Skip to main content

The wealthy aren't unduly burdened by taxes

With Tax Day fast approaching and deficit reduction all the rage, one fact deserves significant attention: the wealthy are enjoying the some of the lowest taxes in generations. The Figure shows the average tax rate in 1979, 1992, and 2007, as well as the tax rate for the top 1% of households, and the top 400 households (who have an average annual income of nearly $350 million).  Since 1979, the country’s overall average tax rate—the share of income paid in taxes—has fallen slightly, but for those at the top of the earnings ladder this share has fallen dramatically.



It may not be the case that we can solve all our problems by increasing taxes on the wealthy. But it's also not the case that the wealthy are stumbling under the weight of an overbearing tax burden in the United States, either.

Comments

emawkc said…
This comparison is valid as far as it goes. What concerns me is the attitude I see behind it.

This line of reasoning is backwards, in that it starts and then end and works toward the beginning. It essentially is saying "Let's find people that we can take more money from so that we can fund more govt programs (i.e. increase the federal bureaucracy).

Rather, the budget process should work by identifying the real roles of government, determining how much it costs to fulfill those roles, and THEN trying to find the money (through taxes).

If that were the case we would even be looking at comparisons like this.
Joel said…
"Rather, the budget process should work by identifying the real roles of government, determining how much it costs to fulfill those roles, and THEN trying to find the money (through taxes)."

Completely agreed. But even if we all take that perspective—which I think is more widely shared than you expect—I think we still end up looking at these comparisons. Because the roles of government have to live in balance with the sustainable resources. Determining what's right and sustainable is part of the process.
KhabaLox said…
How is it that the extremely rich have such a dramatically lower tax rate than the very rich?

According to the graph, the top 400 households (which is about .00036% of households or 3.6 ten-thousandths of one percent) pay taxes at a little more than half the rate than the top 1.11 million households.

Regardless of one's opinion on the role and size of government, do people really think such a regressive tax structure is appropriate?

[I'm using an estimate of 111 million households in 2007, based on Figure 1 in this Census report.]
emawkc said…
You may be right, Joel. But it feels like we've reached that point that de Tocqueville warned about, where Congress has realized it can use taxpayers' own money to get rich and bribe the taxpayers for votes.

I mean, they paid for people to have digital TV converter boxes, for cryin' out loud.

Unfortunately, it's the same kind of thing that was going on in the Roman Republic right before its implosion.

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…