Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kellis91789

It doesn't say that they fell into the $200,000 + category, just that they pay the taxes. I am not disagreeing that the rich pay a bulk of the taxes in this country. Obviously they do. But, what percentage of the income in this country do they earn? This article leaves out many important pieces of information. It seems to me that knowing what percentage of the population pays what percentage of the taxes is meaningless, unless we also know what percentage of the income they earn.

I would like to know more information about it. I frequently find myself arguing with liberal relatives about this topic. I would love to have some accurate statistics to back up my opinions. This article is a good start, but there is just too much missing information for it to be useful.


28 posted on 04/29/2006 8:46:48 AM PDT by ga medic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: ga medic

A good place to start your research and gain material for your arguments is at the Heritage Foundation specifically here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/


29 posted on 04/29/2006 10:51:58 AM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: ga medic

Actually, it did say 3% of taxpayers fell into the $200K+ category. Read it again.

That doesn't sound like your real question, however. Sounds like you want to know what percentage of income belonged to that group. In other words, was the tax they paid proportionate to their share of all income ? The answer is "No."

The stats for 2005 are not yet available, but for 2003, they are here in the top table:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in35tr.xls

If you add up all the income for those in the brackets above $200K, they earned 27% of all income.

If you add up all the income taxes paid for these same lines, it is 39% of all income taxes.

Put another way, their average income tax bill was $310B(tax) / $1,150B(income) = 26% of their income -- while the average tax rate for all brackets below $200K was $470B / $3,050B = 15%.

It is actually even more skewed than that because this is just "taxable income" which might be after deductions, and deductions are phased out or proportionally nil for higher incomes. A $10K standard deduction would leave a couple earning $50K with only $40K = 80% of their gross income as taxable income. For a couple making $500K, a $10K deduction would leave 98% of their gross income as taxable.

Adding standard deductions back in to estimate Gross would increase the Gross income for the under $200K crowd to $4,030B and lower their effective average income tax rate to 12%. The effect on the Gross for the over $200K crowd would be to add $60B -- assuming they had $25K deductions rather than $10K standard deduction -- which would make their effective tax rate 25%.

So it looks like in 2003, the $200K+ crowd paid income taxes at twice the rate that the under $200K crowd did.


33 posted on 04/29/2006 11:33:54 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson