fairness arguments – whether it’s right or wrong for “wealthy” individuals to pay significantly higher rates because they earn significantly higher incomes.

If you work 30 hours a week at a rate of \$10 per hour, are you really going to bust it for another 10 hours at \$1 per hour? Using high income people as a way to bankroll a bloated government is clearly a road to financial ruin, “fair” or not.

• This is a sham argument. I have never heard of the tax code affecting someone’s attitude towards their work, or their profession. When the top rate was as high as 90%, it didn’t change the motivation of the people who fit into that bracket. People drive themselves to success because they have set professional goals for themselves. The tax code never changed anyone’s behaviour towards their work.

I’ve been in the workforce since I was 15 years old. I’m 60 now, and I tell you I have never seen this construct in evidence, ever.

• You’re an idiot, Maxie. When the top marginal tax rate was 91% nobody ever paid that rate. Reagan famously explained that when his income got so high that the next dollar was going to be taxed at 91%, he took off to his ranch until the end of the year and kicked back. And then let’s not forget the endless deductions. Everything from your car payments to credit card debt and farting was deductible. This is a well known fact to anybody who is capable of understanding and knowing facts.

Despite a wildly fluctuating tax rate, the government has only ever been able to collect an average of 18% of GDP.

But, if people work only for the joy of it, Maxie, how about we raise YOUR tax rate to 100%? Why does the middle class whine so much about its tax rate if all they care about is professional goals?

I’m over all of you. I’m happy to let you choke on your own stupidity. All I can tell you is that you’ll never get your grubby paws on my money.

• “Reagan famously explained that when his income got so high that the next dollar was going to be taxed at 91%, he took off to his ranch until the end of the year and kicked back”

Oh, I’m sure Ronnie said just that! Give me a break.

• “But, if people work only for the joy of it, Maxie, how about we raise YOUR tax rate to 100%? Why does the middle class whine so much about its tax rate if all they care about is professional goals?

I’m over all of you. I’m happy to let you choke on your own stupidity. All I can tell you is that you’ll never get your grubby paws on my money.”

One, I’m not advocating going back to that rate schedule, or tax code. Secondly, I sincerely doubt you wil be affected one whit by Obama’s proposed tax increases as I doubt you make that much.*

Secondly, I am not taking it from you, even if you did.

(*wait for obligatory retort of feigned insult that the poster is making millions and is deeply offended by these increases, while he probably won’t see 250k in one place for his entire life)

• Flakey,

I didn’t say the tax RATE was 18%. I said that government collected tax REVENUE equivalent to an average of 18% of GDP REGARDLESS of the posted tax RATES. Huge difference.

• Flake,

I really don’t think you could possibly choose a more descriptive name for yourself. Good Lord, you’re an idiot.

You didn’t get a meaningless word wrong, you have no idea what was said.

• Why wouldn’t incentives/disincentives affect people’s work? I suppose you also don’t believe that tax breaks and a subsidized mortgage market encouraged many folks to buy houses.

I don’t see how one’s “attitude towards their work” is exempt from the laws of economics. Furthermore, it’s clearly apparent that people go out of their way to exploit incentives in the tax code.

• “Why wouldn’t incentives/disincentives affect people’s work? I suppose you also don’t believe that tax breaks and a subsidized mortgage market encouraged many folks to buy houses.

I don’t see how one’s “attitude towards their work” is exempt from the laws of economics. Furthermore, it’s clearly apparent that people go out of their way to exploit incentives in the tax code.”

I can see where you’re coming from, and tax breaks on mortgages are an incentive and a selling point, but ask yourself, if you were a father who wanted the best for his children, would the tax break affect your decisioning process? In fact, some believe the tax break merely inflates the cost of the house (I think it does too) so it may even be a zero sum game here.

But if you read about any successful business person, or someone who took up a trade or a career, the tax rate hardly was a factor in driving their ambitions.

Wouldn’t you agree?

• Maxie thick as a plank Lojick:

If you’re a father who wants the best for his children then you should work as hard as you can and as many hours as you can to keep only 19% of your earnings. That way, you will neither spend time with your children nor materially provide for them. The best of both worlds! Hooray!

Yet, the Soviets couldn’t make that work. Maybe we just didn’t have as many simpering idiots as Maxie. That was the problem.

• “If you’re a father who wants the best for his children then you should work as hard as you can and as many hours as you can to keep only 19% of your earnings. That way, you will neither spend time with your children nor materially provide for them. The best of both worlds! Hooray!”

Keep up with the adults, OK?

• That should be 9% of what you earn because thick as a plank thinks that incentives don’t matter…except when they do….but he can’t tell when they do…and when they don’t…and it’s just so….confusing for him.

• No, Maxie. You are saying exactly that, it’s just that you’re too stupid to realize that’s what you’re saying. Morons like you spew this kind of crap all the time and then when you’re faced with your BS restated in plain language instead of the confused, self-righteous rivers of drool you’re accustomed to vomiting up, you’re too stupid to recognize it. Hardly a surprise since it’s clear to everyone capable of crossing a busy street unassisted that you have no clue what you’re talking about.

• “No, Maxie. You are saying exactly that, it’s just that you’re too stupid to realize that’s what you’re saying. Morons like you spew this kind of crap all the time and then when you’re faced with your BS restated in plain language instead of the confused, self-righteous rivers of drool you’re accustomed to vomiting up, you’re too stupid to recognize it. Hardly a surprise since it’s clear to everyone capable of crossing a busy street unassisted that you have no clue what you’re talking about.”

Wow, we all learned a lot from that response.

• You’re right, Maxie. “We” probably didn’t since everything I said is obvious to everyone but you.

• “You’re right, Maxie. “We” probably didn’t since everything I said is obvious to everyone but you.”

You forgot who won the election. You’re quite alone, I assure you.

• Everyone on this blog, Maxie. I realize that your fellow brain damaged peasants, dumbed down by the NEA in the Public Propaganda Skoolz are as incompetent and slow-witted as you and you are most certainly becoming a majority in America.

• Good gawd, yet another one that we already own who can’t even see the nose in front of his face, tax code and ‘incentive’ wise!

What a fewl.

5. I know in Silicon Valley, there are so many regulations, taxes, fees, fines, fares, tolls, etc. that the cost of living is sky high, while many businesses have enormous production costs and can’t pay many of their workers much.

6. Maybe the law is getting back to the original intent of the 16th Amendment. When the income tax law was passed in 1913, the first \$3000 was not taxed and couples received a \$1000 exemption, so the first \$4000 was not taxed. That \$4,000 in 1913 dollars is \$93,018.59 in 2012 dollars according to the BLS CPI calculator. All Originilists should be OK with no couple who makes less than \$93,018.59 paying federal income taxes.

Most of the Carpe Diem posters did not have a problem with free rider non-union members in RTW states. Why is there a problem with free rider taxpayers who receive services without paying for them?

• We need to qualify it as non income tax payers. Ignoring FICA for the moment there are a lot of state and local taxes that folks pay, so more fair would be a total tax by income distribution not federal income tax alone. Or fix it by a new minimum income tax, where if you must file a return you will pay (or have the refund reduced by) \$10 so you have paid some income tax.

• Lyle, the largest tax is the federal income tax. Sure, people pay other taxes. However, everyone who is forced to pay the federal income tax is also forced to pay the same state and local taxes as well. In some key states, the state tax is also progressive and lower income earners get more out of social security than they put in while the opposite is true for high income earners.

• walt-

that is a completely misframed argument.

if a union forces itself upon others who may not wish to join, that was their decision. they possessed agency in the matter and used it to deprive others of liberty and property. if there are any externalities to be doled out on the negative side, they deserve to face them. they created the situation so if the choice is that they do not get full recompense for taking away liberty or that innocent suffer for somehting they do not want, the choice is clear. the losses should fall on the union.

the same is true of taxpayers. if 50% pay no tax and vote to make the others pay more, they are in the role of the union. they are taking away the property of others and wielding the tyranny of the majority. they are both the side with agency and the free rider. thus, it is entirely consistent to argue against forced fees and for voting yourself money from someone else’s pocket.

it’s the same thing: using force of law and majority to force others to pay you.

the rest of your argument is just logical fallacy. it’s appeal to practice. just because it was done in the past provides no information about whether it was right or fair. therefore, it provides no basis on which to argue about such things in a modern system.

• “the same is true of taxpayers. if 50% pay no tax and vote to make the others pay more,…”

morgan and Walt, additonally, 80% of that 50% also get a “tax refund” in the form of the earned income tax credit.

• morgan and Walt, additonally, 80% of that 50% also get a “tax refund” in the form of the earned income tax credit.

EITC was a Republican idea. It was supposed to incentivize keeping a job.

• “morgan and Walt, additonally, 80% of that 50% also get a “tax refund” in the form of the earned income tax credit.”

And they spend it all to keep our consumption economy running and pay their bills. And in a few years, they move up and out of that group. The bottom 50% of taxpayers is not any more static than the 50% of top income earners over time. Most of us will pay substantial taxes, federal and otherwise, over the majority of our lifetimes.

• “The bottom 50% of taxpayers is not any more static than the 50% of top income earners over time. Most of us will pay substantial taxes, federal and otherwise, over the majority of our lifetimes.”

So? Exit polls showed the bottom 50% of taxpayers sure do like to vote themselves some freebies regardless of the dynamics.

• to claim that for a union to vote to take away the property of others is somehow different than a low income worker doing the same seems odd to me. it amounts to the same thing:

a majority using the law to enrich itself at the expense of a minority.

you can wrap it up in justifications about “you benefit form this representation” but that does not alter the fundamental situation.

also note:

there is another glaring flaw in the comparison to 1913 that you use.

in 1913, the federal government was not in the wealth redistribution business.

that money was for national defense, a little infrastructure, and not much else. the federal budget was <2% of gdp in peacetime.

now, 1/2 to nearly 2/3 (depending on how you count) of the budget is wealth redistribution.

that is a major difference.

• “a majority using the law to enrich itself at the expense of a minority.”

It’s an electoral majority using their Constitutionally guaranteed right of suffrage to effect the policy they want.

Under your view, you must believe we have gotten this wrong since the first tax was imposed, and the current levels represent some sort of divine compromise.

• max-

a right to suffrage is irrelevant.

if a majority of people supported slavery, would that make it OK?

tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

our constitution gave primacy to the rights of the individual, not the will of the demos.

find me the clause in the constitution that allows the federal government to operate welfare, social security, health care programs, or redistribute wealth.

don’t forget:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

if it is not explicitly there, then it is not constitutional.

the power to tax is NOT the power to spend such money on wealth redistribution.

your grasp of the constitution seems even worse than your grasp of tax policy.

• “if a majority of people supported slavery, would that make it OK?”

This argument is nonsense. Taxes have been around since Ninevah and Tyre. They’re necessary and they have to be paid.

You’re being childish.

• Maxie can’t even begin to understand the content of Morganovich’s thread. He’s just wondering when he’ll get his opportunity to make a case for robbing someone. What a shock.

• “Maxie can’t even begin to understand the content of Morganovich’s thread. He’s just wondering when he’ll get his opportunity to make a case for robbing someone. What a shock.”

Morganovich is under the impression that tax policy dating from 1913 has been in error, and only holding on to current marginal rates is somehow appropriate.

It’s not “robbing” anyone. Grow up.

• It sure is fun to watch Max Pad get his ass whupped then come back sputtering with rage. I can totally picture the spittle frothing from his mouth and hitting the screen as he pecks his venomous retort onto the keyboard.

• “just because it was done in the past provides no information about whether it was right or fair. therefore, it provides no basis on which to argue about such things in a modern system.”

morganovich, I agree that the Constitution is a living document, but many here are Textualists/Originalists. The federal income tax was originally only supposed to apply to those at the top income levels. Most of the people who pay no federal income tax or negative income tax are either temporarily poor, young low-income families, or old people. Those people, hopefully, will not live most of their lives in those groups. I doubt very few people will escape all of the tax men all of their lives.

• “I agree that the Constitution is a living document, but many here are Textualists/Originalists.” — Walt

The Constitution is “living” only in the sense that it can be amended.

• You’re wrong, Che. I wish you weren’t but you so obviously are. the constitution is not a “living” document, but it is treated as such and if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…..

The Constitution is an irrelevant and quaint historical document that has no purpose other than to distract the peasants from the reality in which they find themselves. We are the slaves of government and our soft tyranny (in the modern meaning of the world) is quickly turning into a hard tyranny. Only when Americans come to terms with this reality will anything change, but we are too busy being dazzled by the promises of a luxurious lifestyle provided to us at the expense of everyone else.

7. “the Walton family own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.”

• Translation: the Waltons have created more wealth than the lazy, thieving Max Plancks of the world.

What a coincidence that someone thick as a plank would be named one. On the other hand, family names are descriptive. It seems Max is plagued with hereditary thickness.

the waltons have probably done more good for the bottom 40% of americans than the whole of the bottom 40%.

don’t forget:

they got their money by offering people things that they valued at more than they cost.

they got rich because they were so good at offering attractive propositions to others.

that is the precise opposite of democracy enabled redistributive muggings.

• ““the Walton family own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.”

The Walton family got that wealth by providing exactly the goods that the bottom 40% desired, at prices which were lower than anyone else. Walmart has done more to raise the standard of living in this nation than anyone.

RJS, do you believe the Walton family is entitled to the wealth they possess? Do you believe they are just as much entitled to that wealth as the middle income householder is entitled to his?

8. “If every U.S. taxpayer purchased a gallon of milk, each person would pay \$2.49, and the total cost would be 140.5 million times \$2.49 — or \$349 million.

Now let’s assume the government treated milk like government services and determined its price the same way it determines tax rates. The pricing would change as follows:

When the bottom 40 percent of earners buy their milk, they won’t pay a dime for it. In fact, the government would give them \$1 in reverse payments for every gallon of milk they purchase. The total cost of providing one gallon of milk to each person in this group would be \$196.1 million.

The cost of providing milk to the remaining 60 percent of the taxpayers would be \$209.9 million, bringing the total cost burden of all taxpayers’ milk to \$406 million.

Under our existing tax rates, instead of paying \$2.49 a gallon, the top 1 percent of earners would pay 38 percent of the total milk burden or \$109.81 for a gallon of milk.”

Hey, this sounds like a great idea! The poor would get free milk (and sustenance) and get paid for it. The very wealthy would pay a fortune for milk. After all, they have the available funds and are not likely to starve. To make it even better, this could be built into the tax system. The wealthy could deduct all costs of living and the poor would have more income to be taxed. Sounds like a winner all the way around.

Oh, but then we would have to have tax reform. Good luck!

• Sorry, the preceding was written for another section.

9. So, there is something to this kind of post being disingenuous:
“The total effective tax rate for the richest one percent (30.0) is only about five percentage points higher than the total effective tax rate for the middle fifth of taxpayers (25.1). All Americans pay taxes. Everyone who works pays federal payroll taxes. Everyone who drives pays federal and state gas taxes. State sales taxes affect everyone who shops, and state and local property taxes affect everyone who owns or
rents a home (the tax is passed on to renters in the form of higher rents). Most states also have income taxes, most of which are not particularly progressive.
Many conservative lawmakers and pundits focus only on those federal taxes that affect the rich
more, like the federal personal income tax, estate and gift tax and corporate income tax. But
as these figures illustrate, the tax system as a whole, including all the types of taxes that
people pay, is just barely progressive.”
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

• Thanks.

In addition, it’s important to realize that marginal income tax rates were dropped during the Bush Administration as the payroll tax surpluses could cover much of the resulting deficits. This policy was predicated on the promise to repay the trust funds out of future income taxes receipts. Apparently, they said the tax cuts would pay for themselves, or some such.

• Thankyou!.Yes, all the vigor over the fed tax and YES people forget that there are sales tax,fees for everything,property taxes that do get passed on to the renters etc.If the minimum wage weren’t so pathetic (for 9 years it did not go up although because of COL, it effectively went down 22%) then the lower 20% could get to a point where the EIC (which is only 0.11% of GDP) could be reduced,food stamps and rent subsidies as well. The inequality of pay in this country creates the need for less than ideal tax rates.Get the lower %50 up in income,install a decent deduction and impose a straight %30 flat tax on all incomes/proceeds wages,cap gains etc.

• I think you’re jumping around there. Just because total tax burdens are a lot more equal than federal income taxes, that does not imply that the changes that you suggest would be helpful.

10. One common retort to these facts is that many of the people who have zero or negative income tax liabilities do pay some payroll taxes.

It would be interesting to see how the negative tax liabilities wash against the payroll taxes they do pay. I haven’t seen anyone yet make the point that the negative tax liabilities offset the payroll taxes paid.

• Most calculations of actual tax burden include negative tax liabilities. While the methodology of the Citizens for Tax Justice citation isn’t shown, the results are similar to other reports that do include negative tax liabilities, such as the EITC.

11. three points
one, the contrast between font and background, at least in my browser, is way to light; this site is really hard to read.
Second, Would you agree that a family of 4 with a gross annual income (cash + gov’t transfers + etc) of 25,000 has less disposable income – after paying for necessities like housing, food, gas to get to work, etc
then a family of four with an annual income of 500,000 dollars ?
this is why the rich can, and should, pay more
third, as you should well know, almost everyone pays a lot of tax in excise and sales, and often as % of income this is high, and that many of hte nonincome tax payers are active duty service personell
so, the AEI is saying that active duty soldiers are not bearing their share of the tax burden….great

12. Ezra

three points
one, the contrast between font and background, at least in my browser, is way to light; this site is really hard to read.

Second, Would you agree that a family of 4 with a gross annual income (cash + gov’t transfers + etc) of 25,000 has less disposable income – after paying for necessities like housing, food, gas to get to work, etc
then a family of four with an annual income of 500,000 dollars ?

That’s almost certainly true, yes.

This is why the rich can, and should, pay more

Wait a minute, you have no idea whether that is true. There’s no connection. That’s just you imposing your view on others. Assuming both families worked hard to earn every penny of their income, why do you believe they should be taxed differently? Do you believe the higher income family gets a great deal more in government services for their tax money? If not, why should they pay more?

third, as you should well know, almost everyone pays a lot of tax in excise and sales, and often as % of income this is high, and that many of hte nonincome tax payers are active duty service personell
so, the AEI is saying that active duty soldiers are not bearing their share of the tax burden….great

This sounds like more than one point.

Yes almost everyone pays sales and other taxes. If you had a point there I don’t know what it is.

In case you’ve missed it, active duty soldiers are paid employees just like any other workers. They volunteer to do the jobs they do for pay. If you don’t think they are paid enough, then you might want to make that point, but there’s no reason their income should be taxed any differently than that of any other wage earner.

• “Assuming both families worked hard to earn every penny of their income, why do you believe they should be taxed differently?”

That’s just what it is- an assumption. The old expression “money goes to money” holds true. You’re re-litigating 19th century arguments about free market capitialism- we know it’s a good thing for human progress, but left without any constraints, it can wildly distort the distribtution of it’s benefits.

This is what is happening now, and the statistics on who has gained and who has lost in the past three decades has nothing to do with effort. Some of it is policy, through taxes and incentives, and, let’s face it, some of it is just dumb luck- being in the right place in the right time.

Because of my trade, I’ve met all kinds of wealthy people- some are full of themselves, and others will tell you- they were just damned lucky.

Romney tried to get away with the idea that if you weren’t wealthy, that was due to a character flaw. Pretty rich talk from a guy who was born to his wealth.

He is now consigned to insignificance.

13. That’s just what it is- an assumption.

OK, then there is no assumption. Both families worked hard to earn every penny of their income, why do you believe they should be taxed differently?”

• It’s not “tired” and again, the data is there to prove it.

Put down the vulgate and just look at the numbers.

• I believe Max Blank just answered “Yes. I’m jealous. Thus, I never get tired of that argument.”

It’s a favourite meme of inartful thieves.

• “I believe Max Blank just answered “Yes. I’m jealous.”

Believe me, sweetie: I wouldn’t be jealous of ANY of you clowns. I wouldn’t aspire to being someone like you at all.

The “jealosy” theme is always brought up though. It puts the character flaw on those seeking to make things right.

In any case, you’re going down, either today if they get a deal, or tomorrow, if they don’t.

Thanks for playing. You can only con people for so long.

• Thanks for playing. You can only con people for so long.

LOL You’re right about that one. It’s been a long time since you’ve been taken seriously by anyone at this blog.

• “LOL You’re right about that one. It’s been a long time since you’ve been taken seriously by anyone at this blog.”

In the case of “this blog,” that is a high compliment, indeed.

Thanks.

• In the case of “this blog,” that is a high compliment, indeed.

Then the only possible explanation for your continuing to spew venomous nonsense here is that you enjoy being ridiculed.

• Sonny, if you think I’M the one “being ridiculed” based on my posts, you’re truly delusional.

You live in a world of your own, full of “principles” and devoid of reality.

• Sonny, if you think I’M the one “being ridiculed” based on my posts, you’re truly delusional.

Well then maybe you just don’t know what the word “ridicule” means.

• “Well then maybe you just don’t know what the word “ridicule” means.”

More chin drool……

• The “jealosy” theme is always brought up though. It puts the character flaw on those seeking to make things right.

The jealousy theme is the only possible explanation for people like you whining about others earning and having more than you. There’s certainly no economic argument to be made. There’s nothing to be “made right”.

• “The jealousy theme is the only possible explanation for people like you whining about others earning and having more than you. There’s certainly no economic argument to be made. There’s nothing to be “made right”.”

Sure there is. Under socialism, you have a government that owns corporations. Under what you delude yourself to be a “free market” we now have a government owned by corporations.

There’s PLENTY to be made right.

• Sure there is. Under socialism, you have a government that owns corporations. Under what you delude yourself to be a “free market” we now have a government owned by corporations.

There’s PLENTY to be made right.

In that case your misdirected tantrums should be aimed, not at the rich, but at reducing the value of government to business. Limited government might lessen your angst.

• “In that case your misdirected tantrums should be aimed, not at the rich, but at reducing the value of government to business. Limited government might lessen your angst.”

We have the government we have chiefly because a liot of people WANTED it that way. Some clown sent me a “study” by CATO on capital gains. First, like this site, CATO doesn’t “study” so much as propagandize.

But they were comparing the US to countries like New Zealand! And as all know, New Zealand has a huge naval fleet in the Mediterranean, and protects the Strait of Hormuz, while concurrently fighting two useless wars.

This is a big country, and it NEEDS a big government, and besides, so much of what it does merely benefits the ones who are already made wealthy.

To what do the Koch Brothers owe their success to? Government incentives!

Look, the Government doesn’t get everything right, it over reaches, it wastes money, in other words, it accomplishes what all other human endeavors normally do.

Your blind hatred of government is a fetish, not a policy.

As always, Maxie Blank shares his deeply considered scholarly opinion.

First, like this site, CATO doesn’t “study” so much as propagandize.

Mmmm-hmmm. Unlike your boy, Paul Krugnuts. do go on.

But they were comparing the US to countries like New Zealand!

whereas you Libtards constantly compare the U.S. to Sweden and Norway to justify your socalism.

This is a big country, and it NEEDS a big government,

Now who is propagandizing rather than studying? Oh, well, if you aggressively assert it in ALL CAPS then nobody can argue with it. If you bang your fist on the table while holding on to your lapel with the other hand, it would be even harder to argue with. Also maybe try banging your shoe! But, in a pinch, an emoticon will do.

To what do the Koch Brothers owe their success to? Government incentives!

Thasss riiiight, beyoootches! The Kochs don’t respond to natural incentives that exist in the market. NO!!! There are no incentives to produce unless government puts them there (Says Law is a lie!!)….by promising to steal everything above subsistence living and distributing it to those too lazy to do anything at all – like Max. Iron clad Maxie Blank logic in full bloom.

Your blind hatred of government is a fetish, not a policy.

This is a well thought-out opinion. NOT propaganda. Very very bad, unconvincing propaganda.

I love you, maxie. Nobody but nobody provides more entertainment on this comment section than you do. Every court needs a jester and Mark Perry’s is no different.

• Methinks:

I love you, maxie. Nobody but nobody provides more entertainment on this comment section than you do. Every court needs a jester and Mark Perry’s is no different.

I do hope the other member of the jester tag team, Logical Larry, will step up soon to relieve his partner. I fear you’ve just about used this one up.

• “I do hope the other member of the jester tag team, Logical Larry, will step up soon to relieve his partner. I fear you’ve just about used this one up.”

translation of Ron H.’s comment:

“Nyah, nyah, nyah.”

Great counterpoint. Oxford awaits.

14. Ron H: Wait a minute, you have no idea whether that is true. There’s no connection.

Maybe the rich should pay less. Maybe the poor should pay the rich like in the feudal system. There’s no arguing values, but most people today reject that notion.

• Z: “Maybe the rich should pay less. Maybe the poor should pay the rich like in the feudal system. There’s no arguing values, but most people today reject that notion.

If you are truly interested in everyone paying their fair share, than you must agree that the poor should be taxed at a higher rate than the rich to make up for their being less productive.

• “If you are truly interested in everyone paying their fair share, than you must agree that the poor should be taxed at a higher rate than the rich to make up for their being less productive.”

Sickness, defined.

• Yeah, honey! You tell that Ron H.! There’s nothing more sick and disgusting and disincentivizing theft and laziness! Those things should be rewarded!

• “Yeah, honey! You tell that Ron H.! There’s nothing more sick and disgusting and disincentivizing theft and laziness! Those things should be rewarded!”

A stupid remark from a stupid person. Again: no one in real life fantasizes about their tax rates when it comes to accomplishing their task.

No doubt there are lazy people out there, but in human history, progress was neither aided nor hindered by a tax bracket.

• Maybe both rich and poor should pay for only the services they are actually getting for the money that’s stolen from them.

15. Starting off To say “payed no tax, and negative tax rates” are abominations that stalin and goebbels would be proud of, the income tax is around 1/3rd of the budget, and the top 1% own more then 1/3rd of everything in america. an equal amount as per ownership of the country and it’s guarantee that your property is respected and honored. finally S.S tax which is 400B less then Income tax hits everyone similarly and it caps at 125,000. and the bottom 60% has around 2-6000 annual disposable income, compared to the top 1%(325k annual) that have minimal 100k disposable.

16. I read over these comments &, Max, you are a bully! There are people here that made great comments backed with some sturdy support but you disregard their support without even looking into it. You have been incredibly rude to those that presented factual information contrary to your belief, let me reiterate, Belief. Your counter-arguments have been comprised of verbal effluence, aggressive remarks, name-calling, & a stunningly arrogant tone. By what you have shown here, it shows to me that you are not open-minded & definitely not a humble person.

17. I see these statistics as completely useless to the real problem in america: over-taxation of the middle class.

While these charts do indicate that the upper class is steadily shouldering more of the burden, I do not necessarily see this as a bad thing.

I do see that statistics like these tend to obfuscate the real problem by providing fuel to inflame the already peaked passions of the middle class, since they are often not possessing of sufficient intellectual capacity to realize that their own best cause is completely omitted by these statistical charts.

18. Let’s not fall into the trap that tries to link how much wealth someone has to how much they should pay in INCOME taxes.

If someone has a mind for business and creates a business that annuitizes their wealth, or if they are in a specialized field (surgeon for example), or are a gifted athlete, or whatever, how they made the money is not the point.

The point is that after they’ve earned the income, by whatever means, when it comes to income taxes, it is the equivalent of them paying 50 times as much as the average person, yet not get anything more for that increased payment than the average person does. And the follow-on point is that this sort of calculation should be taken into account when looking at whether or not income taxes are fair (regardless of the “rate” they are paying).

If you think taxes should be levied on assets that someone already owns, then you should advocate a “wealth tax”. But I don’t think this country is ready for that type of Communism.

19. Max Planck is one of the biggest idiots I have seen on the internet to date. The way you think is just absolutely sad.

• Are we still questioning whether the top 1% control 40+% of the wealth? Wealth distribution is highly documented and the facts are that wealth in America is highly concentrated at the top. “In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent” (Joseph E. Stiglitz) Hell, I know that most people have seen the video on wealth inequality. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM) Even Michael Moore’s comment that “The top 1 percent owns more financial wealth than bottom 95 percent” has been shown to be mostly true by PolitiFact. From a worldwide perspective, the top 100 billionaires are worth a combined 2.1 trillion dollars. “The top 10 percent of earners took more than half of the country’s total income in 2012, the highest level recorded since the government began collecting such data a century ago, according to an updated study by prominent economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.” The questions we have to ask ourselves is whether in time of financial turmoil, such as right now, should the multi-million dollar income earners be marginally taxed at say 90% on income over, lets say 10 million? Should we levy estate taxes on mega billionaires? Should corporations worth billions and profitable pay zero taxes. I think yes, we should leverage this resource and find ways to penalize those who attempt to dodge the taxation. The mega rich, and I’m not talking about 300 or 400 thousand dollar a year households, I’m talking multi-million aires with billion dollar estates, should be paying into the nation that they have managed to ring dry over the past few decades.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021795994_incomegapxml.html