Who Pays the Most Income Taxes and the Impact of the Trump Tax Cuts

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 23, 2012
6,253
3,365
1,085
Virginia
Let us look at the FACTS about who pays the most taxes in America per capita and the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ) (the TCJA) (aka the Trump tax cuts):

"The top 1% of tax payers pay 38% of all income taxes yet only have a 20% share of total AGI [adjusted gross income]. Furthermore, the top 50% of tax payers pay practically all of the nation’s federal taxes (97.3%) while commanding 87.25% of total AGI. " (How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?)

"The IRS has recently released an analysis of the distribution of the income tax burden for Tax Year 2016. The new data shows that the top one percent of income earners bear the burden of 37 percent of all income taxes. This is nearly twice as much as their share of income (19.7 percent). The top 25 percent of earners shoulder nearly 86 percent of the income tax load. Combined, the top 50 percent of earners are responsible for 97 percent income taxes collected. The other half of filers pay just 3 percent of all income taxes." (Who Pays Income Taxes?)

"One of the least discussed parts of America’s income tax is how progressive it is, and the tax overhaul didn’t change that fact. In 2018, top earners will pay a higher share of income taxes." (Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax)

"Let’s say that John, a single taxpayer, earned $16,000 last year. That would have put him in a 15-percent tax bracket in 2017. He would have paid 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,325 and 15 percent on the balance of his income up to $16,000. That’s a pretty significant tax bill of $1,933: $932 on the first $9,325, plus $1,001 of the $6,675 balance, for a total of $1,933.

"The TCJA provides for a new 12-percent bracket for incomes from $9,525 up to $38,700 for single filers. John would pay 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,525, but only 12 percent on the balance. As a result, John's 2018 tax bill would come out to just $1,729 compared to $1,933: 10 percent of $9,525 or $952, plus 12 percent of the $6,475 balance or $777. That's $204 less, pretty significant for someone who earns just $16,000 a year." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)

"A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns).

"By contrast, taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax – in fact, two-thirds of the nearly 66 million returns filed by people in that lowest income tier owed no tax at all. (The IRS tax data used here are estimates based on a stratified probability sample of all returns.)" (Who pays U.S. income tax, and how much?)

"The effective tax rate for those earning less than $30,000 worked out to 4.9 percent. It’s anticipated that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act(TCJA) will reduce the effective tax rate for the poorest 20 percent of Americans by about 5.5 percent beginning in 2018." (How Much Do the Wealthy Pay in Taxes Each Year?)

"The child tax credit was $1,000 per child under age 17 in 2017. The TCJA pushes this up to $2,000 per child, an increase of $1,000. The first $1,400 is refundable. This means that a parent with zero tax liability would receive a refund from the IRS for $1,400 for each dependent child he can claim.

"If John’s tax bill was $400 and he could claim the child tax credit for one child, the tax credit would wipe out his tax debt so John would end up not owing the IRS anything at all. That leaves $1,600 remaining of the $2,000 credit, of which $1,400 is refundable. So John would actually receive a $1,400 refund." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)​

And, of course, one does not need to be a math whiz to know that the TCJA's $10K cap on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) will hit the top 15% of income earners the hardest. The $10K SALT cap cost me about $500 this year in actual additional taxes paid compared to last year. But, if I made, say, $300K per year and owned a home worth $600K, the $10K SALT cap would have cost me about $4,000 in actual additional taxes paid!
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.

Then, no, that would not be fair, because it would place a heavy burden on low-income earners--unless the flat tax rate were around 1-2%. Otherwise, it would hit people in the two lowest tax brackets very hard.
 
Let us look at the FACTS about who pays the most taxes in America per capita and the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ) (the TCJA) (aka the Trump tax cuts):

"The top 1% of tax payers pay 38% of all income taxes yet only have a 20% share of total AGI [adjusted gross income]. Furthermore, the top 50% of tax payers pay practically all of the nation’s federal taxes (97.3%) while commanding 87.25% of total AGI. " (How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?)

"The IRS has recently released an analysis of the distribution of the income tax burden for Tax Year 2016. The new data shows that the top one percent of income earners bear the burden of 37 percent of all income taxes. This is nearly twice as much as their share of income (19.7 percent). The top 25 percent of earners shoulder nearly 86 percent of the income tax load. Combined, the top 50 percent of earners are responsible for 97 percent income taxes collected. The other half of filers pay just 3 percent of all income taxes." (Who Pays Income Taxes?)

"One of the least discussed parts of America’s income tax is how progressive it is, and the tax overhaul didn’t change that fact. In 2018, top earners will pay a higher share of income taxes." (Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax)

"Let’s say that John, a single taxpayer, earned $16,000 last year. That would have put him in a 15-percent tax bracket in 2017. He would have paid 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,325 and 15 percent on the balance of his income up to $16,000. That’s a pretty significant tax bill of $1,933: $932 on the first $9,325, plus $1,001 of the $6,675 balance, for a total of $1,933.

"The TCJA provides for a new 12-percent bracket for incomes from $9,525 up to $38,700 for single filers. John would pay 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,525, but only 12 percent on the balance. As a result, John's 2018 tax bill would come out to just $1,729 compared to $1,933: 10 percent of $9,525 or $952, plus 12 percent of the $6,475 balance or $777. That's $204 less, pretty significant for someone who earns just $16,000 a year." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)

"A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns).

"By contrast, taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax – in fact, two-thirds of the nearly 66 million returns filed by people in that lowest income tier owed no tax at all. (The IRS tax data used here are estimates based on a stratified probability sample of all returns.)" (Who pays U.S. income tax, and how much?)

"The effective tax rate for those earning less than $30,000 worked out to 4.9 percent. It’s anticipated that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act(TCJA) will reduce the effective tax rate for the poorest 20 percent of Americans by about 5.5 percent beginning in 2018." (How Much Do the Wealthy Pay in Taxes Each Year?)

"The child tax credit was $1,000 per child under age 17 in 2017. The TCJA pushes this up to $2,000 per child, an increase of $1,000. The first $1,400 is refundable. This means that a parent with zero tax liability would receive a refund from the IRS for $1,400 for each dependent child he can claim.

"If John’s tax bill was $400 and he could claim the child tax credit for one child, the tax credit would wipe out his tax debt so John would end up not owing the IRS anything at all. That leaves $1,600 remaining of the $2,000 credit, of which $1,400 is refundable. So John would actually receive a $1,400 refund." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)​

And, of course, one does not need to be a math whiz to know that the TCJA's $10K cap on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) will hit the top 15% of income earners the hardest. The $10K SALT cap cost me about $500 this year in actual additional taxes paid compared to last year. But, if I made, say, $300K per year and owned a home worth $600K, the $10K SALT cap would have cost me about $4,000 in actual additional taxes paid!
"The top 1% of tax payers pay 38% of all income taxes yet only have a 20% share of total AGI [adjusted gross income]. F
Treating the richest one percent as a monolithic fraction isn't consistent with our current reality as the billionaire tax dodger in the White House proves:

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue.

"In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

Ultimately, if you can raise about 20% of your revenue from one percent of taxpayers, you compensate for the "free lunch" the richest among us receive from their political contributions.
1244650.jpg

Free Lunch - David Cay Johnston - Book Review
 
Mike very good glad to see someone understands income tax as set up. Too many think that they pay too much and the high earners pay too little.

The crazy notion that they should be taxed at 75% for instance. Had one person on the forum state it was only right as it had been that way years ago. Did not seem to comprehend that state taxes had increased since that time. Also did not comprehend that those are the people that donate the most to things like library buildings, cancer research, college scholarships, even the homeless. Did not understand that the higher tax bracket would only creat a couple hundred million and only for a short time.
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.
I am guessing that you are trying to suggest the flat tax system some have tried to put forth. It is to say the least a horrible idea.
The idea with a flat tax is that you charge a person tax for buying a car. That is fine but what happens when a person buys from an individual? It forces a barter system to be instituted by the lower pay individuals. How do you tax barter?

If you tax income how do you justify taxing someone who is barely getting by on social security? How about taxing the unwed mother working as a waitress?
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.

Then, no, that would not be fair, because it would place a heavy burden on low-income earners--unless the flat tax rate were around 1-2%. Otherwise, it would hit people in the two lowest tax brackets very hard.


Interesting, then I guess you would be more for purchases or a consumption tax.
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.
I am guessing that you are trying to suggest the flat tax system some have tried to put forth. It is to say the least a horrible idea.
The idea with a flat tax is that you charge a person tax for buying a car. That is fine but what happens when a person buys from an individual? It forces a barter system to be instituted by the lower pay individuals. How do you tax barter?

If you tax income how do you justify taxing someone who is barely getting by on social security? How about taxing the unwed mother working as a waitress?


No system will be perfect, but I am not for a 75% rate on the highest earners. Not only is it not fair but it will cause them to have more laws written so the will have even more deductions that the average American will never be able to use!
 
Treating the richest one percent as a monolithic fraction isn't consistent with our current reality as the billionaire tax dodger in the White House proves:

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue.

"In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

Ultimately, if you can raise about 20% of your revenue from one percent of taxpayers, you compensate for the "free lunch" the richest among us receive from their political contributions.

Ughh. . . . Sigh. . . . You didn't even bother to read the facts in the OP, did you? If you had, you would have discovered that the top 1% already pay more than 20% of all income taxes. Right now they pay 37%-38% of all federal incomes taxes. This has been the case for years.

Trump is a tax dodger??? Really??? Again, just sigh and ughh. . . . It is just hopeless trying to reason with you people. Would it do any good to point out that rich people who invest heavily in real estate development receive huge tax breaks because both parties have long approved tax breaks for real estate development because they recognize that such development comes with enormous risks and costs? Would you care to talk about the billions that Trump has paid in state and local taxes, the hundreds of millions he has paid in salaries for his employees, the hundreds of millions he has paid as his share of his employees' payroll taxes?

I know: Your mind already shut down about 30 seconds ago. These facts went in one ear and out the other, and you will keep posting anti-rich nonsense because you rely on emotion, not reason and facts.
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.
I am guessing that you are trying to suggest the flat tax system some have tried to put forth. It is to say the least a horrible idea.
The idea with a flat tax is that you charge a person tax for buying a car. That is fine but what happens when a person buys from an individual? It forces a barter system to be instituted by the lower pay individuals. How do you tax barter?

If you tax income how do you justify taxing someone who is barely getting by on social security? How about taxing the unwed mother working as a waitress?


No system will be perfect, but I am not for a 75% rate on the highest earners. Not only is it not fair but it will cause them to have more laws written so the will have even more deductions that the average American will never be able to use!
A flat tax on income would mean the high earners would pay less then they already are. While somone that worries about having enough money to pay the utility bill will be forced to choose between eating or paying their federal income tax.

A flat tax on purchases creates a barter economy. A barter economy means less goods produced. Means a less robust economy. One way to look at it is people will not readily pay a tax if they can get away without it.
 
Treating the richest one percent as a monolithic fraction isn't consistent with our current reality as the billionaire tax dodger in the White House proves:

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue.

"In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

Ultimately, if you can raise about 20% of your revenue from one percent of taxpayers, you compensate for the "free lunch" the richest among us receive from their political contributions.

Ughh. . . . Sigh. . . . You didn't even bother to read the facts in the OP, did you? If you had, you would have discovered that the top 1% already pay more than 20% of all income taxes. Right now they pay 37%-38% of all federal incomes taxes. This has been the case for years.

Trump is a tax dodger??? Really??? Again, just sigh and ughh. . . . It is just hopeless trying to reason with you people. Would it do any good to point out that rich people who invest heavily in real estate development receive huge tax breaks because both parties have long approved tax breaks for real estate development because they recognize that such development comes with enormous risks and costs? Would you care to talk about the billions that Trump has paid in state and local taxes, the hundreds of millions he has paid in salaries for his employees, the hundreds of millions he has paid as his share of his employees' payroll taxes?

I know: Your mind already shut down about 30 seconds ago. These facts went in one ear and out the other, and you will keep posting anti-rich nonsense because you rely on emotion, not reason and facts.
Not to mention that the IRS has surly audited his taxes.
Then you take into account that he has his taxes done by certified accountants that would be the ones in trouble if the taxes were not done properly.
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.
I am guessing that you are trying to suggest the flat tax system some have tried to put forth. It is to say the least a horrible idea.
The idea with a flat tax is that you charge a person tax for buying a car. That is fine but what happens when a person buys from an individual? It forces a barter system to be instituted by the lower pay individuals. How do you tax barter?

If you tax income how do you justify taxing someone who is barely getting by on social security? How about taxing the unwed mother working as a waitress?


No system will be perfect, but I am not for a 75% rate on the highest earners. Not only is it not fair but it will cause them to have more laws written so the will have even more deductions that the average American will never be able to use!
A flat tax on income would mean the high earners would pay less then they already are. While somone that worries about having enough money to pay the utility bill will be forced to choose between eating or paying their federal income tax.

A flat tax on purchases creates a barter economy. A barter economy means less goods produced. Means a less robust economy. One way to look at it is people will not readily pay a tax if they can get away without it.


No actually getting rid of their expenditures would raise their effective tax rate. I remember during the campaign that Pence released his taxes and his effective tax rate was 8.6%. Lower than mine while I made considerably less.
 
Treating the richest one percent as a monolithic fraction isn't consistent with our current reality as the billionaire tax dodger in the White House proves:

The moral—and economic—case for progressive taxation

"If you want to run for Congress, the implication is clear: Cut taxes on all but the top 1%, raise them enormously on the top 0.1%, 0.01%, and 0.001%, and leave the 1% the same.

"People will feel that you’ve made the taxes more fair, and you’ve also raised more revenue.

"In other words, make the tax system more progressive."

Ultimately, if you can raise about 20% of your revenue from one percent of taxpayers, you compensate for the "free lunch" the richest among us receive from their political contributions.

Ughh. . . . Sigh. . . . You didn't even bother to read the facts in the OP, did you? If you had, you would have discovered that the top 1% already pay more than 20% of all income taxes. Right now they pay 37%-38% of all federal incomes taxes. This has been the case for years.

Trump is a tax dodger??? Really??? Again, just sigh and ughh. . . . It is just hopeless trying to reason with you people. Would it do any good to point out that rich people who invest heavily in real estate development receive huge tax breaks because both parties have long approved tax breaks for real estate development because they recognize that such development comes with enormous risks and costs? Would you care to talk about the billions that Trump has paid in state and local taxes, the hundreds of millions he has paid in salaries for his employees, the hundreds of millions he has paid as his share of his employees' payroll taxes?

I know: Your mind already shut down about 30 seconds ago. These facts went in one ear and out the other, and you will keep posting anti-rich nonsense because you rely on emotion, not reason and facts.
Trump is a tax dodger??? Really??? Again, just sigh and ughh. . . . It is just hopeless trying to reason with you people. Would it do any good to point out that rich people who invest heavily in real estate development receive huge tax breaks because both parties have long approved tax breaks for real estate development because they recognize that such development comes with enormous risks and costs?
Actually, congress has enacted special rules for real estate businesses (which Donald Trump lobbied for) that allow real estate people to live tax free.
quote-landlords-grow-rich-in-their-sleep-without-working-risking-or-economizing-the-increase-john-stuart-mill-85-85-92.jpg

For his part, Trump has been tried twice for income tax fraud, and he lost both (civil) cases.

David Cay Johnston: We Will See Trump's Tax Returns And Find Out How Much Money He Got From Russian Oligarchs

He has also been convicted in an "empty box" sales tax fraud in which he purchased tens of thousands of dollars worth of jewelry in New York, left the store with the merchandise while the merchant mailed empty boxes out of state, thereby cheating New York from sales tax revenue.

Tax Fraud By The Numbers: The Trump Timeline [UPDATED 2019]

"Donald Trump has a long and fascinating history as a business mogul before becoming elected President in 2016.

"In that time, he has made big waves in real estate and entrepreneurship and has been accused of multiple fraudulent activities in the process.

"Many of these accusations have been catalogued in a massive exposé published by the New York Times.

"Whether or not these accusations are legitimate is up to the courts to decide.

"This is in no way an indictment or direct attack on the president; all we are attempting to do with these events is construct an educational case study.

"By analyzing these scenarios, we should be able to establish a working knowledge of tax fraud and, by extension, tax law itself."
 
Let us look at the FACTS about who pays the most taxes in America per capita and the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ) (the TCJA) (aka the Trump tax cuts):

"The top 1% of tax payers pay 38% of all income taxes yet only have a 20% share of total AGI [adjusted gross income]. Furthermore, the top 50% of tax payers pay practically all of the nation’s federal taxes (97.3%) while commanding 87.25% of total AGI. " (How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?)

"The IRS has recently released an analysis of the distribution of the income tax burden for Tax Year 2016. The new data shows that the top one percent of income earners bear the burden of 37 percent of all income taxes. This is nearly twice as much as their share of income (19.7 percent). The top 25 percent of earners shoulder nearly 86 percent of the income tax load. Combined, the top 50 percent of earners are responsible for 97 percent income taxes collected. The other half of filers pay just 3 percent of all income taxes." (Who Pays Income Taxes?)

"One of the least discussed parts of America’s income tax is how progressive it is, and the tax overhaul didn’t change that fact. In 2018, top earners will pay a higher share of income taxes." (Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax)

"Let’s say that John, a single taxpayer, earned $16,000 last year. That would have put him in a 15-percent tax bracket in 2017. He would have paid 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,325 and 15 percent on the balance of his income up to $16,000. That’s a pretty significant tax bill of $1,933: $932 on the first $9,325, plus $1,001 of the $6,675 balance, for a total of $1,933.

"The TCJA provides for a new 12-percent bracket for incomes from $9,525 up to $38,700 for single filers. John would pay 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,525, but only 12 percent on the balance. As a result, John's 2018 tax bill would come out to just $1,729 compared to $1,933: 10 percent of $9,525 or $952, plus 12 percent of the $6,475 balance or $777. That's $204 less, pretty significant for someone who earns just $16,000 a year." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)

"A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns).

"By contrast, taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax – in fact, two-thirds of the nearly 66 million returns filed by people in that lowest income tier owed no tax at all. (The IRS tax data used here are estimates based on a stratified probability sample of all returns.)" (Who pays U.S. income tax, and how much?)

"The effective tax rate for those earning less than $30,000 worked out to 4.9 percent. It’s anticipated that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act(TCJA) will reduce the effective tax rate for the poorest 20 percent of Americans by about 5.5 percent beginning in 2018." (How Much Do the Wealthy Pay in Taxes Each Year?)

"The child tax credit was $1,000 per child under age 17 in 2017. The TCJA pushes this up to $2,000 per child, an increase of $1,000. The first $1,400 is refundable. This means that a parent with zero tax liability would receive a refund from the IRS for $1,400 for each dependent child he can claim.

"If John’s tax bill was $400 and he could claim the child tax credit for one child, the tax credit would wipe out his tax debt so John would end up not owing the IRS anything at all. That leaves $1,600 remaining of the $2,000 credit, of which $1,400 is refundable. So John would actually receive a $1,400 refund." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)​

And, of course, one does not need to be a math whiz to know that the TCJA's $10K cap on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) will hit the top 15% of income earners the hardest. The $10K SALT cap cost me about $500 this year in actual additional taxes paid compared to last year. But, if I made, say, $300K per year and owned a home worth $600K, the $10K SALT cap would have cost me about $4,000 in actual additional taxes paid!

Hey everyone . Let’s pretnds fed income taxes are the only taxes out there !

When people have that much money the whole tax thing is a shell game . Give me a real life example and you’d see how the tax code is rigged for the wealthy .
 
Let us look at the FACTS about who pays the most taxes in America per capita and the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ) (the TCJA) (aka the Trump tax cuts):

"The top 1% of tax payers pay 38% of all income taxes yet only have a 20% share of total AGI [adjusted gross income]. Furthermore, the top 50% of tax payers pay practically all of the nation’s federal taxes (97.3%) while commanding 87.25% of total AGI. " (How Much Money Do The Top Income Earners Make?)

"The IRS has recently released an analysis of the distribution of the income tax burden for Tax Year 2016. The new data shows that the top one percent of income earners bear the burden of 37 percent of all income taxes. This is nearly twice as much as their share of income (19.7 percent). The top 25 percent of earners shoulder nearly 86 percent of the income tax load. Combined, the top 50 percent of earners are responsible for 97 percent income taxes collected. The other half of filers pay just 3 percent of all income taxes." (Who Pays Income Taxes?)

"One of the least discussed parts of America’s income tax is how progressive it is, and the tax overhaul didn’t change that fact. In 2018, top earners will pay a higher share of income taxes." (Top 20% of Americans Will Pay 87% of Income Tax)

"Let’s say that John, a single taxpayer, earned $16,000 last year. That would have put him in a 15-percent tax bracket in 2017. He would have paid 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,325 and 15 percent on the balance of his income up to $16,000. That’s a pretty significant tax bill of $1,933: $932 on the first $9,325, plus $1,001 of the $6,675 balance, for a total of $1,933.

"The TCJA provides for a new 12-percent bracket for incomes from $9,525 up to $38,700 for single filers. John would pay 10 percent in tax on his income up to $9,525, but only 12 percent on the balance. As a result, John's 2018 tax bill would come out to just $1,729 compared to $1,933: 10 percent of $9,525 or $952, plus 12 percent of the $6,475 balance or $777. That's $204 less, pretty significant for someone who earns just $16,000 a year." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)

"A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns).

"By contrast, taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax – in fact, two-thirds of the nearly 66 million returns filed by people in that lowest income tier owed no tax at all. (The IRS tax data used here are estimates based on a stratified probability sample of all returns.)" (Who pays U.S. income tax, and how much?)

"The effective tax rate for those earning less than $30,000 worked out to 4.9 percent. It’s anticipated that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act(TCJA) will reduce the effective tax rate for the poorest 20 percent of Americans by about 5.5 percent beginning in 2018." (How Much Do the Wealthy Pay in Taxes Each Year?)

"The child tax credit was $1,000 per child under age 17 in 2017. The TCJA pushes this up to $2,000 per child, an increase of $1,000. The first $1,400 is refundable. This means that a parent with zero tax liability would receive a refund from the IRS for $1,400 for each dependent child he can claim.

"If John’s tax bill was $400 and he could claim the child tax credit for one child, the tax credit would wipe out his tax debt so John would end up not owing the IRS anything at all. That leaves $1,600 remaining of the $2,000 credit, of which $1,400 is refundable. So John would actually receive a $1,400 refund." (The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: What Does It Mean for You Personally?)​

And, of course, one does not need to be a math whiz to know that the TCJA's $10K cap on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) will hit the top 15% of income earners the hardest. The $10K SALT cap cost me about $500 this year in actual additional taxes paid compared to last year. But, if I made, say, $300K per year and owned a home worth $600K, the $10K SALT cap would have cost me about $4,000 in actual additional taxes paid!
yes we know you are brainwashed and can only talk about federal income taxes, the only progressive tax we have. But if you count all taxes we have a flat tax system, a giveaway to the rich and a screw job 4 the rest. Every time the GOP cuts federal income taxes on the rich, States raise their taxes and fees which hit the non rich by far the hardest.
 
Economics correspondent Andrew Moran points out that not only have the rich been paying a disproportionately large share of all federal income taxes, but that the rich will actually pay an even larger share of income taxes under the Trump tax cuts:

The bottom 50 percent pay just 2.8 percent of federal income taxes, compared to the top 50 percent who are coerced into paying 97 percent of income levies. But once you start combing through the top 50 percent, you start noticing that all the negative sentiment directed towards that old white man with a yacht and a wife who is as gorgeous as Rita Hayworth is unjustified.

According to IRS data, two-thirds of taxes are paid for by the top 10 percent and close to 40 percent of taxes are paid by the top 1 percent.

This has been the trend since the 1980s, which was ostensibly the “greed is good” era. When former President Ronald Reagan entered the White House, the top 1 percent was responsible for 20 percent of federal income taxes. By the end of former President Barack Obama’s tenure, Americans with incomes over $500,000 paid 39 percent of national income levies.

Even under President Donald Trump’s tax reform bill, 20 percent of Americans earning $150,000 or more will pay 87 percent of total income penalties, up from 84 percent in 2017, notes the Tax Policy Center (TPC). Why is the left still angry? (Andrew Moran)
Someone claimed that every time the GOP cuts federal taxes, states raise their taxes! Not true. BLUE STATES raise their taxes. Many Red states have CUT taxes. You can look it up.
 
Cool then a flat tax with zero expenditures for all would be a fair and just system don't you think?

A flat tax on income or on purchases?

"Zero expenditures"? Do you mean zero deductions?


Yes zero deductions, and I really do not know enough about purchases because in my mind you could not do it for food and things like that. But yes on income, all income.
I am guessing that you are trying to suggest the flat tax system some have tried to put forth. It is to say the least a horrible idea.
The idea with a flat tax is that you charge a person tax for buying a car. That is fine but what happens when a person buys from an individual? It forces a barter system to be instituted by the lower pay individuals. How do you tax barter?

If you tax income how do you justify taxing someone who is barely getting by on social security? How about taxing the unwed mother working as a waitress?
After 35 years of GOP give away to the rich, we already have a flat tax system if you count all taxes.
 

Forum List

Back
Top