Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA
Editorial by Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA

Here's a question you're likely to hear whenever the subject of taxes comes up: Do the rich pay their fair share?

There are two parts to this question:

Who is rich?

And, what is fair?

Let's start with who is rich:

Nearly everyone assumes that a person who is among the top ten percent of all income earners qualifies as rich.

But according to 2011 data, a top ten percent household makes around $150,000 or above in gross annual income -- that's income before deductions and taxes. Now, $150,000 is a nice living, but it certainly doesn't make you rich.

OK, then. What about the top 5%?

You get into this percentile if your household makes around $190,000 or above. That's a nice bump. But it hardly puts you in the rich category.

How about the top 1%? That's $500,000 or above. A great income, but remember, most people only get to that level after many years of hard work and, quite possibly, the accumulation of serious debt to fund their education or build their business.

Of course, there are people who make more than $500,000. And there are some who make many millions, even billions. But the number who do is very small.

Now, let's talk about fair.

Fair would seem be that the group of taxpayers who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the country's taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on.

But what If I told you that, according to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income.

If anything, the top ten percent pay more than their fair share.

So, as it happens, do the much reviled top 1%. They earn 17 percent of all income, but pay 37% of all federal income taxes.

And what about those at the other end of the income scale, the lower earners? Are we squeezing them? Hardly. Those who make $45,000 or less, 47% of all earners, pay little and often no income taxes.

Ah, but what about payroll taxes -- the money we pay to fund Social Security and Medicare? That takes a bigger bite of the paycheck of lower earners than higher earners. Isn't that unfair?

Consider two points:

First, it's misleading to call the Payroll Tax a tax. It's really an insurance payment that guarantees we receive social security and Medicare after we turn 65.

Second, the benefits we receive from Social Security are capped, no matter how much we have paid in. This means that the payroll taxes of high earners actually help subsidize the social security and Medicare benefits that low earners receive at retirement.

How do all these numbers stack up against other countries?

The US income tax system is substantially more progressive - meaning that income tax rates rise as income rises -- than other advanced countries, including Germany and Sweden.

So, if you think that our tax system is unfair because it coddles high earners, then you must conclude that tax systems in these other countries are even more unfair.

So how high are tax rates on Americans today? Well, throw in federal tax increases mandated in 2013 and state taxes, and top earners face a tax rate of more than 50 per cent in California and New York. Other states like Maryland and Connecticut are not far behind. Do you think a tax rate of greater than 50% is fair? If so, is there any rate that wouldn't be?

Nobody is calling for bake sales for anyone in the top ten percent of earners. And no one wants to minimize the struggles of those at the lower income strata. But to say the "rich," however you might define them, don't pay their fair share is simply wrong.

Finally, numerous academic studies, including ones that I have done, show that when tax rates are too high, investment, risk taking by entrepreneurs, and therefore job creation all decline. And when that happens it's the poor who suffer, not the rich. The rich do fine.

It may feel good to take even more money from the top ten percent, but it doesn't do good. And it sure isn't fair.

- Lee Ohanian, Professor of Economics at UCLA
Conservatives love to control the message so they ask do the rich pay a fair amount of taxes. How about asking if they are paying the right amount of taxes. Are they paying enough so that the country in which they were lucky enough to get rich can operate? Heres what I'm getting at. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Bush and Reagan and the GOP at large have giving the rich tax breaks for 40 years. They've never been richer.

But here in michigan the GOP government and Rick Snyder say we all got to pay $500 plus each every year moving forward to fix the roads because we dont have the money

The rich haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

The rich haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.

The rich pay a bigger chunk of the total now than in 1980.

That's because they have most of the money you fool! You think 30 years of tax cuts and raises to them now they should ask us all to each pay $500 more a year on what we make?

Hey, what am I saying. The american people spoke loud and clear when they didn't vote in the last midterm. They dont care if the GOP fucks them in the ass. Of course this tax increase will get shot down tonight but the GOP will get it from us one way or the other or just put it on the debt.

That's because they have most of the money

Durr.

You think 30 years of tax cuts and raises to them now they should ask us all to each pay $500 more a year on what we make?

Spend all your money on welfare, makes road repair harder.
 
Don't the 47% pay more in all other taxes than the 10%?

Doubtful.
Still confused about the difference between revenue and income?
Between sales and profit?

A person that makes $35M/yr pays more federal taxes than 300k+ average Americans. Are you say that that person pay more in sale tax, property tax, employee taxes than 300k+?

That person also pays less percentage of total income in federal taxes than the 300k+. Thank You Republicans!!!!

A person that makes $35M/yr pays more federal taxes than 300k+ average Americans.


So?

Are you say that that person pay more in sale tax, property tax, employee taxes than 300k+?

You need to make $35M to be in the top 10% of income earners?
Your math gets worse every day.


That person also pays less percentage of total income in federal taxes than the 300k+.

A guy who makes $35M or a guy who makes $350k?
What are you babbling about?
 
Don't the 47% pay more in all other taxes than the 10%?

Doubtful.
Still confused about the difference between revenue and income?
Between sales and profit?

A person that makes $35M/yr pays more federal taxes than 300k+ average Americans. Are you say that that person pay more in sale tax, property tax, employee taxes than 300k+?

That person also pays less percentage of total income in federal taxes than the 300k+. Thank You Republicans!!!!

A person that makes $35M/yr pays more federal taxes than 300k+ average Americans.


So?

Are you say that that person pay more in sale tax, property tax, employee taxes than 300k+?

You need to make $35M to be in the top 10% of income earners?
Your math gets worse every day.


That person also pays less percentage of total income in federal taxes than the 300k+.

A guy who makes $35M or a guy who makes $350k?
What are you babbling about?

You stated it was 'doubtful' that the '47%' pay more in all other taxes than millionaires. I proved you wrong....AGAIN.
 
If the bottom 47% pay 0% or less on income, why are you looking at 1% of anything?

Because they don't make enough money. Hello? Any intelligent life out there?

Because they don't make enough money.

Exactly. Poor people pay less than rich people.

Any intelligent life out there?

No, you are still dumber than a stump.

Sure. When you have taxes based on income, those that make less, pay less. But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.
 
Don't the 47% pay more in all other taxes than the 10%?

Doubtful.
Still confused about the difference between revenue and income?
Between sales and profit?

A person that makes $35M/yr pays more federal taxes than 300k+ average Americans. Are you say that that person pay more in sale tax, property tax, employee taxes than 300k+?

That person also pays less percentage of total income in federal taxes than the 300k+. Thank You Republicans!!!!

A person that makes $35M/yr pays more federal taxes than 300k+ average Americans.


So?

Are you say that that person pay more in sale tax, property tax, employee taxes than 300k+?

You need to make $35M to be in the top 10% of income earners?
Your math gets worse every day.


That person also pays less percentage of total income in federal taxes than the 300k+.

A guy who makes $35M or a guy who makes $350k?
What are you babbling about?

You stated it was 'doubtful' that the '47%' pay more in all other taxes than millionaires. I proved you wrong....AGAIN.

Your confused rambling contained no proof.
Try again?
Start by rereading what I said. Hint: I didn't mention millionaires.
 
If the bottom 47% pay 0% or less on income, why are you looking at 1% of anything?

Because they don't make enough money. Hello? Any intelligent life out there?

Because they don't make enough money.

Exactly. Poor people pay less than rich people.

Any intelligent life out there?

No, you are still dumber than a stump.

Sure. When you have taxes based on income, those that make less, pay less. But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.

But thanks to Republicans, the wealthy pay less percentage of total income than workers.


Interesting claim. Define your terms.
What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario?
 
t0i5jm.jpg
 

This is kind of ridiculous. You see, government collects taxes, employs people to manage the roads and decide where they need to go and if they have enough money which ones need to be fixed and then seeks out those hopefully qualified to do the work. It's called management, I know, I know, libertarians don't get it.
 
capital gains versus earned income.

Huh?
you need more clue and more Cause?

I need you to explain who the fuck you're talking to and what you're trying to explain.
Or don't, you fucktard.
here is your clue and your Cause: What is the income level for the wealthy and for workers in your scenario?

Are you gonna help onepercenter prove his claim?
That's sweet, because he's kinda dumb.
 

This is kind of ridiculous. You see, government collects taxes, employs people to manage the roads and decide where they need to go and if they have enough money which ones need to be fixed and then seeks out those hopefully qualified to do the work. It's called management, I know, I know, libertarians don't get it.

How those who never had a real job could manage anything? Let me remind you, the same guys are managing AmTrak, Post Office, Education, Fannie & Freddie... successfully? Yeah, libertarians don't get it.

But you do.
 
Great bit from "The West Wing"

"I've paid my fair share. And the fair share of 27 other people. But my water doesn't come out of the faucet 27 times hotter, and the fire department doesn't arrive 27 times faster."

Nonetheless, every rich person gets a disproportionate share of the MAIN ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, which is the protection of property. In fact, the diligence of this protection increases exponentially with the amount of property accumulated.

In fact, the protection of a rich person's property is always more important to any law enforcement agency than an ordinary person's life. Just ask the 11 people killed by Tony Hayward.

Actually, that's wrong. Rich people hire private security to protect their property. Only a fool would rely on the police for protection. So the reality is that the rich get less from the state in terms of protection than poor people do.

As for Tony Harward, industrial accidents have nothing to do with police protection. Liberals are always trying to equate things that are not equal.

Look at our history. The police go to bat for the very wealthy. Most recently, the occupy wall street movement. In the old days, cops always siding with the ownership against the union strikers. It's becoming harder to protest now. Get thrown in jail, a young guy now has an arrest record. The cops will always side with the ownership class.

Can you give me an example - just one will be good enough - of cops mistreating members of the Occupy Wall Street Movement?
 

Forum List

Back
Top