Who Pays Taxes in America? America’s tax system as a whole is just barely progressive.

[Pooky 3,348]

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010

Looks like your source is a little biased.

It's not biased. It just isn't limited to Federal Income Tax, as your evaluation is.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Pooky

[Neonred 3,446]

It's not biased. It just isn't limited to Federal Income Tax, as your evaluation is.

Maybe you need to actually look at the numbers. Try comparing the Federal income tax percentages. Way off. I don't even care about state and local taxes....we don't have them where I live.

[james&olya 1,121]

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010

Looks like your source is a little biased.

Do you really not get it that the federal income tax is only one of the taxes paid by individuals?

[James and Cynthia 70]

These numbers aren't real. I personally know someone at $50,000, and after tax deductions for kids, school, and mortgage, paid $0 in federal taxes and maybe only 5% in state. I on the other hand paid a very high percentage for both federal and state, certainly not even close to 0% and 5%.

I don't know what state they are talking about, but apparently in my state, your percentage and total amount paid in taxes goes up with income, not down.

Also, if you consider an average deduction for all households due to dependents and earned income credits, small income households save a significantly higher percentage in taxes in the end, yielding a much lower total % tax rate.

I think the numbers in this chart below seem much more real.

-James

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010

Looks like your source is a little biased.

[James and Cynthia 70]

I also know others that I helped do their taxes for 2011. One person in the first 20% income, and another one in the second 20% income. Neither family paid federal or state taxes. In fact, the family in the second 20% receieved more money back than they paid for the year due to earned income and child credits. No joke.

-James

[Neonred 3,446]

Do you really not get it that the federal income tax is only one of the taxes paid by individuals?

####### are you talking about? Of course everyone knows that. The point here is that the OPs chart was not correct in regards to the percentages of federal tax. I am not making any point about any other taxes, especially state and local taxes which vary so much depending on where one lives.

[slim 1,514]

Get rid of Bush's Tax Cuts and you would immediately "shrink government (reduce deficits)"

You're joking, right?

Or are you really saying that by giving the government more money you'd actually be making the government smaller?

I see where you're going with the debt thing (more money coming in = less deficit) but that's never been the case. If you were to give your wife an extra $100 when she went to the mall do you think she'd skip that pair of shoes because she had more money now?

The other thing many of you seem to forget is this is OUR money. This isn't "surplus" or "extra" money. This is OUR money that we pay to fund the government and if the government has extra, it should be returned to us.

That's still barely progressive.

I've always found it funny that people want a progressive system of taxes.

Do they also want certain people to have more rights?

after tax deductions for kids, school, and mortgage, paid $0 in federal taxes

What I don't understand is why you pay less in taxes because of ________ reason. If the federal government needs X amount of dollars to operate, why does someone get a break and someone else have to pay more? Are we not equal?

And the hilarious part of all this is the "tax the 1%" folks out there are the ones who greatly benefit from tax breaks for kids, houses, college, etc. Yet when it comes time for them to talk about "how the rich benefit from infrastructure" they seem to forget their kids are the ones using all that stuff up and placing a burden on the future.... all the while the rich are paying for it.

I wish we could tax hypocrisy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In 2000, people making between $50K and $75K paid the same share in taxes as those making more than $87 million.

http://mojo.ly/HGS10V

[slim 1,514]

In 2000, people making between $50K and $75K paid the same share in taxes as those making more than $87 million.

http://mojo.ly/HGS10V

What was the actual dollar amount?

[luckytxn 2,263]

The rich still pay most of the taxes.

[dalegg 143]

Get rid of Bush's Tax Cuts and you would immediately "shrink government (reduce deficits)" by, oh, about a half a trillion (with T) dollars each year from the budget.

Where are you getting your figures from? Even if you rolled back the tax cuts to every single tax bracket it would only be half that.

[웃 910]

Where are you getting your figures from? Even if you rolled back the tax cuts to every single tax bracket it would only be half that.

This is VJ so I just make them up! But I wasn't that far off, when you include the financing of these tax cuts + Iraq/Afghanistan it's actually more like $700 billion a year average.

I have the number for just the tax cuts somewhere around here but can't find it at the moment. Thought it was somewhere around $3.7 trillion over 10 years but not sure...

And below we have modern day fiscal tea party conservatism at its finest:

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [7] By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — nearly $10 trillion — of the $20 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.

http://www.cbpp.org/..._source=twitter

Edited April 8, 2012 by ☠

[Pooky 3,348]

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration

The moment he signed the extension, President Obama assumed responsibility for those tax cuts.

The wars are a different matter, as safe extrication of US Forces, leaving behind the best situation possible in the circumstances, takes time, planning and patience.

[dalegg 143]

This is VJ so I just make them up! But I wasn't that far off, when you include the financing of these tax cuts + Iraq/Afghanistan it's actually more like $700 billion a year average.

I have the number for just the tax cuts somewhere around here but can't find it at the moment. Thought it was somewhere around $3.7 trillion over 10 years but not sure...

There are many articles about this, and they put the total cost at around a half a trillion for two years. None of the following charts or articles were taken from what you would call right-leaning websites either...

Tax cut Extensions would ratchet up debt..

"Extending the tax cuts for just two years to all taxpayers would cost $558 billion (including debt interest) and would increase the debt to 70 percent of GDP by 2020. This figure is only 2 percent more than if the cuts were allowed to expire at the end of 2010."

Bush Tax Cuts 2013 to 2022

"...The recent “compromise” that extended them for another two years, through the end of 2012, cost $571.5 billion."

--Note that for 2013 the chart says the total cost to the deficit is 228 Billion.

But more important to me is the analysis about the effect of the Bush cuts on just the top 2%, because really NOBODY is talking about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for all income brackets. If Obama raises any taxes, it will just be on these folks. Any tax breaks left behind will be his and his alone. When you look at that cost, it is clear that blaming the deficit on tax breaks for the wealthy is just simply nonsense...

Extending the Bush Tax Rates for High Income Earners

"...After all, the estimated ten-year increase in the deficit due to the extension of the top-2% tax cuts is $700 billion; and the cost for extending all of the tax cuts is about three trillion dollars."

--Okay-- this isn't even a quarter of the total cost! So, at the end of 2022 are we going to have a celebration party because instead of the National Debt being only 21 Trillion dollars as opposed to 21.7 trillion?

Cost Of Tax Cuts For America's Rich Exceeds Value Of Budget Cuts

"..Over two years, tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the government about $120 billion"

$120 billion!? $60 Billion dollars each year? Our yearly deficit is over a Trillion Dollars. This is about 5% of that....and this is painted at being the root of the problem. Doesn't make sense. In fact, in no year since the Bush Tax cuts have been enacted did the cuts to just the top 2% make up any real significant percentage to the deficit. And again, since Obama and most of the Democrats seem to be just cool with the tax cuts for everyone else, then they are apparantly cool with the effect of the tax cuts on the deficit created by the other 98%.

[웃 910]

There are many articles about this, and they put the total cost at around a half a trillion for two years. None of the following charts or articles were taken from what you would call right-leaning websites either...

Tax cut Extensions would ratchet up debt..

"Extending the tax cuts for just two years to all taxpayers would cost $558 billion (including debt interest) and would increase the debt to 70 percent of GDP by 2020. This figure is only 2 percent more than if the cuts were allowed to expire at the end of 2010."

Bush Tax Cuts 2013 to 2022

"...The recent "compromise" that extended them for another two years, through the end of 2012, cost $571.5 billion."

--Note that for 2013 the chart says the total cost to the deficit is 228 Billion.

But more important to me is the analysis about the effect of the Bush cuts on just the top 2%, because really NOBODY is talking about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for all income brackets. If Obama raises any taxes, it will just be on these folks. Any tax breaks left behind will be his and his alone. When you look at that cost, it is clear that blaming the deficit on tax breaks for the wealthy is just simply nonsense...

Extending the Bush Tax Rates for High Income Earners

"...After all, the estimated ten-year increase in the deficit due to the extension of the top-2% tax cuts is $700 billion; and the cost for extending all of the tax cuts is about three trillion dollars."

--Okay-- this isn't even a quarter of the total cost! So, at the end of 2022 are we going to have a celebration party because instead of the National Debt being only 21 Trillion dollars as opposed to 21.7 trillion?

Cost Of Tax Cuts For America's Rich Exceeds Value Of Budget Cuts

"..Over two years, tax cuts for the wealthy will cost the government about $120 billion"

$120 billion!? $60 Billion dollars each year? Our yearly deficit is over a Trillion Dollars. This is about 5% of that....and this is painted at being the root of the problem. Doesn't make sense. In fact, in no year since the Bush Tax cuts have been enacted did the cuts to just the top 2% make up any real significant percentage to the deficit. And again, since Obama and most of the Democrats seem to be just cool with the tax cuts for everyone else, then they are apparantly cool with the effect of the tax cuts on the deficit created by the other 98%.

1) The tax cuts get more and more expensive each year to finance. We'll be paying over $600 billion a year in debt interest by the early 2020s (currently about $230 billion)...So quoting "the next two years" at $558 billion is still barely off from my $500 a year estimate. Throw in the wars and I was even more accurate which is the part I mistakenly left out. Bottom line is we can trim hundreds and hundreds of billions off our deficit if we adjust these 2 policies. It would be the conservative thing to do but in modern day politics fiscal conservative = what conservatives think liberals are (big spenders). It is now the complete opposite, a liberal is really the fiscal conservative!

2) My left leaning source says war + tax cuts will make up about $10 trillion of our estimated $20 trillion debt by 2019. And they are very accurate in my oppinion!