47% will pay no federal income tax

[Barefootsies]

An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.

The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

The issue doesn't get a lot of attention even as lawmakers debate how to pay for policy initiatives like health reform, whether to extend the Bush tax cuts and how to reduce the deficit.

The vast majority of households making up to $30,000 fall into the category, as do nearly half of all households making between $30,000 and $40,000.

As you move up the income scale the percentages drop.

Nearly 22% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 end up with no federal income tax liability or negative liability as do 9% of households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000.

Of course, income taxes don't tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates.

A key reason why there is a zero-liability group at all is because the U.S. tax system is progressive. Those who bring in more money pay more than those lower down the income scale to support government functions such as national defense and social safety nets like Medicaid for those in need. That progressivity can be dialed up or down.

"Some think it's too progressive. Some don't think it's progressive enough," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center.

President Obama falls into the latter camp. He has proposed increasing the income tax burden on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000, while offering new measures to reduce the tax bite for most Americans making less.

One of Obama's proposals is to extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for everyone except high-income tax filers, which was the group that derived the most benefit from those cuts.

As a result, under Obama's budget, he would keep the ranks of the non-payers higher than they would otherwise be.
Why the tax-free matter

The question of who pays and who doesn't is not a trivial matter. But Washington policymakers are not dealing with it in an explicit way.

And that's a problem, given the country's fiscal outlook.

If asked to vote up or down on whether they are comfortable with such a large group of voters contributing no federal income tax or payroll tax revenue, the majority may well decide it is appropriate given the means of the households involved. Or they may decide that it's not.

Either way, that decision should inform the debate about the many costly policies and deficit-reduction strategies that lawmakers will be grappling with for years to come.

"As the number [of nonpayers] becomes larger, we have to question whether we'll make good decisions about how to allocate resources," economist George Zodrow, a professor at Rice University. "Most people don't understand how skewed the tax distribution is."

Experts say that to pay for all the things on the country's growing tab, the money can't just come from a shrunken pool of taxpayers.

"Over the long run, you'll have to have a broader base," Zodrow said.[/IMG]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/t...ex.htm?cnn=yes

[woj]

you gotta be kidding me...

[IllTestYourGirls]

So? Why do you hate that?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

The bigger problem which I see is the shift in income towards the top 1%.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Top 1 Percent of Americans Reaped Two-Thirds of Income Gains in Last Economic Expansion

Income Concentration in 2007 Was at Highest Level Since 1928, New Analysis Shows

By Avi Feller and Chad Stone
September 9, 2009

Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.

During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.

The last economic expansion began in November 2001 and ended in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which means the Piketty-Saez data essentially cover that expansion. The last time such a large share of the income gain during an expansion went to the top 1 percent of households — and such a small share went to the bottom 90 percent of households — was in the 1920s.

In 2007, the bottom 90 percent of households were those with incomes below about $110,000. The next 9 percent were those with incomes between $110,000 and about $400,000, and the top 0.1 percent were those with incomes above about $2,000,000. Calculations are in current 2007 dollars.

Income gains have been even more pronounced among those at the very top of the income scale. The incomes of the top one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1 percent) of U.S. households have grown more rapidly than the incomes of the top 1 percent of households as a whole, rising by 94 percent — or $3.5 million per household — since 2002. The share of the nation’s income flowing to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households increased from 7.3 percent of the total income in the nation in 2002 to 12.3 percent in 2007. This is the highest level in the Piketty-Saez data going back to 1913, surpassing even the previous peak in 1928.

The uneven distribution of economic gains in recent years continues a longer-term trend that began in the late 1970s. In the three decades following World War II (1946-1976), robust economic gains were shared widely, with the incomes of the bottom 90 percent actually increasing more rapidly in percentage terms, on average, than the incomes of the top 1 percent. But in the three decades since 1976, the incomes of the bottom 90 percent of households have risen only slightly, on average, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have soared.

Guess who has primarily benefitted from the bailouts?

For most people, they will simply pay more taxes to cover the mistakes of the wealthiest 1%, while the rich who screwed up everything due to their greed, reap big tax payer fed bonuses.

The politicians only support Socialism that benefits their masters, the rich.

Eat the rich...

ADG

[woj]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

So? Why do you hate that?

It sucks to be the sucker that pays taxes while 47% of people don't...

[AmeliaG]

I feel like there is some piece of info missing there. Sure, I come across people who live off government handouts and obviously this year both some mega-rich and some poor got government handouts, instead of earning their dough. But it seems really really unlikely that half of the US population does not pay any Federal income taxes. I would want to see a lot more numbers broken down before I would find that assertion credible.

Additionally, given that you no longer have to be a billionaire to make it into the Forbes list, it seems like a lot of the top earners loss bank this year too. So it seems the bulk of the economy is being funneled some place odd. Something is just not right.

[epitome]

Let's look at some contributing factors:

15%+ unemployment (the real number)
A shit load of self-employed people no longer able to survive
Anyone can form an LLC and with some creative accounting owe a lot less than their peers working for regular employers
People like me that cannot get insurance and get to deduct all of their medical expenses

I hear Goldman Sachs is doing EXCEPTIONALLY WELL with the money that was actually paid into Treasury.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by epitome

Let's look at some contributing factors:

People like me that cannot get insurance and get to deduct all of their medical expenses

[cykoe6]

The 47% number is nonsense as it does not include payroll taxes which are also based on income and therefore also income taxes.

[Joshua G]

Special thanks goes out to trickle down economics for this disaster. Oh shit, someone forgot to tell the rich to start trickling.

[Due]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

The bigger problem which I see is the shift in income towards the top 1%.

From the Wall Street Journal:



Guess who has primarily benefitted from the bailouts?

For most people, they will simply pay more taxes to cover the mistakes of the wealthiest 1%, while the rich who screwed up everything due to their greed, reap big tax payer fed bonuses.

The politicians only support Socialism that benefits their masters, the rich.

Eat the rich...

ADG

The people that primary benefited from the bailouts was not the top 1%
Try and count the amount of jobs that the top 1% is creating nation and worldwide, then think again and tell me why exactly the top 1% should be again taxed higher than everybody else.

[Darkland]

Originally Posted by woj

It sucks to be the sucker that pays taxes while 47% of people don't...

Are you stupid or you just didn't read the article?

It didn't SAY 47% of people didn't pay their taxes AT ALL. It said that they didn't have to pay extra, after having paid their taxes out of their weekly checks, or owed anymore at the end of the year. And that many who didn't owe the IRS at the end of the year even got money back for things they qualified for.

If you want to blame someone, blame a broken system where the only answer they ever come up with to try and fix shit is to raise taxes.

Insanity (defined): Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Darkland

Are you stupid or you just didn't read the article?

It didn't SAY 47% of people didn't pay their taxes AT ALL. It said that they didn't have to pay extra, after having paid their taxes out of their weekly checks, or owed anymore at the end of the year. And that many who didn't owe the IRS at the end of the year even got money back for things they qualified for.

If you want to blame someone, blame a broken system where the only answer they ever come up with to try and fix shit is to raise taxes.

Insanity (defined): Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

I jumped to conclusions too fast, read Barefootsies headline, skimmed through the article... 47% percent sounded plausible, so I didn't spend too much time analyzing it...
apparently the correct percentage is 24%, which is still quite significant...

"When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center's estimates."

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Due

The people that primary benefited from the bailouts was not the top 1%
Try and count the amount of jobs that the top 1% is creating nation and worldwide, then think again and tell me why exactly the top 1% should be again taxed higher than everybody else.

Good slave...feel sorry for your master!



The corporations that were behind the latest economic downturn have rebounded quite well, in large part due to the taxpayer bailout, yet the unemployment rate remains very high.

ADG

[Alf Hucker]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

The bigger problem which I see is the shift in income towards the top 1%.

From the Wall Street Journal:



Guess who has primarily benefitted from the bailouts?

For most people, they will simply pay more taxes to cover the mistakes of the wealthiest 1%, while the rich who screwed up everything due to their greed, reap big tax payer fed bonuses.

The politicians only support Socialism that benefits their masters, the rich.

Eat the rich...

ADG

It wasn't the rich who signed 30 year mortgages that they can't afford, nor was it the banks / lender's fault for offering them. The consumer has to be responsible for their own financial status.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by Alf Hucker

It wasn't the rich who signed 30 year mortgages that they can't afford, nor was it the banks / lender's fault for offering them. The consumer has to be responsible for their own financial status.

Damn those working class people for actually expecting that the American dream was real and within their reach...

God bless the banks and the people that backed sub-prime loans, derivatives, and junk bonds.

In the end what happened? Tons of people lost their homes and most of the investors/capitalists that provided those loans did not go out of business due to the free market (even though they made high risk bad investments). No, they got bonuses.

Then they were rewarded with huge government subsidies, while the people sucked in by them lost their houses, and went bankrupt.

Sounds fair to me...

ADG

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Alf Hucker

It wasn't the rich who signed 30 year mortgages that they can't afford, nor was it the banks / lender's fault for offering them. The consumer has to be responsible for their own financial status.

[GayIPornSteve]

No jobs = no income = no taxes.

[StickyGreen]

The government doesn't need money from your labor to operate anyways, they have thousands of other taxes that take care of that. There was no federal income tax before the bankers got their central bank charter back in 1913 and the country ran fine. The late 1800's were booming. Taxes on your income are used to repay the interest on the money loaned to the treasury from the central bank.

Pretty fucked up considering the central bank doesn't even need to be there according to the constitution, the congress and treasury are supposed to control monetary policy and the issuance of money so that there is no need to pay interest to a central bank. Doesn't seem like Americans will ever figure this out though, even after they're told about it.

[ztik]

fucking trash.

Thats aweomse that the harder you work the more they steal from you. I think im going to get on wellfare and food stamps and hang out and do whatever I want all day. I'll let hard workers pay for it.. yeah.. that works....

[onwebcam]

Every cent of income taxes is spent on interest on the national debt. A debt made up out of thin air. As in the bankers never actually put up anything. In fact they actually took the real wealth of the people, gold, and gave us pieces of paper in return. A piece of paper which is in all actuality a debt note. You can't pay a debt with another debt.

[brassmonkey]

fuck taxes the government fucks the money off on bullshit

[Fletch XXX]

Um hello, income tax is illegal, i wouldnt be pissed about people not paying it.

We paid for the American Civil Wr long ago, time to end income taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

Only nazis like income taxes

[Fletch XXX]

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

There was no federal income tax before the bankers got their central bank charter back in 1913 and the country ran fine.

Yep, People who dont know history are enslaved by those who have hid it from them.

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913[11]), which states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Simple, they got a taste of taxing income to fund wars, then once plan was in place, extended it for non war related taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...enth_Amendment

they will make ammendements to take your money but not so you can smoke medical marijuana for medicine.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by epitome

[StickyGreen]

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

Yep, People who dont know history are enslaved by those who have hid it from them.



Simple, they got a taste of taxing income to fund wars, then once plan was in place, extended it for non war related taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...enth_Amendment

they will make ammendements to take your money but not so you can smoke medical marijuana for medicine.

All the important information here gets overlooked. These guys just like to laugh at Fox News pictures and shit like that. It must be weird to be that simple. It must be like being 6 years old again or something.

[Due]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Damn those working class people for actually expecting that the American dream was real and within their reach...

God bless the banks and the people that backed sub-prime loans, derivatives, and junk bonds.

In the end what happened? Tons of people lost their homes and most of the investors/capitalists that provided those loans did not go out of business due to the free market (even though they made high risk bad investments). No, they got bonuses.

Then they were rewarded with huge government subsidies, while the people sucked in by them lost their houses, and went bankrupt.

Sounds fair to me...

ADG

People living in homes they realistically couldn't afford lost their homes, that doesn't sound unfair. It may suck, and suck really hard, but if you keep filling the balloon with air, it will blow up. (that may be why they call it living a dream)

Bad business can still have departments that's doing well, so before discussing if bonuses should be given out or not it's needed to look at each individual performance, a company that lost 500 million may have an employee that made the company 50 million, if that employee made their "goal" they should receive their 5 million bonus, if not that employee could likely take their 50 million deals somewhere else and the company loss would be 550 millions and not 500
That doesn't make headlines though so nobody is going to point that out in the media

[Snake Doctor]

This is taking an ugly turn.

People like to point at that statistic to make it look like the well to do are getting a raw deal in the U.S. or something. That statistic is only for federal income tax, which is just one of dozens of revenue streams that exist for federal, state, and local governments.

Even with a zero federal income tax liability, the person in the 50th percentile pays a much larger share of their total income in taxes (payroll tax, medicare, property tax, sales tax, state and city income tax, etc) than a person who makes $1 million per year or more.

It's like that old saying, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, with statistics being the worse.

This one is particularly misleading because it leads people to draw the conclusion that 47% of people pay no taxes at all....which is far from true.