If it helps, here's a graph of effective federal tax rate by quintile, all taxes (data from 2007)
Jragghen Send a noteboard - 19/09/2012 08:30:37 AM
Link is the clickable one at the bottom.
Includes Federal Income (and offsets), payroll, and excise taxes. As you can see, due to the progressive nature of federal income taxes, up until the top quintile (the bars mark, if I'm not mistaken, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, next 10%, next 5%, top 5% - including the top 400, and the top 400 separate), where it plateaus and starts to drop again, because such an insignificant portion of their wealth comes from income as opposed to other means (capital gains, etc).
State and local taxes are usually regressive (numbers from 2007 as well):
http://www.policyshop.net/storage/Demos-Stateandlocaltaxrates.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1333977357388
which only tends to exacerbate the problem.
Noteworthy exclusions from these lists: corporate taxes (which depends on whether you consider them to be property of the top tenth of a percent or so, or separate entities), and one-time taxes (estate tax in particular) which are often cited as well, but are rather disingenuous for an annual graph.
So basically, the poor benefit somewhat from the progressive federal tax, as they're intended to, as they have practically no money to spend on necessities. Tax rate increases as your income increases, until you reach a certain threshold at about 6 figures, where (in large part due to the tax cuts on the upper end since Eisenhower, coupled with low long-term capital gains taxes) the effective tax rate starts dropping to where the rich not only have more money to start with, but they're paying less on it than those in lower tiers.
Includes Federal Income (and offsets), payroll, and excise taxes. As you can see, due to the progressive nature of federal income taxes, up until the top quintile (the bars mark, if I'm not mistaken, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, next 10%, next 5%, top 5% - including the top 400, and the top 400 separate), where it plateaus and starts to drop again, because such an insignificant portion of their wealth comes from income as opposed to other means (capital gains, etc).
State and local taxes are usually regressive (numbers from 2007 as well):
http://www.policyshop.net/storage/Demos-Stateandlocaltaxrates.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1333977357388
which only tends to exacerbate the problem.
Noteworthy exclusions from these lists: corporate taxes (which depends on whether you consider them to be property of the top tenth of a percent or so, or separate entities), and one-time taxes (estate tax in particular) which are often cited as well, but are rather disingenuous for an annual graph.
So basically, the poor benefit somewhat from the progressive federal tax, as they're intended to, as they have practically no money to spend on necessities. Tax rate increases as your income increases, until you reach a certain threshold at about 6 figures, where (in large part due to the tax cuts on the upper end since Eisenhower, coupled with low long-term capital gains taxes) the effective tax rate starts dropping to where the rich not only have more money to start with, but they're paying less on it than those in lower tiers.
what does it mean to "pay no federal income tax"?
18/09/2012 06:30:28 PM
- 961 Views
Wrong
18/09/2012 06:37:07 PM
- 533 Views
Additional categories
18/09/2012 06:51:46 PM
- 624 Views
SS income is very much taxed, my friend
18/09/2012 06:59:28 PM
- 502 Views
Is that true?
18/09/2012 06:54:33 PM
- 547 Views
No, it's not. See my post (you should really have read it first ) *NM*
18/09/2012 07:00:07 PM
- 213 Views
Looking at that chart you linked, I have some questions.
18/09/2012 07:05:24 PM
- 499 Views
I think the reasoning is that since they go to entitlement programs, it's not entirely a tax.
18/09/2012 10:55:12 PM
- 449 Views
Does that mean the correct number is that 27.6%?
18/09/2012 07:17:46 PM
- 507 Views
That is correct - some folks have such negative income taxes, it offsets payroll as well.
19/09/2012 05:28:07 AM
- 509 Views
If it helps, here's a graph of effective federal tax rate by quintile, all taxes (data from 2007)
19/09/2012 08:30:37 AM
- 717 Views
While we're talking about taxes, am I the only one who doesn't give a rat's ass about Romney's?
18/09/2012 10:37:12 PM
- 487 Views
That sort of thing does matter to me
18/09/2012 10:48:30 PM
- 456 Views
Ah, yeah, not so much for me.
18/09/2012 11:16:56 PM
- 429 Views
I am a BIT curious whether he took the IRS amnesty for tax dodging in 2009.
18/09/2012 11:32:31 PM
- 410 Views
As an outside observer ...
19/09/2012 01:28:13 AM
- 502 Views
Re: As an outside observer ...
19/09/2012 04:45:11 AM
- 455 Views
the question of legality has already been covered by the offshore accounts though....
19/09/2012 05:44:28 AM
- 485 Views
Eh, those already exist, if people bothered to look
19/09/2012 08:08:35 AM
- 651 Views
Those are toothless examples, no bite to them and old news so no shock value aspect
19/09/2012 08:44:01 AM
- 420 Views
The stat is valid, because of tax credits the GOP created/expanded for the overtaxed middle class.
18/09/2012 11:22:13 PM
- 475 Views
I think you got it wrong:
19/09/2012 01:52:30 AM
- 444 Views
+1 - you are correct, moondog screwed the pooch with this post. *NM*
19/09/2012 05:18:19 AM
- 199 Views
Washington Post similar to Anonymous', but shows how many people get each credit.
19/09/2012 06:45:08 PM
- 531 Views